Most acknowledge that illegal immigration is an issue of National concern, however, as yet there have not been any reasonable solutions suggested that are both practical and humane. Some argue that the economy (in normal times at least) needs the work force provided by illegal immigrants. Others point out the strain placed on communities providing social services to them. There is also concern that the logistics of rounding up and deporting many millions of people would be impractical. However, with the hours of dialog I have heard, very little is said about the enterprises who hire illegal aliens thus providing the incentive to breach our borders. And there are many more arguments on both the Right and Left. I propose a program that might mitigate many of the concerns on both sides of the isle.
One problem is that there are many enterprises that employ illegal immigrants at below local wages creating unfair competition for local labor and a strong incentive to come into the US. A major requirement for this or any program to work is a stiff penalty for hiring illegal workers. This would, if enforced, curb the strong desire to come here. Without this we cannot build walls tall enough to keep people out.
The issue of what to do with the millions of illegal immigrants already here is more complex in that deportation is impractical and amnesty is unfair. I propose that we temporarily establish a category for workers who are here illegally. There would be a defined period during which they must apply for a Special Work Permit (Let’s call it a Blue Card). Anyone with a criminal record would not be eligible. This Blue Card would be issued only during this time and only to those who are already here, not to any arriving illegally in the future.
Employers would be allowed to hire anyone who is a US citizen, or an immigrant with a green or blue card or any other legal Work Permit. All laws regarding wages and working conditions would apply to all. Workers with a Blue Card and their dependants could live as any other legal residents as long as they have a valid Blue Card. Beside the normal taxes imposed on all residents of the Country, they would pay an additional tax or penalty. I anticipate that criminalizing employment of illegal workers would increase wages of jobs currently filled by illegal workers. Therefore, after the penalty, their wages would be at about the level they currently are. In a sense, the penalty would be shared by the former employers of illegal aliens, in that they now would need to pay competitive wages, and the formerly illegal immigrants.
Workers with Blue Cards and their immediate families would be eligible to receive all services available to any legal resident as long as they are in possession of the Card. To keep the Permit, they would need to be employed and paying taxes and penalties. In the event they lose a job, there would be a reasonable period of time for the immigrants to find a new one. Should they not find new employment in this period, they would lose the Blue Card and need to leave the country on their own or be deported. If they leave, they would not lose their position in line for legal emigration.
Workers with a Blue Card could apply for permanent residency and go into the same line as others in their country of origin applying for legal entry into the Country. However, if they are deported for any reason, they would lose their right to ever return to the US.
This program is not perfect but I believe it can be implemented. Some issues would be survival of companies that hire labor below rate and the added burden on businesses collecting the penalties. Another problem would be devising a method for identifying and deporting the illegal immigrants without a Blue Cards. Regardless of which program is implemented, there will be many hurdles to cross but I believe that with the program I propose, they will be much lower and less costly and more just.
Friday, August 13, 2010
Illegal Immigration
Posted by PoliticAli at 10:38 AM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
I like the approach it seems like a reasonable start to allowing some money back into the system from a broader range of contributors.
Any thoughts on how to address some of the effects that currently exist such as colleges offering full aid to illegal immigrants instead of hard working tax paying families. Or how to redistribute current programs away from illegal immigrants Free health care, subsidized housing, food programs etc. The list goes on. By definition, illegal immigrants are criminals, so those offering these programs to non card holders could be Viewed as criminal as well.
Good one Dad. Like Dale said, illegal immigrants are criminals. What would you say to those that feel they should not be rewarded with being able to stay in the US when they technically committed a crime by being here illegally?
Dale;
I am not familiar with free college for illegal immigrans. College education is different from healthcare where by the Hipocratic Oath, doctors are commited to heal the sick. I suspect that it may be a case that the system may not be able to discerne illegals.
There is a cost, be it education, healthcare, crime, whatever but there may be also be a benefit in lower prices of prduce with farmers, emplying immegrants, msny illegal at very low wages. In the last few years I have seen nicer lawns and many new stone walls in our area. I suspect both these are attributable to cheap labor brovided by immegrants, again, many probably illegal. As I mentioned in the blog posting, at the roote are the people creating a market for cheap labor provided by illegal immegrants. There is very little resentment voiced toward the people who benefit most.
Indeed someone entering the country illegaly breaks the law as does the one who hires them and I would argue that the latter is the greater crime.
I don't believe the notion that immegrants come to this country for all the welfare benefits. This may be true of a small minority. They come for jobs and a better life. Entering this country illegally is not a cake walk. People have to pay a lot of money, risk their lives, be separated from their loved ones and have to hide from the law. I takes a lot of strong drive and innitiative that probably someone satisfied to live on the dole would not have.
Having said that, it is illegal, and yes a crime, as is driving aftr drinking and cheeting on taxes and all have consequences and needs to somehow be prevented. The question is how. I believe in the case of illegal immigration it needs to start with creators of the incentives. As long as there is one, the stronger the differential between countries, the greater a wall needed to keep people out. Its just a law of physics. The greater the pressure differential between two sides of a wall, the thicker the wall needs to be.
Ah..pragmatic Ali! Would that the world would function in such a civilized fashion we would have much less to worry about from each other. Actually Canada has a worker program that does not treat foreigners in a degrading way. Upon leaving a country apartment years ago, the landlord was going to rent it out to Mexican seasonal workers. Before he did however he had to legally make improvements to it. Imagine that! Contrast that to the slave fields of Ommokalee, Fl. where workers are forced to pay a large pecentage of their wages for the "privilege" of sleeeping in an unventilated cargo truck and drinking from a hose. This is much more the life of an illegal than is the few who end up in college. The hypocrisy of American business and its apparent need for workers who can not even live on the wages offered is the true crime in this country. Just try, Ali, in the current atmosphere of this country to try to establish sane regulations for business (or ANY regulation)! People in this country do not want their businesses regulated, they only want people regulated, the ones they don't like that is.
It was nice of your daughters to set this site up for you, Ali, could you get them to add a spell check feature too. My old eyes and the loss of 2 finger tops makes it a little challenging at times!!
Hi Carol; always appreciate your comments. The notion of “people” supporting either business or people is valid. I tend to look at this differently. (I look at most things differently. Besides being spelling impaired, I am also very argumentative.) I believe there are two “American dreams”. The one most talked about but affecting the fewest is the dream of becoming a businessman and making a ton of money. The other dream is to get a job that allows you to properly care for your family, have a little money to occasionally see a baseball game, send your kids to college and retire watching them live a better life than you. The former is the conservative dream and the latter the progressive’s. Though aspiring to the progressive dream, fate pushed (I didn’t fight it) the conservative dream upon me. In the fifties, when I grew up this dream thrived.
It is interesting that during the Republican Convention there were three families introduced as having suffered greatly. One family had lost a son in Iraq, indeed a tragedy. I don’t recall the plight of the second. The third were a husband and wife, he a teacher and she a professional woman. With the collapse of the housing market, they had lost all their money in real estate investments. I found it interesting that at a time when the economy was collapsing, families were losing their jobs and homes; the tragedy from the Republican standpoint was not the loss of a home but the loss of an investment, probably a speculation at that. From the conservative point of view, the nobility of individuals lies strictly in the entrepreneurial spirit of the businessman
I agree with you that establishing a policy to increase regulation of business is difficult at best. Part of the reason is nefarious (I spelled this one right but probably used it in the wrong context) but part is a systemic problem that might just be in “the nature of the beast”. Lobbying is an expression of free speech. The problem is that the consequence of a policy argued for by business or a union for that matter, is great to the smaller group making the argument but generally has relatively small impact on the general public as individuals. As a result the lobbying entity can and does deploy great effort and resources to support their point while, because there isn’t a strong impact on individuals, there isn’t the same need from the other side to put much energy into the effort. In cases such as health reform, where there is an impact on the general public a battle ensues with both sides of the isle, often using misinformation and praying on the public’s fears, try to convince them to support or reject the policies. Business and its supporters argue that what is good for business invariably is good for the society. “The rising tide, raises all ships.” “Trickle down” economics; etc. etc. Unfortunately it is difficult to make a counterargument without being branded a Socialist or even a Communist. These terms still strike fear in the old generation’s hearts even though Communism as a philosophy, has long since been debunked. So whenever there is no valid argument for a point of view on the right, they invoke terms like Socialism and more recently Fascisms, which in my mind defies logic, and even racism and now Islam.
Hi Carol; always appreciate your comments. The notion of “people” supporting either business or people is valid. I tend to look at this differently. (I look at most things differently. Besides being spelling impaired, I am also very argumentative.) I believe there are two “American dreams”. The one most talked about but affecting the fewest is the dream of becoming a businessman and making a ton of money. The other dream is to get a job that allows you to properly care for your family, have a little money to occasionally see a baseball game, send your kids to college and retire watching them live a better life than you. The former is the conservative dream and the latter the progressive’s. Though aspiring to the progressive dream, fate pushed (I didn’t fight it) the conservative dream upon me. In the fifties, when I grew up this dream thrived.
It is interesting that during the Republican Convention there were three families introduced as having suffered greatly. One family had lost a son in Iraq, indeed a tragedy. I don’t recall the plight of the second. The third were a husband and wife, he a teacher and she a professional woman. With the collapse of the housing market, they had lost all their money in real estate investments. I found it interesting that at a time when the economy was collapsing, families were losing their jobs and homes; the tragedy from the Republican standpoint was not the loss of a home but the loss of an investment, probably a speculation at that. From the conservative point of view, the nobility of individuals lies strictly in the entrepreneurial spirit of the businessman
I agree with you that establishing a policy to increase regulation of business is difficult at best. Part of the reason is nefarious (I spelled this one right but probably used it in the wrong context) but part is a systemic problem that might just be in “the nature of the beast”. Lobbying is an expression of free speech. The problem is that the consequence of a policy argued for by business or a union for that matter, is great to the smaller group making the argument but generally has relatively small impact on the general public as individuals. As a result the lobbying entity can and does deploy great effort and resources to support their point while, because there isn’t a strong impact on individuals, there isn’t the same need from the other side to put much energy into the effort. In cases such as health reform, where there is an impact on the general public a battle ensues with both sides of the isle, often using misinformation and praying on the public’s fears, try to convince them to support or reject the policies. Business and its supporters argue that what is good for business invariably is good for the society. “The rising tide, raises all ships.” “Trickle down” economics; etc. etc. Unfortunately it is difficult to make a counterargument without being branded a Socialist or even a Communist. These terms still strike fear in the old generation’s hearts even though Communism as a philosophy, has long since been debunked. So whenever there is no valid argument for a point of view on the right, they invoke terms like Socialism and more recently Fascisms, which in my mind defies logic, and even racism and now Islam.
Post a Comment