Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Two First Steps for Immigration Reform
At the outset of any discussion, one needs to identify the problem. The Democratic Party is heavily invested in a lawless immigration policy. For ideological reasons, many Democrats are inclined to favor illegal immigrants as a “victim” class. But their political goal is even more important: eventual citizenship for 10-12 million illegals, who they believe will then become a Democratic constituency strongly tilting the electoral playing field in their advantage.
The GOP is split on immigration. Many business interests like the low-cost labor provided by illegals, and many good people on the Right deplore the plight of illegals. On the other hand, the Conservative base is absolutely fed up with both the lawlessness of the Democrats on this issue, and the GOP’s enabling of that lawlessness.
There are also practical concerns. Actual deportation of 10-12 million illegals would be very expensive, and would cause severe economic dislocation in many parts of the US. Like it or not, the illegal immigrant community makes a sizeable economic contribution, and heavy deportation (whether of the “official” or “self-” variety) would lead to large drops in property values (especially in the low-income apartment market) and loss of business for many companies (ranging from grocery stores to hairdressers).
The biggest problem that I see is that the Conservative base, rightly, has no confidence in any political negotiation or deal on the issue. I propose the following two non-negotiable principles, to be enacted before consideration of any other immigration reform:
- No citizenship for anyone who came here illegally. Ever.
- No more “birthright citizenship” for the children of illegals.
I think the second principle would require a Constitutional amendment, so we might as well make the first a part of the amendment, too. This would prevent a later deal undermining these “non-negotiable” conditions.
The amendment could read as follows:
Section 1: No person born in the United States to a mother not legally resident therein shall, as a result of such birth, be a citizen of the United States.
Section 2: Section 1 shall not affect the citizenship of a person who would have been a naturalized citizen of the United States had such person been born outside the United States.
Section 3: No non-citizen who has ever entered the United States illegally shall be permitted thereafter to become a citizen of the United States.
Section 4: Any person who is a citizen of the United States shall be a citizen of the state wherein such person resides.
Section 5: No state may grant citizenship to any person who is not a citizen of the United States.
Section 6: Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
What do you think?
Published in Culture, Domestic Policy
I’m not sure that works. Try this:
Birthright citizenship in the United States is conveyed on persons whose parents were United States citizens at time of birth. If only one parent was a citizen, citizenship is assumed but must be officially affirmed exclusive of all others within one year of attaining majority age or it is forfeit. Children under the age of 10 of foreign birth adopted by American parents must elect and officially affirm citizenship exclusive of all others within one year of attaining majority age or it is forfeit. All others must be naturalized to become United States citizens. Naturalization shall not be available to any person who has entered the United States illegally.
Works for me, but here’s a monkey wrench to throw in-I’m sure that you are counting on non-citizens not gaining the right to vote. Many on the left have already stated that they do not believe citizenship should be a requirement to vote.
Doug,
Small point here, it seems that your language permits naturalization of children born in the US to illegal parents as they never entered the United States.
If citizenship is not a requirement to vote, then except eligibility for elective office there is no benefit of citizenship.
For me the first point is the most important point, however I don’t think this will be acceptable to either side of the issue as it still allows illegals to attain permanent residency status but the Democrats won’t get their votes.
My problem is that I see no reason to give at all on immigration. The governments basically enforces only the parts of the law they want on this issue anyway. Any compromise that I would agree to will be one sided with the powers that be getting what the want and ignoring any compromise made that the people want. I have lived through one of the immigration grand bargains once before under Reagon, it solved nothing and even made things worse, so why do it now and make it even worse as the governments once again screw citizens over? If I saw the government attempt to live up to current laws and sincerely upheld their charge I would reconsider. Till then the government can forget about my cooperation on this issue since all I can see them wanting to do is bring in cheap labor to put US citizens out of work.
Partly a false narrative. Many “Big Business” interests are looking for employees PERIOD, it is not about low cost. It’s been that way for INDUSTRIAL construction for over 15 years running now.
The problem is caps on legal guest workers. We desperately need higher caps to fill jobs.
It’s Unions and nutters like Numbers USA who have created the false narrative.
You don’t need a new amendment or any new laws. The laws you have would be adequate if they were enforced. More laws would just make it easier for the corrupt, the incompetent and the weak to pick and chose which to enforce and which to ignore.
Some simplification might help. A complicated rule book favours the most cunning cheat.
The Dems are beyond redemption but Chamber of Commerce Republicans must be made to realize that an illegal who takes a low paying job will always be partially dependent on welfare and will always consume more than he/she contributes. The American who loses the low paying job, or never gets it, will be shifted from the partially dependent category into the totally dependent category. The economy acquires two passengers where it used to have one.
I am not buying this at all. That’s as politely as I can put it.
Perhaps the issue is mobility. Gee, if only there were some identifiable mechanism which might be making the unemployed tolerably comfortable in their joblessness. Comfortable enough that they won’t move to the next town, when others from blackdeathistan are so motivated that they’ll live in the office for free.
We don’t need more immigrants. We need to plug Americans back into all those supposed yawning empty job sockets instead of hiding them as disabled, discouraged or degree-bound.
DK: You are incorrect re birthright citizenship. Any person born in the US is automatically a citizen. This is one of the perverse incentives in our law. A pregnant woman can illegally enter the US, have a baby, and the baby is automatically a US citizen. The baby is colloquially called an “anchor baby,” in the sense that the US citizen baby “anchors” the entire illegal alien family in the US.
Those two solutions you suggest are poison pills. They will never fly. You said it yourself: Democrats are united and Republicans are split. When that happens the party that is split loses the argument. By having those poison pills you push the Republicans who want reform into the Dem camp.
There’s got to be a comprimise. I support illegals paying a fine to be legalized and with a time period for getting citenzenship. In due course they will be Republicans once they start paying taxes and seeing what unionization does to businesses.
Racist!!!!!
OK, I’m not being sincere, but some will be. Plenty of others will be insincere, but won’t admit it because it advances their agenda. Many citizens will be persuaded by claims of racial motivation. If we can’t counter that, any hope of a constitutional amendment is a pipe dream. How do we get wide swaths of the populace to accept that such a proposal is motivated by concern for resident citizens rather than racism? I seen many arguments, but haven’t seen anything that works.
Small point here, it seems that your language permits naturalization of children born in the US to illegal parents as they never entered the United States.
This was intentional. Children born here to foreign parents should have the same right to naturalize as any other foreign national – the same pathway to citizenship.
DK: You are incorrect re birthright citizenship. Any person born in the US is automatically a citizen. This is one of the perverse incentives in our law. A pregnant woman can illegally enter the US, have a baby, and the baby is automatically a US citizen. The baby is colloquially called an “anchor baby,” in the sense that the US citizen baby “anchors” the entire illegal alien family in the US.
AZ Pat – you misread my comment. I’m suggesting this language for your amendment, not summarizing current law.
Even as an open borders advocate, I am totally on board with this. Though, I don’t know if my support helps or hurts your case. :)
The only force that American labor has working on its behalf is the force of supply and demand. Labor rates go up only when there is a shortage of labor in a particular field.
And as for our American students:
Few things infuriate more than hearing that the foreign students are smarter than American kids.
When companies want to, they invest in American schools to build employee bases. The Rochester Institute of Technology (RIT) and Northeastern University are two schools that have huge co-op programs. The businesses support these schools completely. Same with the Media Lab at MIT. The businesses want a piece of the innovation. And they want students trained to work on the businesses’ proprietary products and equipment. They pay the schools to develop these programs so they will have employees who know how their companies operate.
I really lose it whenever I hear that we don’t have sufficiently bright or hard-working kids. That is simply not true. We need to work harder to connect our schools with the private sector’s needs.
All I ask is that the United States government, to which pay taxes to help my fellow American citizens, always work on behalf of American citizens–not citizens in foreign countries–in their policies and deeds.
When we reach the point where American citizens are doing better than they are today, we can revisit immigration and craft policies that help us. But it is so out of whack at the moment that it will take a few years of hard work and commitment to right this ship.
Sorry for the misunderstanding.
DK, I agree with you, and it was also my intent that children born in the US of foreign parents would not be disqualified from later eligibility for naturalization.
I propose a third (actually a first) non-negotiable principle.
1. The borders shall be closed and enforced such that no person may enter without legal means.
Until that happens, there can be no conversation illegals already in the country.
Yes, generous unemployment compensation is certainly a hindrance. But just because we have sub-optimal policy in one area doesn’t mean we should perpetuate same in another. Labor is a factor of input just like any other. If we were talking about steel I would hope we wouldn’t be arguing for protectionism (although after having had this sort of discussion elsewhere, I’m beginning to doubt more and more the free market predilections of many of the so called conservatives around here). And that’s exactly what immigration caps are: protectionism for domestic labor.
Nobody else has birthright citizenship!! (Except Canada, but they aren’t as vulnerable as we are. ). I don’t know that we need a Constitutional Amendment–it was SCOTUS which made the interpretation that children of illegals are within 14th Amandment–if we get good justices on the court, they could say “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means your parents have to be here as citizens. We’ll never get rid of the rats unless we take away the bait. I agree with your plan.