I still think that dealing with this issue is very tough. After all, how can anyone truly blame a person for breaking the laws of our country to get here when they are moving from a country where the per capita income is $3,600 to a country where the per capita income is $32,000. It would be morally and ethically wrong to deny a person a chance at overcoming such rampant poverty.
At the same time, can we trust people who would break the law in the area of immigration to follow the other laws of our land? Are we not taught that one who breaks one part of the law breaks the whole law? As a republic we are a nation built on the rule of the law; a nation where the law is supposed to be the guideline by which live. If we bend the law, then we crack the very foundation upon which our great nation has been built.
Illegal immigration is a complex issue that has evolved over decades. The realities of the situation defy rational solutions on drawing boards. In other words, when it comes to immigration, it's very easy to say how things ought to be (as I did earlier this week). But it's very difficult to deal with things as they are. The fact is there are an estimated 8-10 million illegal immigrants (individual people with an inheritant right to life, liberty and property) in this country. I agree they shouldn't be here and that they should have followed the law to get here. I also agree that the law was too strict and tight to cope with the reality of America's need for the workers and the reality of the situations that drive people here. However, it is painfully obvious that the nation does not have the resources or the economic fortitude to round up and deport all of these people as some have suggested. First of all, most of these folks are already working here. Suddenly yanking them from their jobs isn't a great economic policy (who would clean the hotels, hang drywall, and keep the golf courses landscaped). Even less realistic is the expectation that an already overextended government could do it -- even if it wanted to. And even less realistic than that is the notion that any politician would even try.
So, let's look at Bush's proposal and layout some pros and cons and see if we can't get our heads around this. Bush's proposal has several points of interest:
- The government would confer legal status (an initial three-year work permit) on millions of illegal immigrants living in this country who can show they are employed and who pay a $1,500 fine (I'm not sure this is the right amount...but I can't find the amount anywhere...it was something like this...maybe a little more).
- Legal "work" status would be able to given to those currently living in their home countries if they have received offers of employment here.
- The workers are then ensured worker benefits, legal protection, freedom to travel between Mexico and the U.S. without fear of deportation, and a stake in our fabulous Social Security program.
- They would not be granted amnesty or a fast track to citizenship
More information can be found by reading the White House Fact Sheet and Q & A
on Fair and Secure Immigration Reform.
Pros
- Confers legal status to people already here allowing government to perform background checks
- Ensures that employers are indeed following the minimum wage (which I disagree with) and health and safety laws (which I agree with in principle) when hiring workers of non-Native descent.
- Provides incentives for workers to return to their native nation
Cons
- Could be perceived as rewarding people who came here illegally with the promise of legal status
- People already here with a history of criminal behavior just will not sign-up for the legal status, but will continue to operate "under the radar."
- The proposal in no way increases the efforts to block our borders from illegals or provides a method to do deal with people who are here who do not wish to participate in the program.
- Acts as an incentive for even more people to get here illegally so that they can find jobs to be eligible for the benefit.
Thoughts
While this proposed legislation is far from perfect, I think that it is a move in the right direction. As I said earlier, we have a problem and we must deal with the problem. There is no perfect solution so sometimes you have to set a vision and just try to move in that direction. This is a move in the direction of open borders for people who wish to work which is a laudable goal. While I wish there were more effort put into securing our borders and I wish there were more clear language clarifying that immigrant workers will not be eligible for social programs, one must admire Bush for at least trying to get a handle on this very emotional topic.
While some people think that Bush is pandering to the Hispanic vote, I think that Bush knows that this is going to cost him more of his conservative base then he will pick up in Hispanic voters. Bush, therefore, (in his typical fashion) is doing what he thinks is right despite what others say or think. That is a character trait I value. It has been my observation that Bush is a man who does not rush into anything, but takes into account all of the so-called "unintended consequences" of policy change. So far, he has been right in most of his decisions. This makes me a little more trusting of him...even if I don't quite understand what it is he is doing or why.
This is an issue that I will be following very closely. Just in case you are wondering, I truly am reserving judgment about this issue still. I see so many sides and am having a difficult time latching on to a position....so you will probable see more of my inane ramblings on this subject as I internalize and debate it my head trying to find a position.
Links to Other Articles on this Issue
Opinion Journal believe that the proposal will help the economy and security.
David Limbaugh, the brother of Rush, thinks the Bush plan is a bad idea.
Kathleen Parker claims the Bush plan is an "empty piñata."
The American Conservative Union fears that this nothing more than an amnesty program that has been labeled as a guest worker program.
A legal immigrant of Chile expresses his opinion on the current proposal.
Linda Chavez writes a pragmatic opinion supporting the proposal.
Joe Mariani provides and astute piece on the on the political game Bush may be playing with this proposal.
The Small Business Survival Committee releases a statement saying that the Bush plan is good for small businesses.
This guy questions, "What's Rove's Idea?"
Most Americans Oppose the Planaccording to the Washington Times.
