A Possible Solution to Illegal Immigration

I have posted several blogs dealing with illegal immigration. None of my posts dealt with a possible solution to illegal immigration; instead, I argued the points of Arizona's immigration statute, I argued you can't put the stamp of racism on anti-illegal immigration, and I retorted against illegal immigration supporters. I strongly believe you cannot complain about a problem unless you are also willing to provide solutions. A voice of dissent should not only dissent but should also offer alternatives.

Those screaming "secure our borders" do offer some solutions. These range from troops on the border to building a fence. At one time, cameras were slated for distribution along the border; but earlier this year that program was put on the chopping block due to budget constraints. Which of these is really viable?

I, for one, do not believe a fence, a structure no matter how it is designed, is the solution to illegal immigration. For one, this fence will have to stretch a total of 1954 miles! I've seen pictures of a section of the wall and the picture I get in my head is the one from the movie, Escape from New York. In the movie, Manhattan is surrounded by a huge wall where prisoners are on one side and the US on the other side. Is this really what we want along our border?
I think not. No matter how wide; no matter how tall; someone will figure out a way to either get over the wall, tunnel under the wall, or blow a hole in the wall. A wall is not the solution.

For substance to my argument consider this question, are we considering a wall along the Canadian border? The answer is no. Why not? If a wall on the southern border is the answer to illegal immigration, why is not a wall on the northern border? The answer is simple, the number of people entering illegally from the north is not as significant as the number entering illegally from the south. This is not to say no one enters illegally from the north, for probability states it is happening, the statement only signifies the number is not significant enough to warrant any concern.

So if we were to reduce the number of people illegally entering from the south would that end the need for the fence? I think so. Whether a fence surrounds our border or not, people will enter illegally. Some would argue the number would be significantly less if the wall is there. There is viability in that argument; however, if we could reduce the number by other means, means cheaper and easier to institute, would that not be better than an imposing fence along our border?

More border patrol along with sensors is a way to help in locating illegals immigrants entering the country. We don't need the troops along the border - for one that is a violation of the Constitution, for the army is for defense and the illegal immigrants aren't attacking us. Beef up security is a measure to help reduce those crossing the border. Adding sensors is another way to assist the border patrol. These don't need to be fancy and expensive sensors - just deployable enough to monitor for groups of people coming across. A single person, or even two or three, is something we shouldn't be looking for. Other impediments to their entrance can be just as effective.

How do we go about reducing the number of immigrants entering illegally without a fence? We first should remove the incentives which entice the illegal immigrants to enter our country. What incentives are those? For one, the welfare state is a great incentive to enter. What other country allows someone to enter, have a baby, and then get money to take care of said baby because they don't have the means to do so without the government? The government should not be a charitable organization to our own inhabitants, let alone those who are not residents. Step one in this process is to prohibit money going to anyone who is not a legal, registered, and naturalized citizen. Most of those who receive social benefits from the government do not do so on their own behalf, they do so because they have a child who is an American citizen; therefore, they receive benefits on behalf of the child. If we stop this, they will not come. So in other words, social benefits can only be paid to an adult citizen of America. Benefits cannot be paid to someone who is not an adult citizen for the benefit of someone who is. Some may say this is cruel (one Speaker of the House comes to mind immediately), but what is cruel?

Cruel is "disposed to inflict suffering, pain, etc. on others; or causing suffering, distress, etc" (New Standard, pg 171). Let's look at the situation objectively. An illegal immigrant came to America and had a child. The illegal immigrant cannot sustain a home to raise such child because they are "below or at the poverty level." The situation in which they are in is cruel. They are already in distress or already are suffering. Someone who does not give money to them is not contributing to their suffering or distress, that someone is only refusing to end their suffering or distress. This is a difference. You can argue it is cruel to let the situation continue, but why should it be a requirement, or why should you guilt someone, to help another who purposely put them ownself into said situation? I am not responsible for my neighbor; neither is he responsible for me. There's a difference between expecting aid and requesting aid. These people came here expecting aid which the government expects to give. If we stop the giving, the immigrants won't have an incentive to come illegally.

Another way to reduce incentives is to require ALL employers in the country to verify status of the employers they are hiring. As long as the potential employee is a US citizen, or authorized immigrant, the company can hire them; to do otherwise results in a fine for the company. This regulation would remove any incentive from the company to hire illegal immigrants; thus removing the incentive for the immigrant to enter illegally because they would be unable to find work.

Immigrants who come to America have to pay some exorbitant fees to enter. Not everyone can afford the fees (entry fee, registration fee, lawyer fee, etc) to enter the country and become a citizen. We should have a method which helps the destitute. But, I am not saying the government should pay for them. Instead, we need a non-profit organization which works with those who cannot afford to pay the fees to enter to help them enter the country. This way the destitute could go to the embassy in their country who would then put the potential immigrant in touch with the non-profit immigration organization. This would remove another reason people for people to enter illegally, because now they have a different avenue to meet the financial burden to become a citizen of the US.

People also enter the country illegally in support of the drug trade. This subject I will reserve to another time. I am proposing other changes which might reduce the numbers significantly enough that it might become easier to stop the illegal drug trade too.

Then the question becomes what do we do with all of the illegal immigrants currently living in America? The emotional answer would be to kick them out. But is this really a viable solution? It is the emotional answer. I would love to kick every single one of the illegal immigrants out, and yes (saying this in imitation of the Wicked Witch of the West from The Wizard of Oz) their anchor babies too. In reality, this would be a logistic nightmare not worth the hassle and not worth the cost. A more realistic and reasonable approach should be employed.

For one, offer an incentive to learn who they are. Specifically, require them all to register within a two month time frame. After the two months are up, if they haven't registered, goodbye. This way those here illegally have a means to actually tell us who they are with a stated penalty for not doing so. That being automatic deportation, no questions asked.

After registering, the once illegal immigrant now is labeled a potential immigrant. In the registration process, we must inquire as to why they came to America, what they've done since they've been here, and what was their status in their country of origin. This way we can weed out the heinous criminals. Everyone deserves a second chance. Just because someone was a pick-pocket in their country of origin does not necessarily mean they are a pick-pocket here. However, a line must be drawn somewhere. Killers and drug dealers should not be desired as citizens.

Then these potential immigrants are made to pay a yearly fee until their name comes up for becoming immigrants. In other words, their name goes on a wait list which is behind the list of people who are trying to enter legally. I know this sounds somewhat like amnesty, but it is not. Amnesty would be to allow them to stay no strings attached. Granted my method allows those here already to stay while others wait for permission to enter, at least those here as potential immigrants will be paying for that privilege. Realize, anyone caught being an illegal immigrant after my two month moratorium gets booted no matter what, thus there is no incentive to enter for the retribution program I'm advocating. I've tried to come up with a solution not based on emotion but instead is reasonable to solve the problem of undocumented immigrants in the US and what to do with them.

I have offered reasonable solutions to the illegal immigration problem. Will they work? I don't have a definite answer but I believe they would work. At least I've proposed a solution vice just saying we need a solution.....

Mike

References not linked:

New standard encyclopedia dictionary. (1984). IL: Standard educational corporation.