Immigration

 

We’re trying to solve the immigration situation as it if was only one problem, so we’re trying to create a comprehensive solution with only one bill, even if a comprehensive one.  Can’t be done, not realistically.  I’m a big George Bush fan but he’s wrong on this approach.

 

We have to spit the problem into several component parts and deal with each one individually.  For instance, does America want to have legal immigration in the future?  If the answer is yes, then legal immigration is not an issue except for trying to determine the size of the quotas.

 

The problem, then, becomes only illegal immigrants.  They fall into two categories, which need to be treated separately: the ones already here, and those coming right now, tonight and tomorrow.  Treating them as one group won’t work, because they keep changing.  (You eliminate the third illegal group, those who would be coming tomorrow, by building the wall.)

 

Clearly, the problem to be dealt with first is cutting off the flow of NEW illegals.  If that does not happen, you will never figure out what to do with those already here, whether it is amnesty or execution.  Both of those are hot-button issues, but they should not be mixed in with the “close the gates” argument. 

 

I was born in California and lived in the state, off and on, the majority of my life.  I know the Mexican immigrant situation well because my very first school playmates were all Mexican kids.  Now I live in Costa Rica and we are experiencing an identical situation with Nicaraguan immigrants…they, also, want to move to a richer Costa Rica simply by crossing the border and disappearing among the populace, never returning home if they can help it.

 

No matter HOW you feel about amnesty or ejection (I was kidding about execution) the problem remains the same: until you control their input you can’t determine your input.

 

First: build the fence. 

 

So now you’ve shut the door, you have stabilized the influx.  What do you do about the illegals already here at that time?  Obviously that is a charged question with partisans on all sides and even some in the middle, but it’s still an entirely separate question from the others.

 

Don’t try to mix apples and oranges.  Don’t confuse the debate over legal immigrants with the plight of illegal immigrants.  Does the guy who waded across the Rio Grande yesterday have fewer ‘rights’ than the guy who did if thirty years ago, has paid his taxes ever since, and has raised a family of legal American citizens, even though himself still technically illegal?  Is that question really that hard to answer?

 

Would giving him amnesty, or belated legal status, jump him ahead of those who applied through appropriate legal channels but are still waiting?  Wrong question…you are still trying to compare apples and oranges when you need to sort out the apples, first.

 

Figure out how you are doing to deal with the EXISTING crop of illegals, with no more new ones coming in.  Once you sort them out and make some rules as to between themselves, NOW you can figure out how to treat them compared to the existing legal immigrants…including the new applicants today.

 

Amnesty has been used and misused in the past.  That’s true.  It does not mean, however, that amnesty will always be similarly misused in the future…I mean, if you take that attitude then why do anything again, about anything, if it has ever been tried before and didn’t work so well?  If at first you don’t succeed, give up?

 

What is the very first and most obvious problem the illegal aliens already there in the United States presents?  That’s right…there are a LOT of them.  Whether your goal is throwing a backyard BBQ to welcome them to citizenship or send them back home has the same problem to deal with: where do you get all of the hamburger buns or the busses?  Heck, New Orleans couldn’t even bus its disadvantaged poor to higher ground when they had time to prepare and school busses sitting parked and ready, now you think we’re going to bus all of the illegal aliens back to Mexico this weekend?

 

And for the life of me I cannot understand the argument against the guest worker program.  Look, guests are people who come to stay for a while and then go home.  If you don’t let them be identified as guests then you are back to having only two categories: legal and illegal, and we’ve already decided the legals aren’t the problem we are trying to solve.

 

Why don’t you come down here to Costa Rica on a trip?  You will be given a visitor pass when you arrive, a guest visa that makes it clear you will be leaving again.  You also cannot take a job while you are here, but then Costa Rica isn’t looking for you to come down here and work, even temporarily, unlike the United States. 

 

If the US really wants seasonal help, even if it is only giant food corporations wanting low-cost labor so the American housewife can buy her low-cost produce at the discount supermarket, then why not issue them an ID card that will make it clear to all concerned that they are expected to go back home again when picking season is over?

 

I mean, it’s either that or they sneak in illegally and then stay here afterwards, since that’s the only option you’ve given them.

 

Huh?  What about the illegals who have been here for decades, raised families who are legal citizens by right of birth, and are otherwise taxpaying members of the system?  What do we do about them?

 

Hey, I’m not really Descartes, I just quoted him.  I’ve solved the legal immigration problem, the fence problem, and the guest worker problem, I’m going to take a break now…