Comments on immigration policies…

In my post about health coverage last week, I mentioned that immigration has also disappeared as a 2012 electoral topic.  Immigration policies are complex and their appearances on the political stage have often degenerated into a lot of heated rhetoric.  Moreover, there is a health care policy component to them.  At the risk of making some readers furious with me, let me throw out some ideas.  Caveat emptor:  I’m no expert.  However, the politicos have buried their heads in the sand once again on this issue, leaving the soapbox to others, so here goes.

There is legal and illegal immigration into the U.S.  There are things wrong with both of them, although the first doesn’t generate the debate the second does.  However, it is imperative to consider the things wrong with the first that cause some of the wrong with the second.  Moreover, percolating through all this complex strata we find economic and health care issues (these are also economic to a large extent).

Last I heard, there are 11+ million illegal immigrants in the U.S.  Their illegal status ipso facto implies an unfair situation for all those waiting in line to legally enter the land of opportunity via the quota system.  They often pay no taxes yet put stress on our medical and educational systems.  Living in society’s underbelly, they are open to exploitation, even in the process of arriving here.  They fill jobs that Americans could do, but, more often than not, don’t want for a multiple of reasons.

Many U.S. employers, though, hire illegals and this cheap labor force allows them to bring inexpensive products to the American consumer while still making a tidy profit.  Much of the agricultural, garment, and other industries could not be competitive without this illegal work force.  American consumers probably wouldn’t tolerate the hefty price increases needed for employers to pay adequate wages and benefits.  Imagine a New Yorker paying a fair price for that slice of tomato on his bagel sandwich!  He’ll pay for an exorbitantly priced latte, but not for tomatoes at a fair price.

We first have to fix the legal immigration system.  First step: end the quota system.  To begin at the beginning, as the Queen said to Alice, the idea of a quota system is completely antiquated.  Moreover, it is not even good economic policy.  The U.S. exists in an economic world that is increasingly competitive.  Since our educational system is not doing its job (another forgotten election topic, to be sure), we should give preference to legal immigrants who help us compete in this global economy.

Besides the special cases of refugees and those seeking political asylum (INS generally has close to a failing grade here), our legal immigration policy should be geared towards (1) determining those skills that are currently in demand in the U.S. and (2) giving priority to those people having those skills.  This implies the need for an active participation by the U.S. Labor Department and a lot more input from the states’ labor departments too.

I envision the implementation of a card system.  We already have green cards.  Before we offer a green card and entry into the U.S. labor pool, a potential immigrant should have a job offer or be willing to receive one to work in a region of the country where his skills are required.  This is just common sense.  I can imagine green cards for workers outside scientific and technical areas, but they should be handed out with care.  Most present green cards I would change to yellow or pink (more on the card colors later), simply because the lower the skill set, the more likely we can find an American to fill that opening.

By now, I probably have liberals hanging me in effigy, but let me have my spiel.  Pink to yellow to green to citizen is a way to describe a path to citizenship, with a number of years required in each before passing to the next step.  In particular, every illegal immigrant would be required to register and receive a pink card.  We can’t afford to send all 11+ million of them back to their home countries.  If they’re hard workers, let them show it by receiving their pink card and begin scaling that citizenship ladder.  They would be given some time to register.  If INS catches them after that, deportation follows.

To complement that policy, children born to parents who are both illegally in this country, should also have pink cards.  No automatic citizenship.  They can climb that citizenship ladder.  Military or social service (Peace Corps, etc) would give cardholders the opportunity to jump rungs at a faster pace.  A temporary pink card could be issued to temporary laborers.  In fact, any of the cards should have an expiration date like a driver’s license.  Without a card, you can’t work.  Period.

Employers would be required to card all their employees.  Their level of healthcare coverage, educational opportunities, and unemployment benefits should be card-color dependent (yes, I know, the devil’s in the details—but remember, I’m trying to rid ourselves of the quota system and provide a path for everyone to attain citizenship).  INS and other agencies should be helpful in guiding immigrants down the road to U.S. citizenship.

In fact, one problem is usually not mentioned because it is a fait accompli—that doesn’t mean it was a wise decision.  I’m speaking of the change of INS to ICE and putting it under the huge DHS umbrella.  By doing so, we have replaced therapeutic justice with punitive justice.  By this, I mean there is little or no emphasis on helping the offender become a non-offender.  We just punish him for the offense.  This goes for both illegal immigrants and the persons who illegally employ them.  Immigrants should be shown a helpful, guiding hand on the way to becoming a useful, productive U.S. citizen.

These are just some ideas.  Politicos and other persons in power must sit down and hammer out compromise positions in order that our immigration policy is fair and equitable.  I’m willing to join in the discussion.  We are a long ways, however, from that happening.

And so it goes….

 

2 Responses to “Comments on immigration policies…”

  1. Scott Says:

    To me, that seems like a sensible policy.

    It’s very difficult for people to get through the paths to citizenship now. I remember when my mother in law was waiting on her citizenship. (My F-I-L, an MD, got through the process previously, with a much easier experience.) It took forever and the people she had to deal with were often rude and condescending. She is a wife and mother and wasn’t working at that point. Yet she stood “in line” and waited and put up with the process. It would gall her (and me and my wife) when we’d watch some immigration activists being interviewed on the news wanting amnesty and citizenship for a certain group of immigrants. On the one hand, it should not be so draconian, but on the other hand, it should be the same for everyone.

  2. steve Says:

    Hi Scott,
    As usual, you offer another valuable and additional perspective. Neither you nor I can come up with a sane and fair immigration policy in these few words, but the politicians can’t seem to do anything constructive either. Sometimes I think the Dems are just looking for more votes while the GOP is torn between rabid xenophobia and the desire for cheap labor they can exploit. It’s hard to bring all this together in one coherent policy, which is why it’s being swept under the rug for the 2012 campaign.
    Similar to the experience your father-in-law had dealing with your mother-in-law’s citizenship, I waited for seven months alone here in the U.S. while INS “processed” my first wife’s residency papers back in Colombia. It didn’t endear me to the process. To my way of thinking, both hers and your mother-in-law’s cases should be automatic–in both cases, married to a U.S. citizen should be quite enough. There has to be some common sense applied.
    All the best,
    Steve
    PS. You’re featured today in my blog post. I hope you don’t mind! 😉