On The Latest "Non-Amnesty" Amnesty
But the almost unchecked influx of immigrants who are not desirable citizens cannot but harm the country. In these days of international trade it is right that ingress and egress from one country to another should be unhampered, but persons who have committed crimes at home, or who are ignorant and illiterate, cannot become desirable citizens anywhere. - Wu Ting Fang
The White House has recently rolled out its PowerPoint presentation on the latest incarnation of the "non-amnesty" amnesty program ("Penalties are the difference between amnesty and restitution"). It seeks to create new agencies, visa categories, and mechanisms to allow even more illegal aliens into the country, all the while claiming that the lessons of 1986 have been learned. Once again, the plan fails miserably to address the fundamental problem: these people are in this country illegally and there must be consequences.
First things first. I am not opposed to a guest worker program. If someone outside the country identifies a position that a legal resident does not want and follows proper channels to obtain the legal right to come here temporarily to do that job and then go home, I say all the power to him. But when someone is already here illegally, we should not be looking to reward him with a specially created visa and some nominal monetary penalty.
The plan claims as one on its goals the desire to "bring illegal workers out of the shadows." Where are these shadows? On any given day, I can find dozens of illegal aliens benefiting from lax enforcement standing in the Home Depot parking lot. The only "shadows" they are hiding in are the ones under the trees on a sunny day. Illegal alien loving lawyers have no problem finding clients to bring forth lawsuits demanding in-state tuition rates for college. The newspapers are full of stories of families "living in the shadows," complete with pictures, names, and addresses. Illegal aliens wear T-shirts that proudly proclaim their criminal status. They hold parades and rallies that draw thousands into the street. This just may be the smallest shadow ever measured.
The plan seeks to create a probationary card for illegals. Unfortunately, there is no incentive for an illegal to come forward and declare himself during the "non-amnesty" amnesty grace period. First of all, if he does, he has to pay money ($3500 every three years, which is hardly the "substantial" penalty claimed). Secondly, the penalty for non-compliance is pathetically low. If he is caught "crossing the border after a date certain" the illegal will be deported. The simple fact that he is already here shows that there are ways through the porous borders. Many illegals have made multiple crossings without ever being caught. If you deport the illegal, he will just return as long as there is an incentive to do so. Until the government cracks down with meaningful fines and jail terms for both the illegal alien and the illegal alien employer, that incentive will always remain.
The illegals who choose to comply would be issued special "Z-Visas" and are still eligible to obtain Lawful Permanent Resident status. They are assessed the paltry sum of $10,000 in recognition of their former illegal status. Only the head of the household need leave the US to adjust status. The rest of the family can remain. Once again, we are rewarding criminal behavior by assuring the illegal that there are no consequences for his past law-breaking. And the longer they have been here breaking the law, the better chance they have to obtain the "merit-based" LPR. So apparently the "merit" contemplated by this provision means whoever is the best scofflaw. In fact, under the proposed laws, an illegal who has been here for decades has a better chance of obtaining LPR status than does a brand-new, never-before-entered-illegally, Y-visa holder. I though one of the lessons learned from the 1986 amnesty was not to reward criminal behavior?
Most egregious in this plan, however, it the provision for "initial implementation of secure identification tools for all Americans and aliens seeking employment." Although I see nothing wrong with a national ID card, why should Americans and legal citizens be punished for the transgressions of the criminals? Or was this trigger created to ensure that we will never have to implement this "non-amnesty" amnesty plan? After all, it would likely take years for all of the expected legal challenges to a national ID card to be resolved. And what about my passport? Is that no longer a "secure identification tool?"
How does requiring me to obtain such a card prevent racial profiling anyway, the stated reason for its creation? When I get a job today, I am required to submit proof of my lawful employment status (the infamous "1 from column A or 1 from column B and 1 from column C" form). The only people not currently using this form are illegal alien employers and the ones who fraudulently submit documents identified on the form are illegal aliens. That is the legal definition of compliance. We are all subject to the same check currently. By definition, a law that is applied universally certainly cannot be racial profiling. Making the criminals comply with the current law is not racial profiling either, since it applies universally.
My final point of contention is that the "non-amnesty" amnesty includes the provision that "Employer verification becomes mandatory for all new hires." Here's a news flash - it already is, but illegal alien employers don't do it. Forget about voluntary compliance, start conducting audits. Every business should have its records examined at least once a year by ICE agents. As long as the employers get away with minor fines and little or no jail time, the opportunity cost of non-compliance with the law is low. Until business owners face guaranteed exposure and substantial penalties, they will continue to illegally employ those continuing to come here illegally. Wasn't another lesson of the 1986 amnesty that if you didn't focus on the employers, the ranks of illegals would increase?
It's not rocket science. Every single illegal alien currently in America has committed at least 2 crimes: he exited his home country without authorization and then entered the US without authorization. The vast majority are illiterate. Wu Ting Fang rightly concluded that these are not desirable immigrants. The undeniable effect of this latest plan is that potential illegal aliens will see the advantage to enter the US in contravention of immigration law in the hopes that the next "non-amnesty" amnesty will learn the same lessons that this one learned from the 1986 amnesty - namely, we aren't serious about criminal entry to this country as long as you are a member of a properly-hyphenated minority.
The White House has recently rolled out its PowerPoint presentation on the latest incarnation of the "non-amnesty" amnesty program ("Penalties are the difference between amnesty and restitution"). It seeks to create new agencies, visa categories, and mechanisms to allow even more illegal aliens into the country, all the while claiming that the lessons of 1986 have been learned. Once again, the plan fails miserably to address the fundamental problem: these people are in this country illegally and there must be consequences.
First things first. I am not opposed to a guest worker program. If someone outside the country identifies a position that a legal resident does not want and follows proper channels to obtain the legal right to come here temporarily to do that job and then go home, I say all the power to him. But when someone is already here illegally, we should not be looking to reward him with a specially created visa and some nominal monetary penalty.
The plan claims as one on its goals the desire to "bring illegal workers out of the shadows." Where are these shadows? On any given day, I can find dozens of illegal aliens benefiting from lax enforcement standing in the Home Depot parking lot. The only "shadows" they are hiding in are the ones under the trees on a sunny day. Illegal alien loving lawyers have no problem finding clients to bring forth lawsuits demanding in-state tuition rates for college. The newspapers are full of stories of families "living in the shadows," complete with pictures, names, and addresses. Illegal aliens wear T-shirts that proudly proclaim their criminal status. They hold parades and rallies that draw thousands into the street. This just may be the smallest shadow ever measured.
The plan seeks to create a probationary card for illegals. Unfortunately, there is no incentive for an illegal to come forward and declare himself during the "non-amnesty" amnesty grace period. First of all, if he does, he has to pay money ($3500 every three years, which is hardly the "substantial" penalty claimed). Secondly, the penalty for non-compliance is pathetically low. If he is caught "crossing the border after a date certain" the illegal will be deported. The simple fact that he is already here shows that there are ways through the porous borders. Many illegals have made multiple crossings without ever being caught. If you deport the illegal, he will just return as long as there is an incentive to do so. Until the government cracks down with meaningful fines and jail terms for both the illegal alien and the illegal alien employer, that incentive will always remain.
The illegals who choose to comply would be issued special "Z-Visas" and are still eligible to obtain Lawful Permanent Resident status. They are assessed the paltry sum of $10,000 in recognition of their former illegal status. Only the head of the household need leave the US to adjust status. The rest of the family can remain. Once again, we are rewarding criminal behavior by assuring the illegal that there are no consequences for his past law-breaking. And the longer they have been here breaking the law, the better chance they have to obtain the "merit-based" LPR. So apparently the "merit" contemplated by this provision means whoever is the best scofflaw. In fact, under the proposed laws, an illegal who has been here for decades has a better chance of obtaining LPR status than does a brand-new, never-before-entered-illegally, Y-visa holder. I though one of the lessons learned from the 1986 amnesty was not to reward criminal behavior?
Most egregious in this plan, however, it the provision for "initial implementation of secure identification tools for all Americans and aliens seeking employment." Although I see nothing wrong with a national ID card, why should Americans and legal citizens be punished for the transgressions of the criminals? Or was this trigger created to ensure that we will never have to implement this "non-amnesty" amnesty plan? After all, it would likely take years for all of the expected legal challenges to a national ID card to be resolved. And what about my passport? Is that no longer a "secure identification tool?"
How does requiring me to obtain such a card prevent racial profiling anyway, the stated reason for its creation? When I get a job today, I am required to submit proof of my lawful employment status (the infamous "1 from column A or 1 from column B and 1 from column C" form). The only people not currently using this form are illegal alien employers and the ones who fraudulently submit documents identified on the form are illegal aliens. That is the legal definition of compliance. We are all subject to the same check currently. By definition, a law that is applied universally certainly cannot be racial profiling. Making the criminals comply with the current law is not racial profiling either, since it applies universally.
My final point of contention is that the "non-amnesty" amnesty includes the provision that "Employer verification becomes mandatory for all new hires." Here's a news flash - it already is, but illegal alien employers don't do it. Forget about voluntary compliance, start conducting audits. Every business should have its records examined at least once a year by ICE agents. As long as the employers get away with minor fines and little or no jail time, the opportunity cost of non-compliance with the law is low. Until business owners face guaranteed exposure and substantial penalties, they will continue to illegally employ those continuing to come here illegally. Wasn't another lesson of the 1986 amnesty that if you didn't focus on the employers, the ranks of illegals would increase?
It's not rocket science. Every single illegal alien currently in America has committed at least 2 crimes: he exited his home country without authorization and then entered the US without authorization. The vast majority are illiterate. Wu Ting Fang rightly concluded that these are not desirable immigrants. The undeniable effect of this latest plan is that potential illegal aliens will see the advantage to enter the US in contravention of immigration law in the hopes that the next "non-amnesty" amnesty will learn the same lessons that this one learned from the 1986 amnesty - namely, we aren't serious about criminal entry to this country as long as you are a member of a properly-hyphenated minority.
posted by exsubdriver at 3:38 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home