Thread: Navarette: How to fix our broken immigration system

Any comments ??

By Ruben Navarrette Jr.
Special to CNN

SAN DIEGO, California (CNN) -- In a recent commentary, I spelled out what bothers many Hispanics about the immigration debate. In response, many readers demanded to know -- for all my criticisms -- how I would go about fixing our broken immigration system. I thought they'd never ask.


Ruben Navarrette says Congress doesn't have the appetite to reform the immigration system.

First, let's keep it real. Congress doesn't have the appetite to reform the immigration system -- no matter which party is running the show. It's always the same story. After all the huffing and puffing, any workable solution needs to have two components: employer sanctions with teeth and a tamper-proof identification card for all U.S. workers to tell employers who is eligible to work. Republicans won't allow the first; Democrats won't allow the second. Game over.

But, if it were so inclined, here's what Congress should do:

1) By way of enforcement -- stiffen penalties against employers with a "three strikes" law (first offense, a warning; second, $10,000 fine; third, 10 days in jail); revise the 1996 Immigration Reform and Control Act by removing the word "knowingly," as in employers only face punishment if they knowingly hire an illegal immigrant; create an identification card; instead of adding more border patrol agents (the agency can't meet hiring goals as it is), give the agents already on the line better tools, including tunnel detection equipment; extend the deployment of the National Guard on the border, now set to expire on July 15; continue workplace raids but, for heaven's sake, arrest an employer every once in a while; and speed up deportations.

2) By way of legalizing the undocumented -- make it contingent on meeting enforcement goals, or "triggers"; establish a cutoff so that only those who can prove that they've been in the country for five years or more are eligible to apply for legal status and deport more recent arrivals; require applicants to learn English, pay a $5,000 fine, undergo criminal background checks, return to their home country to be processed, and take their place in the back of the line behind all those who are trying to enter the country legally; and, for those who are eventually given legal status, institute a lifetime ban on receiving welfare, Medicaid or food stamps but allow them to collect what they've contributed to Social Security.

3) By way of reforming the system for those who immigrate legally -- increase the allotment of green cards and work visas, including H1B visas for highly skilled workers; triple the number of legal immigrants currently admitted from 1 million to 3 million, or 1 percent of the total U.S. population; abandon the current system of using family reunification as the main criteria for admitting new immigrants but don't adopt the silly and offensive idea of a point system that rewards education and skills; instead, let the market drive the process by making labor demands the major criteria so (how's this for radical?) we always have jobs for those who come here instead of admitting engineers and doctors if what we really need are teachers and nurses.

This isn't brain surgery. But some of this will take courage and common sense. The bad news is, those can be scarce commodities in Washington.

Ruben Navarrette Jr. is a member of the editorial board of the San Diego Union-Tribune and a nationally syndicated columnist. Read his column here.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/23/ ... index.html

Well, Ruben, you've got some of it right, but are way off base on others. We don't need to increase legal immigration to 3 million. Are you nuts? 1 million, along with almost another million who come in illegally is already too many. And let's go back more than five years, because five years wouldn't even get rid of half of them. Ten years works better for me. Twelve would be even better because that would bring us back to the 1996 Immigration Act that was passed by Congress.

2) By way of legalizing the undocumented -- make it contingent on meeting enforcement goals, or "triggers"; establish a cutoff so that only those who can prove that they've been in the country for five years or more are eligible to apply for legal status and deport more recent arrivals; require applicants to learn English, pay a $5,000 fine, undergo criminal background checks, return to their home country to be processed, and take their place in the back of the line behind all those who are trying to enter the country legally; and, for those who are eventually given legal status, institute a lifetime ban on receiving welfare, Medicaid or food stamps but allow them to collect what they've contributed to Social Security.

Good points:

Criminal background checks a must

Learn English a must

Lifetime ban on welfare, Medicaid, food stamps and ALL entitlement programs for themselves and their anchor babies.

Return to their home countries to be processes and get in back of the line..IN THEIR HOME COUNTRIES. They should have a 10-15 year wait IN THEIR HOME COUNTRIES before being allowed back in, if ever.

Bad points:

$5000 too little an amount - it should be at least $5000 per PERSON, including anchor babies

Collect SS - In what name(s)? If they weren't working under their own names, they cannot prove SS was taken from their pay. So I would say NO to this. If they were working under their own name, they violated the law banning employment for illegal aliens and should forfeit ALL.

Additions - they must go thru the same hoops as legal immigrants, MEDICAL CHECKS, prove they can be self-supporting. If they've ever collected welfare - deport them.

Originally Posted by miguelina

2) By way of legalizing the undocumented -- make it contingent on meeting enforcement goals, or "triggers"; establish a cutoff so that only those who can prove that they've been in the country for five years or more are eligible to apply for legal status and deport more recent arrivals; require applicants to learn English, pay a $5,000 fine, undergo criminal background checks, return to their home country to be processed, and take their place in the back of the line behind all those who are trying to enter the country legally; and, for those who are eventually given legal status, institute a lifetime ban on receiving welfare, Medicaid or food stamps but allow them to collect what they've contributed to Social Security.

Good points:

Criminal background checks a must

Learn English a must

Lifetime ban on welfare, Medicaid, food stamps and ALL entitlement programs for themselves and their anchor babies.

Return to their home countries to be processes and get in back of the line..IN THEIR HOME COUNTRIES. They should have a 10-15 year wait IN THEIR HOME COUNTRIES before being allowed back in, if ever.

Bad points:

$5000 too little an amount - it should be at least $5000 per PERSON, including anchor babies

Collect SS - In what name(s)? If they weren't working under their own names, they cannot prove SS was taken from their pay. So I would say NO to this. If they were working under their own name, they violated the law banning employment for illegal aliens and should forfeit ALL.

Additions - they must go thru the same hoops as legal immigrants, MEDICAL CHECKS, prove they can be self-supporting. If they've ever collected welfare - deport them.

Great point as usual migueline ! Can I add something to the wish list as well!

English shall be made the official language of the United States. It's not enough for me they be required to learn English. These people are not the most motivated. No more bilingual education. No more press #2 for English, not more bilingual required when applying for a job (unless it's an international company doing business in those countries).

There will be nor more crutches given to these people to aid them in the continued use of spanish in our society. I do not care what language they speak at home (would prefer they spoke English but wil not make an issue of that if all other conditions are satisfied) or on the bus, etc. But in school, at work, when conducting public business, they will speak ENGLISH.

If they do not like it, then they do not have to come to this country!

While some of what Navarette says sounds good, think about this a little further and alot of this seems just the same old unenforceable OBL amnesty talking points we've heard for a long while.

For example, "require applicants to learn English." Who is going to administer and enforce this, a langage police from a new bureaucracy? And what happens if they fail the test? Will the language police not admit them (or deport them) after this? Yeah right.

Also, "background checks" would likely be worthless. I believe, and correct me if I'm wrong, last summer's amnesty bill required "background checks" to be done within about 24 hours or so on millions of people, primarily from a corrupt country with a (probable) questionable records keeping system.

And $5000 sounds cheap, and who is going to collect this?

And what exactly does "return to their home country to be processed" mean?

I could go on, but you get the picture. I remain skeptical.

If the legal immigration process is backed up for years, how are they possibly going to do background checks for millions of new applicants?

Originally Posted by ReggieMay

If the legal immigration process is backed up for years, how are they possibly going to do background checks for millions of new applicants?

They'll need to do them AFTER ALL legal immigrants (who've already waited years) have been processed. No shortcuts and the illegals have to wait it out in their home countries.

The ONE and ONLY right thing for ILLEGALS to do is to RETURN to their OWN countries and STAY there if they CAN'T or WON'T make the effort to come here LEGALLY!

How about just keep enforcing currant laws and really go after employers, there is already a 10,000 dollar fine in the laws it is already illegal to aid and abett the laws are there use them.