This is pretty much my view. Excellent post.
-
So, now I know there’s two of us. Let’s start a movement!

Wow, something we can agree on.

I would disagree with your plan. What you propose is pretty the same “reform” that occurred under Reagan. That reform is what put is into the current mess.

Anon, that’s a good point. But I think the lesson learned from Reagan’s amnesty is that we should make sure the border is secured first. Obviously if that isn’t done first, it will never be done.
-
That was the major problem with the most recent bill. That bill was one big snooker job. Unless our government gets serious about border security, there should be no bill. That has to be done first. Whether they build a fence, a virtual fence, or double the amount of agents, they need to do something.
-
What is being done now, which is simply refusing to carry out the law, is unacceptable.

Anon - not exactly. What I ahve proposed (and Glen might have one of his own) is something akin to having “an impeneterable wall with a very large gate”.
-
In other words, one the “Securing the borders” part is complete, we should allow almost anyone who wants to come here - but they have to come through the “front” door, so to speak.
-
I’ve had to navigate our immigration system; it’s, shall we say, not “user-friendly”. This is something that needs to be fixed in its own right, but there’s no way to do it currently because the debate is being driven by hotheads on both sides.

I don’t think Glen’s plan is similar to what Reagan did. There was an amnesty, but no liberalization in immigration laws except for some relatively elite professions. Which I don’t think is what Glen has in mind.

Glen, I would argue with you about the order of the steps to be taken, but I think that anyone who hasn’t been sent into a tizzy of irrationality by the rhetoric being spewed on the topic would agree that they are, in fact, the steps that (in some order or other) are necessary.

While I believe that a comprehensive reform plan is needed, the last poll that I saw stated that some staggering majority of Americans (upwards of 80%) rejected “comprehensive reform” in favor of the “small steps” approach. It’s about the only thing that most people agree on, other than the efficacy of enforcing what’s currently on the books.

If those numbers are right, it seems to me that those of us who favor comprehensive reform have a hell of a sales job on our hands. What kind of good arguments can we advance for an “all-in-one” systematic change that can counter the average American’s (right and left) pessimism about the federal government’s capacity to screw things up? Is there any room in this debate for the idea of “compromises we can live with”?

Any steps that ensure that those here with roots are at least granted legal status, forget, for a while anyway, citizenship. Thats about the only place where an emotional argument is warranted. We have possibly a million or so minor children, with undocumented parents. Legal status would leave those families intact. Want “secure” borders?
Fine. Spend the money, I’d happily sign off. We can do both of these things right away, as one requires little more than asking these people to step up and be accounted for. Anyone remaining in the shadows after that probably has no desire to contribute. Here’s the thing. It will take some time to change the tone of this debate, and convince those in the margins to come forward.

I mistrust poll results like that, because it isn’t at all clear what people are thinking of when they say they favor “small steps.” I mean, Glen could say that he’s talking about small steps, and someone who thinks in terms of writing new definitions for half a dozen visa categories would disagree and say that he means comprehensive reform. The terminology being used is so fuzzy that I’m not sure we’re getting a good picture of what it is people actually do want.

That said, if you’re looking for a good “comprehensive reform” metaphor you might want to point out that home repair is easier if you have a master plan before you get started.

bridgett, the answer is probably going to be getting comprehensive reform “through” the small steps.
-
I think that as long as immigration policy is about “the Mexicans”, little progress can be made. It ain’t right, but that’s where we’re at right now.
-
We international adoptive parents would make a great cause celebre, if the media started paying attention to us. There are some real horror and sob stories out there (we almost ended up as one ourselves, but Bob Clement intervened). Back when it was called the INS, it was by far the most impersonal, beaurocratic government organisation I’ve ever dealt with.
-
And, cynically I could add - we’re (international adoptive parents) mostly white, so the tone of the reporting would be different (think: missing pretty white girl stories).
-
It’s sad that it’s that way, and I don’t think the media does it on purpose in a conspiratorial fashion, but it is what it is: show me a news story where a loving white couple are in tears because their baby is stuck in red tape, and I’ll show you new legislation introduced within a couple of days.
-
I have no idea why people close their hearts to an almost identical story in Claudia Nunez; it’s quite sinful. But we have to deal with reality as it is. We need to deal with racism on one front, and the immigration problem on a completely separate plane. When we combine the two, we make progress on neither.

Bridgett, I am sometimes skeptical of those polls. Well maybe not the polls, but how they are usually interpreted. I think the definition of comprehensive reform to most people, is the most recent immigration bill. Of course nobody wants that. But if you define the term differently, with a different bill, then those poll numbers would likely change.
-
I honestly think that the number one issue for most people is border security. Tackle that and most people will go on to something else and not even care about the issue. But if you secure the border and then decide to not liberalize the laws, you will just create another black market of illegal immigration. Perhaps contractors will start flying people over and having them jump out of parachutes. That is the way the free market works. If there is a demand, there will be a supply, be it within the law or within the black market. Either way, there will be a supply.

I agree with almost everything here as well. My only disagreement is with the $10,000 fine. I think a fine of some amount is appropriate AND I would allow those that employ illegals to pay that fine on behalf of their employee in exchange for immunity from future legal action with regards to that individual. At the same time ratchet up penalties for those that hire illegals, knowingly or not. Hopefully providing an incentive for employees to make sure those they hire are here legally and if not to make sure get legal.

But if you secure the border and then decide to not liberalize the laws

Agreed, but I’d add that if you liberalize the laws, the border will nearly secure itself. If you make it so people are more able to immigrate legally, most will take take that option. Illegal immigration is a problem because it’s the only route available for too many would-be legal immigrants.

Casey, I understand your thinking. They violated the law after all. However, we have to understand human nature. What incentive would these people have to come forward and say “hey I’m illegal can I give you $10,000?” Nobody would raise their hand.

Dolphin, yeah. Which is why I would change the order of Glen’s steps.

What you guys are saying makes sense.
However in order to get anything done politically, you will have to secure the border first. Intellectually you are correct. It makes logical sense, but you have to factor in politics. In order to get anything done, the masses will have to see some serious border security.

Oh, I thought we were taking it for granted that this was after I become the emperor.

Yeah, a republic isn’t the most efficient form or govt., but I guess it is still better than that which truly is most efficient.

Holy crap, I agree with Glen Dean about something.

Anything that reduces the number of people who are here illegally - even if only nominally; even if it doesn’t satisfy some people’s almost-Puritan desire to punish - and thereby reduces the number of people who need to circumvent the system helps the American worker and stems the tide of wage depression.

…we should make sure the border is secured first…

I love it when this sort of phrase is used to signify “Let’s just put a wall up and make people use the gates.” Have you ever walked along the border area between, say, the U.S. and Mexico or Canada? There are parts of the U.S.-Canada border that are in peoples’ back yards, right next to a road where there isn’t room for a fence. There are huge areas of our southern border where the land goes up and down so steeply that the elevation differences make a tall wall completely useless. There’s a river that’s part of the border (or series of huge lakes to the north) so do we build a 40 foot high fence in the middle of the river that sticks a few feet above the top of the water and not even lot those Mexican fish get over the border to steal our jobs?

[…] Glen Dean says that Let More People In, But Do It Legally. Any discussion on immigration should be done without the emotions. The fact of the matter is, we […]