Comments for A Modest Immigration Proposal at http://www.urbanelephants.com , comment 1 to 12 out of 12 comments http://www.urbanelephants.com Tue, 06 Jan 2009 08:32:27 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://www.urbanelephants.com/index.php/thetrunk/42-opinion/111-a-modest-immigration-proposal.html#comment-307 "Which scenario do you really prefer?" Neither, really. I'm for no new policy at all. You're point RE: the wall are correct. I doubt America would even consider investing enough money to make an impenitrable wall - but, like i said, it COULD be done. I agree regarding the criminal thing and that was my point as well. Too many on the Right use that analogy to justify kicking out millions of people from this country. They are usually nuts and i'm glad we are in agreement its an issue of little relavence here. this is a good discussion and i appreciate your contribution. If anything, it's demonstrated the complexity of this issue, in general, and the need for thier to be a comprehensive reform, if reform is to be done. I hate to say it, but McCain's view on this is as comprehensive as could be and has gained much support from policymakers. Of course the political fringe in both the GOP and the other party have been the most critical of his compromised position. If reform is to come, it can't be one sided... - Jay Golub Tue, 09 Sep 2008 11:46:22 +0100 http://www.urbanelephants.com/index.php/thetrunk/42-opinion/111-a-modest-immigration-proposal.html#comment-306 I love your vivid description of the kind of wall that might begin to ebb illegal immigration. However, you fail to point out what material it will be made from, how thick it will be (to prevent people from punching through it), if there will be electric fencing at the top (since 50' is not too high to climb), how far out into the ocean it will extend, or how deep down the wall will be dug (I assumed the 40' depth was for the moat). Maybe if each of the double walls were thick enough concrete to shield radiation, had an electric barrier at the top strong enough to cause cardiac arrest, we put gun turrets every hundred yards with sharpshoters on each one, as well as a naval blockade on each end and anti-missile batteries to prevent people from literally taking flight over the wall, maybe we could substantially curb illegal immigration. Or, we could hire more border agents and let in more people annually, enhancing our future economic and security interests. Which scenario do you really prefer? - Reaganite Tue, 09 Sep 2008 11:39:58 +0100 http://www.urbanelephants.com/index.php/thetrunk/42-opinion/111-a-modest-immigration-proposal.html#comment-304 Maybe I type a little too fast for my own good. When I said investigators I meant ones to investigate the backgrounds of new immigrants, not ones to go digging around looking for illegals. What you suggest would probably be unconstitutional, haivng fed gov't agents running around asking to see people's papers. Fyi, I only mention the screening for criminal behavior because when I don't bring it up, which should just be obvious, I get surprising hysterical rants about letting killers into the country. So rather than save it for rebuttal and let the conversation get hijacked I preempt the whole process. However, it seems I can't win either way. - Reaganite Tue, 09 Sep 2008 11:28:07 +0100 http://www.urbanelephants.com/index.php/thetrunk/42-opinion/111-a-modest-immigration-proposal.html#comment-302 if we built a 50' double wall that had a moat in between that was sunk 40' into the ground and ran from the Pacific to the Gulf we could essentially stop illegal immigration from our south. I'm not saying that is the only or one of the things we should do, but if Americans start to believe we can't control our border, we are in deep trouble as a country. We've just chosen not to do it, not that it can't be done. i agree with the infrequency of criminal behavior from immigrants - hence the reason why i thought you bringing it up was a "hot button" way of talking about the issue. Lastly, i don't support "investigators" as a way of solving this problem. the Fed's are, in my humble libertarian view, already too invasive with American's personal business. I don't want people digging around other's back yards looking for illegal immigrants. Again, you bring up valid points, Reaganite, but as i've said, this issue, the more you get into it, produces more questions than answers and hence leads me to my "don't ask, don't tell," effectively, dont do anything policy.... - Jay Golub Tue, 09 Sep 2008 11:10:00 +0100 http://www.urbanelephants.com/index.php/thetrunk/42-opinion/111-a-modest-immigration-proposal.html#comment-300 Btw, it's a fantasy that we can "close the border." And it would be a huge waste of resources to even try. People will always find the weaknesses in the system and the numbers of immigrants will continue to grow. Better to invest in immigration investigators. Keep the line moving quickly and provide good gov't jobs that actually serve the public good. - Reaganite Tue, 09 Sep 2008 10:57:22 +0100 http://www.urbanelephants.com/index.php/thetrunk/42-opinion/111-a-modest-immigration-proposal.html#comment-299 Jay this is where I think you demonstrate a little trouble thinking outside the box. Sure, people will try to game the system, no doubt. However, you must admit that the vast majority of illegal immigrants are perfectly law abiding people who are unlikely to break any other law. For those that are in question here, maybe a few thousand a year, if they come in registering for a green card then we will have much information that we wouldn't had before, even if all the information they provide is false. We will have their fingerprints and a photo and a copy of whatever paperwork they used to cross the border. If we continue to let one million peole come in illegally every year all we have is one million sets of footprints. For the vast majority tha have nothing to hide and simply want to better thier or thier childrens lives, they are now totally empowered by this system. And the relative rarity of illegals will be far easier to mange and those who truly don't belong here will be easier to spot, will be easier to catch, and may leave anyway with the difficulty of finding work for illegals. This is a win for everyone. What is the negative? You say it won't work, but what is the harm in trying this plan? - Reaganite Tue, 09 Sep 2008 10:55:16 +0100 http://www.urbanelephants.com/index.php/thetrunk/42-opinion/111-a-modest-immigration-proposal.html#comment-297 "There is currently NO incentive for people to come legally and in fact there are mostly disincentives. We need to reverse that and then we can begin to fix our problem." i agree with that, i just don't see in your proposal or any other that i've ever seen a way to "incentivize" immigrating legally for the poor, migrant or menial labor worker. Honestly, if you are saying that we should just let them in and then do an investigation, what would stop those same people from disappearing into the woodwork like they do today? Do you think those who want to evade will give real addresses or that they even have a realistic way of finding these people again? I doubt it. Your plan will still result in having the illegal manner of immigration be "rewarded," hence my "don't ask, don't tell" stance. I didn't mean to say, BTW, that the "criminal behavior" aspect to this problem shouldn't be addressed - it should. But, again, those who are criminals will not admit it and, if they have to wait before getting in to check, they will just cross through our swiss-cheeze border anyway. No plan will ever work without a closed border - period.... - Jay Golub Tue, 09 Sep 2008 10:36:36 +0100 http://www.urbanelephants.com/index.php/thetrunk/42-opinion/111-a-modest-immigration-proposal.html#comment-295 First, how is my using the criteria of criminal behavior as a disqualifier pushing a hot button? You don't think we should at least screen for that before giving someone legal status? Second, your argument about waiting times is misguided. I advocate for allowing someone to essentially walk up to the border and get admission while receiving a temporary green card. The 90 days if for the government to do their investigation. If we do that who would want to comein illegally and be subject to all the negatives associated with that lifestyle. There is no punishment for the law abiding in this system. This system rewards those who do things legally, making the legal way far easier and preferential to the illegal way, which is the exact opposite of how its done now. There is currently NO incentive for people to come legally and in fact there are mostly disincentives. We need to reverse that and then we can begin to fix our problem. - Reaganite Tue, 09 Sep 2008 10:30:45 +0100 http://www.urbanelephants.com/index.php/thetrunk/42-opinion/111-a-modest-immigration-proposal.html#comment-293 "Jay your don't ask don't tell policy really is not an answer and is basically the broken policy we have now." You are correct Reaganite. I am advocating doing nothing, rather than spending time and energy on "reforms" that do little more than move the goal post. First, you spent time discussing "crimnal behavior" in the post above, but i don't believe that is the critical factor in why we need immigration reform. It's a hot-button way of discussing the issue. Second, i competely disagree with you regarding the border. What is the point of having a "policy" if those who can't make it through the green card registration process or don't feel like waiting 90 days for the process to complete can just cross the border anyway? Essentially, that policy punishes the legal and well intended with waiting times and red-tape, yet allows the criminals you so fear to cross over without even a notice. In many ways, isn't that what we have today? don't ask, don't tell is effectively "do nothing." As you can tell, i'm not FDR fan...;) - Jay Golub Tue, 09 Sep 2008 09:57:27 +0100 http://www.urbanelephants.com/index.php/thetrunk/42-opinion/111-a-modest-immigration-proposal.html#comment-283 Jay your don't ask don't tell policy really is not an answer and is basically the broken policy we have now. People need to realize that we have a broken immigration system that needs to be reformed from top to bottom. This is not just a borders issue, in fact that is the least important part of the solution. The only real problem with Roger's solution is that it's too limited. It should apply to any immigrant who wants to come to America, within a realistic quota that truly serves our long term economic and national security needs. That means taking in more then the approx 1 million immigrants each year we currently allow. Roger is exactly correct that we have serious issues to deal with over the 50 - 100 years and that a strong growing population is the only way our society and culture will continue to thrive, or even survive. New immigrants should receive a temporary green card upon entry. Give the gov't 90 days to vet them and if we have no reason to deny them entry, like having a violent criminal past, they come back and get a permanent visa. If they are convicted of any serious crime after that they lose their status and are deported. Once we have this system functioning properly and the waiting list is months instead of years or decades to come to America, and we eviserate the sleazy immigration lawyers who cost tens of thousands of dollars and don't really make the process any easier, ew will then have basically solved our problem. It's all a supply and demand problem. Once we let supply meet demand and make it easy for immigrants to live above ground, none who are law-abiding will not live her in compliance with all our laws including wage laws. We can then address the problem of the 12 -15 million people already here illegally. We will give them temporary greencards, do background and criminal checks, and once the backlog is fixed and they have all been processed, we can have an actual program to find and deport people who continue to come or stay here illegally. Once the numbers of people here illegally dwindle all the problems, like sweat shop and slave labor, will be solved because nobody will be afraid of the authorities and not a single immigrant will want to work in any shady manor. The lure of the American dream is too powerful and once you give people a legal path they will take it. - Reaganite Tue, 09 Sep 2008 09:14:56 +0100 http://www.urbanelephants.com/index.php/thetrunk/42-opinion/111-a-modest-immigration-proposal.html#comment-266 i have a different take on the immigration issue which i like to call "don't ask, don't tell." Our supposedly laxed immigration policy functions today better than any of the reforms proposed by either the Right or the Left. Kicking out illegal immigrants poses significant problems, such as what to do with illegals who have given birth to children in the US? or How does the economy absorb the increase in wages that would be associated with paying non-illegal wages for certain jobs, such as landscaping, farming, restaurant services staff and other manual labor jobs that illegals possess today, just to name two? Complete amnesty also poses problems, although more in philosophy than in functionality. Such as what does America say to those who have played by the rules and are waiting "in line" to get in? Or, what would America be saying by legalizing illegal behavior? Would we be incentivizing more illegal immigration? My "don't ask, don't tell" policy would center around, first and foremost, closing the holes in the border to stop the flow of illegal immigration. Honestly, without that piece of the puzzle, NO SOLUTION can be effective. Beyond that, consumers and employers alike benefit from the present illegal immigration situation. Of course, the unions and those who desire "living wages" are frustrated by the situation and "hard-core" conservatives, who at times offer a tinge of racism, are frustrated by our policy because we are not respecting the rule of law. My pragmatic mind can't support a plan that would "round up" millions of illegals, who often are just here to make a better life for themselves and thier families (albiet by breaking "the law"), with the end result (because our borders are not sufficiently closed) of having the same or different people just illegally cross our borders again. Policy must make sense both in philosophy AND reality. Neither side has offered a reasonable plan to date to accomplish that goal... - Jay Golub Wed, 03 Sep 2008 10:36:04 +0100 http://www.urbanelephants.com/index.php/thetrunk/42-opinion/111-a-modest-immigration-proposal.html#comment-265 I appreciate your article. Thanks much for your thoughts. I'd like to pose a theoretical question ... If you could wave a magic wand and be able to safely remove any subgroup of the entire illegal alien population currently in the United States, what group (or groups) would you remove? In other words, would you remove just the fugitive criminals? Would you remove only those without children born here? I'd like to try and get a sense of where your "perfect" world meets your "practical" one. Thanks a million. Andy Roman Brooklyn, NY - Andrew Roman Wed, 03 Sep 2008 09:43:39 +0100