Thread: Immigration plan may serve to clarify anti-amnesty views

http://www.statesman.com

Navarrette: Immigration plan may serve to clarify anti-amnesty views
Ruben Navarrette, THE SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE
Saturday, July 29, 2006
After months of self-serving hysterics and heated rhetoric, congressional Republicans are finally doing something helpful in the area of immigration reform.

It's a plan proposed last week by Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, and Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind. The lawmakers see their proposal as a middle-ground approach that could break the stalemate between competing House and Senate bills that are — as Hutchison puts it — "miles apart."

Here's where Pence and Hutchison are coming from: They oppose amnesty, which they define as anything that lets illegal immigrants obtain legal residency without having to first return to their home country. And, yet, they also seem to agree with President Bush that there are plenty of jobs that Americans won't do — or at least aren't doing. Pence and Hutchison want to maintain law and order, and the integrity of the system, but they also want to help those employers who need workers.

Sound familiar? It should. The lawmakers' dilemma is the American dilemma. It's the tension between the two signs planted on our southern border: "Keep Out" and "Help Wanted." It's the quandary of a country that proclaims its distaste for illegal immigration and yet can't satisfy its appetite for illegal immigrants.

Under the Hutchison-Pence plan, the first priority would be to secure the U.S.-Mexican border. But, whereas the House bill is "enforcement only," Hutchison-Pence is enforcement first. We wouldn't simply beef up the Border Patrol, or build a wall and call it a day. Instead, for the first two years after the bill became law, the emphasis would be on beefing up the Border Patrol and giving it the tools to do the job. After that happened, the president could certify to Congress that the border was secure and we could move on to Priority No. 2: a guest worker program that would require millions of illegal immigrants in the United States — one member of a family would suffice, a Senate aide told me — to return to their home country to register at privately run placement agencies (dubbed "Ellis Island Centers").

The centers would match workers with employers who had jobs to fill. But many of those workers would likely already have jobs and employers eager to welcome them back. And so those employers — through groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce — would be sure to pressure Congress to make the registration process as quick and efficient as possible. The workers probably would be back on the job before you know it, with visas that could be renewed every two years for a maximum of 12 years. After that point, they would convert to a new type of visa. And then in five years — or 17 years after enrolling in the program — we'd move on to the third phase in which workers could apply for U.S. citizenship provided they'd paid fines and learned English.

Of course, there are problems with the Hutchison-Pence approach. How do you completely "secure" a 2,000-mile border? And how do you ensure that people voluntarily "self-deport," even if it is only for a day or two, or however long it takes to fill out paperwork? There's also the wrinkle that these processing centers would have to be located on foreign soil — which means the private companies running them would be at the mercy of foreign governments, which could tax and regulate, and milk them for every cent of profit they could make and then some. Expect a turnover as the companies running the placement agencies figure out they're losing more money than they're making and close up shop.

But here's the part that is helpful. After all the nativist pollution in this debate, the Hutchison-Pence plan clears the air. It forces the anti-amnesty crowd to finally come clean about what really bothers them. If it is merely the fact that people are coming here illegally, then they should have no problem with the Hutchison-Pence plan. After all, those who participate in the guest worker program would have to do so with a legally issued visa. But for those whose concerns have less to do with words such as "legal" or "illegal" than with what they see as the erosion of the Anglo-Saxon culture and the English language, then this plan won't offer much comfort. After all, under the proposal, immigrants would convert their status but still get to remain in the United States.

For some people, that's the real sticking point. And, thanks to this plan, that's about to become obvious.

It's the quandary of a country that proclaims its distaste for illegal immigration and yet can't satisfy its appetite for illegal immigrants.

Mr Navarrette I don't know why I bother. That statement is a lie. There is no quandary except to illegal immigration supporters, globalist and unethical greedy businesses.

We wouldn't simply beef up the Border Patrol, or build a wall and call it a day.

Lie #2

Of course, there are problems with the Hutchison-Pence approach. How do you completely "secure" a 2,000-mile border?

I know you think so Mr Navarette but we are not all stupid. Of course it can be secured.

And how do you ensure that people voluntarily "self-deport," even if it is only for a day or two, or however long it takes to fill out paperwork? There's also the wrinkle that these processing centers would have to be located on foreign soil — which means the private companies running them would be at the mercy of foreign governments, which could tax and regulate, and milk them for every cent of profit they could make and then some. Expect a turnover as the companies running the placement agencies figure out they're losing more money than they're making and close up shop.

You point out quite well some of the fallacies of this version of amnesty. NO AMNESTY.

But here's the part that is helpful. After all the nativist pollution in this debate, the Hutchison-Pence plan clears the air. It forces the anti-amnesty crowd to finally come clean about what really bothers them. If it is merely the fact that people are coming here illegally, then they should have no problem with the Hutchison-Pence plan. After all, those who participate in the guest worker program would have to do so with a legally issued visa. But for those whose concerns have less to do with words such as "legal" or "illegal" than with what they see as the erosion of the Anglo-Saxon culture and the English language, then this plan won't offer much comfort. After all, under the proposal, immigrants would convert their status but still get to remain in the United States.

Ot oh. He thinks he has a "gotcha". You obviously don't listen very well Mr Navarette. No rewards for law breakers. That is why amnesty is wrong and a horrendously bad idea. But if you had been listening you'd also know that a very big component of this who debacle is in fact a cultural clash. America has it own culture & language. We will not let Mexico or anybody else for that matter supplant their culture for ours. Comprende? Is that clear enough for you?

Isn't it wonderful when some enemy to Americans like Ruben Navarette clarifies points in a plan that in the light of day are the flaws.

This plan is too complicated with so many pitholes along the way that cannot even be counted
Why cannot we concentrate on securing the borders and reinforcing the laws first and when everything is done - start writing 20-50 years plans what to do with the illegals .
During the process of
1 .securing and
2 . reinforcement
a lot of the problems will be solved , many of illegals will return to their countries by themselves
Maybe we can set some stations - where they can come for their self deportation and advertise those stations .
And after all these missions are completed - we can sit and think what to do with the remaining left - all the criminals should be deported as a part of mission one and two objectives
If I sit now and do nothing - just think and discuss - how my business will grow within next 20-50 years - I will never move anywhere .
As they say - a 1000 mile walk starts with one step .
So , let us do one step at a time without warrying what will happen 50 years down the line .
Everybody / except globalists / agree on securing the borders and reinforcing the laws
Why cannot we start here?