We should seek to influence public perception of immigration as something normal! If you don't read the BBC, I recommend it - we can learn more strategy from Great Britain, which has a good handle on approaching these issues with an *open mind.*

Posted by: sola gratia | February 28, 2008 11:31 AM

Instead of this thread launching into another long debate about immigration that we’ve already had I thought I’d throw out a solution and let people take shots at it. Here’s my proposal. Immigrants who entered the country illegally or overstayed their visas have three options:

1) They can choose to stay. With this choice they must report themselves to immigration officials, give their name, address, employer, and maybe some other information, pay a processing fee, and sign a statement saying they did break the law but they’re sorry for doing so and would like a second chance. They would then be right with the law. They’d receive a worker visa that would have an expiration date like any other visa (they could reapply when the time is up). The immigrant could get a driver’s license, open a bank account, get a job, etc. He or she would have all the rights and privileges of anyone who held a visa, except one. They could never become a citizen, unless, at some point, they choose option two, which is…

2) Return to their country of origin and get in line with everyone else to enter the country. Under this plan they would also get a clean slate. No record of past illegal immigration activity would be held against them. They would follow the normal immigration procedures and could gain citizenship like any other immigrant. Then there’s option three.

3) Remain “in the shadows”, as they say, and risk deportation and all that it entails.

I’d be interested in other’s thoughts on this. Keep in mind this is a compromise proposal, not an ideal proposal. It would also be accompanied by increased money being spent on visa processing and border security. It would not apply to immigrants who’ve broken other laws other than immigration violations. Those people would either serve time in jail or be deported. It is meant to appeal to the arguments that both sides makes. It would not require any immigrant to leave the place they’re currently living and wouldn’t split up any family. However, it would require an immigrant to choose which is more important to him or her: his or her job or becoming an American citizen. It would also require an admission of guilt, repentance, and a processing fee. But it would also grant forgiveness in the act of wiping their slate clean as far as the law goes.

Thoughts? Amendments?

Posted by: Eric | February 28, 2008 11:42 AM

Eric, I like it. Seems reasonable and practical to me. And, while it offers redemption, it doesn't turn a blind eye to broken laws.

Rev. Rodriguez, I'm not exactly sure what your point is. After re-reading, it sounds like your call is one to stop the harsh rhetoric and name-calling. But calling people Xenophobes and bigots is exempt?

You add, "The level of animosity directed towards the immigrant community, particularly the Latino community, stands at an all time high." Why do you think that the animosity is directed moreso to the Latino community? By chance? Or is there some reason it's directed there instead of other groups?

Posted by: Blake | February 28, 2008 12:10 PM

All the above, in one way or another, sound good.

But - the immigration bureaucracy is completely broken, so they could not possibly work, regardless of good intentions.

Even the compromise legislation that failed last year was a pie-in-the-sky unreality that would have added immeasurably to the already overwhelmed workload and simply added more decades-long backlogs, fixing nothing, and instead breaking it.

Backlogs just for citizenship run in some cases more than six years - this even for legal immigrants and their families who have been here decades. Processing times after passing the citizenship examination are supposed to take legally no more than 120 days - and yet some have waited a decade, lost in an overwhelmed and unaccountable bureaucracy. Legal immigration delays are even worse - even for spouses or children of US citizens.

There is no infrastructure for doing any of the processing that is proposed above. The legitimate process is already backlogged many years. Just replacing "green cards" as they expire every ten years is taking years, when it is supposed to take weeks.

There is simply not enough funding as the Republican majority voted to defund the immigration department. Only large corporations receive enhanced processing for their management under a special provision for them alone, and which costs additional thousands of dollars per application.

A small picture of what the legal immigration system is like is the meltdown of the Visa process that citizens encountered recently. That was ameliorated somewhat because it affects voters and citizens. There is no such fix in the woks for those who cannot vote, the millions here legally for years, who are taxed without representation, caught in a broken down and unworkable bureaucracy.

That is the reality. As we run up huge deficits, reducing taxes while increasing war spending - a Vanity Fair analysis estimates Iraq war debt conservatively at 3 trillion, not the "50 or 60 billion" Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz insisted on with most to be paid for by Iraq oil revenues and allies, supposedly - our infrastructure crumbles.

Posted by: Sojourner Truth | February 28, 2008 12:38 PM

JKC, I've seen, heard, and read enough "political expediency, xenophobia, and extremism defeated reason, compromise, and reconciliation" to know that Rev Rodriquez isn't demonizing anyone. He's describing a reality that is out there.

Nativism has been an issue ever since the US became a haven for immigrants. From "Irish need not apply" and "Kein Deutscher" (no Germans) you-are-not-welcome-to-work-here signs in the 1850s and 1860s, to discrimination against immigrants from eastern Europe, China, and Italy in the early 1900s (when immigration rates were far higher than they are now, by the way), nativism has always been a problem.

What's compounding the issue today is that the current immigration laws classify some immigrants as "undocumented" or "illegal." 100 years ago, there was no such distinction. As long as one didn't have a criminal record or an infectious disease like tuberculosis, one could come and live here legally. Now we try to regulate immigration, and it isn't working, for the reason Sojourner Truth mentions--the immigration laws are broken and unenforceable.

But the notion that some are "illegal" has fed the nativist sentiment. We don't want "illegal" people living here, of course not.

The problem is the laws, not the people. People are not illegal. But laws that classify some as illegal are unjust and need to be changed.

Solving this problem will involve far more than securing the border. It also will involve reforming the immigration laws to reflect the realities of the situation. Otherwise, the term "illegal immigrant" will continue being used to stir the pot of anti-immigrant sentiment.

Peace,

Posted by: Don | February 28, 2008 2:54 PM

Please read that Vanity Fair piece and refute it with logical argument. It's serious reporting from an economist with credentials who's won the Nobel Prize for economics.

Judge it on the facts, not that it didn't come from an ideologically pure conservative PC movement mag.

Moreover, the author's a Nobel Prize winner for economics. It's standard for any magazine to excerpt
forthcoming books, in this case, "The Three Trillion Dollar War."

[Do a Google Search on "Vanity Fair war costs" and follow the link for posting the link here causes this comment to be discardsed.]

Very little of what we were told was going to happen regarding the Iraq occupation has come to pass.

I think that the burden of proof at this point is for the administration to come clean on the accounting. But we all realize that is not going to happen, and the fact that it isn't is telling in itself.

From a conservative perspective of being fiscally responsible - that was once a core conservative and even Republican emphasis - we ought to have a truth in lending policy. Right now we're stuck in some used war salesman's trailer listening to how affordable our monthly payments are (if you can figure out what they are) without being told what the total really will be. Meanwhile, it seems that whatever it costs, it's going to involve eating up all our family income without anything left over.

I really, really wish that people would let reality inform their politics, rather than ideology being a filter that reality is compressed through, tossing out anything that doesn't fit the predictions of that ideology.

Too often, I find people only accepting sources that echo their own insular beliefs back to them without any reality check. The comfortable feeling of being told everything is A-OK might comport well with self-righteousness, but disaster's waiting to happen as you go through that red light with the self-assuredness pedal mashed down to the floor without looking both ways to see what's actually happening around you.

A couple of years from now, does anyone really expect to be surprised that that really is the price tag? Will people plead ignorance and absolve themselves that way? Or do they simply not want to know, so that they can do what they want to right now, pretending they didn't know and plead ignorance then, evading the moral responsibility?

Posted by: N.M. Rod | February 28, 2008 2:58 PM

Eric, that's a reasonable start to dealing with the undocumented currently here, but we must also address the continuing tide of immigrants.

It has correctly been pointed out that once it was much easier to immigrate here. Indeed, the complex and restrictive laws are a large problem. They are trying to defeat the reality of economic and social pressures with laws, and it won't work.

My suggestion:

1. Allow people to enter the country with a background check if there is no indication that they would be a problem. Initially give them a 1-year visa that would allow them to work legally.
2. At the end of 1 year, if they could demonstrate a clean record and that they had worked at least half the time, they would get a 2-year visa.
3. At the end of the 2-year period, they could get renewed for an additional 2 years using the same criteria.
4. If after 5 years they still had a clean record and had worked consistently, they would be entitled to permanent resident status, and could proceed to the naturalization process after the normal 5 years.

That's the basic outlines. It would need to be fleshed out with provisions for children, a parent working by being full-time caretaker of their children, provision for relief from the work requirement during periods of extended illness or major injury, etc.

Many of the social problems connected with immigration now are related to the status problems themselves, rather than inherent to immigration. This kind of open door policy would eliminate those, and allow law enforcement resources to concentrate on the small proportion of immigrants engaging in criminal behavior, rather than squandered on dealing with status issues of hard working, decent people.

Complementary to this should be enhanced programs helping societies from which large numbers are emigrating to deal with the economic and social problems which drive so many to leave in search of a decent life.

In terms of personal experience, I am married to a wonderful woman who was an immigrant whose documentation had expired, and who is now a U.S. citizen, so I have some understanding at the gut level of immigrants.

Posted by: Bill Samuel | February 28, 2008 3:50 PM

I forgot to add that in additon to all that, the enormous costs of waging long wars are sucking funding out from everything else.

Posted by: Sojourner Truth | February 28, 2008 4:02 PM

Saying that Latino evangelicals are more likely to listen to the gospel writers than white evangelicals is not really increasing civility in debate. It's bigotry.

And I, for one, called him on it at the time. You are right. But that doesn't mean he's wrong this time.

D

Posted by: Don | February 28, 2008 5:38 PM

But Jesse, that's not at all what Rodriguez is doing or saying. What he's saying is that the xenophobes have latched onto this issue and have used it to advance their hate agenda. The result is the rise in animosity toward the Latino community that he mentions. And he is saying that the rhetoric of the nativists has spilled over into the general debate.

These are demonstrable phenomena.

This isn't at all the same as claiming that all opponents of "amnesty" are xenophobes. But some of them have adopted, to one degree or another, elements of the nativist rhetoric.

Peace,

Posted by: Don | February 28, 2008 8:13 PM

Jesse's post claims that Rev. Rodriguez Rimbaugh, Hannity and Dobbs as bigoted leaders of the fight against illegal immigrants. I have re-read the article several times and see no names anywhere. Perhaps the truth of what Rev. Rodrigues wrote was so apparent that Jesse read those names into the text?

In any case, there may be another solution to large numbers of (especially, illegal) immigrants. If the Democrats win the presidency, they (both Clinton and Obama) intend to re-open NAFTA. It's this "free trade" agreement that has destroyed Mexican jobs in such high numbers, prompting desperate people to immigrate illegally. It's also destroyed a lot of American jobs. Who knows? Maybe a change in the trade agreement can make enough changes in the short term that the federal immigration authorities can finally develop a timely way of dealing with legal immigration requests.

Posted by: bren | February 28, 2008 9:02 PM

The Nobel Prize-winning economist is Joseph Stiglitz and he and his colleague Linda Bilmes have just published the book The Three Trillion Dollar War which will be out by the end of this week. You can read the book if you don’t fancy reading Vanity Fair. In the book you will find such figures as:

The amount the US spends on the monthly running costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan - on top of regular defence spending: $16bn
Cost of 10 days' fighting in Iraq $5bn
The amount paid by every US household every month towards the current operating costs of the war $138
The interest America will have paid by 2017 on the money borrowed to finance the war $1 trillion
These are just a few of the financial facts: if this keeps up The Nobel Prize-winning economist is Joseph Stiglitz and he and his colleague Linda Bilmes have just published the book ·The Three Trillion Dollar War. You can read the book if you don’t fancy reading Vanity Fair. In the book you will find such figures as

The amount the US spends on the monthly running costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan - on top of regular defence spending: $16bn
Cost of 10 days' fighting in Iraq $5bn
The amount paid by every US household every month towards the current operating costs of the war $138
The interest America will have paid by 2017 on the money borrowed to finance the war $1 trillion

These are just a few of the facts cited. This "economic policy" will remove people's confidence in government even without Grover Nordquist's help. A change in government can't come soon enough!

Posted by: bren | February 28, 2008 9:57 PM

bren,
the rodriquez quote i cited was from wallis' article which appeared here a few weeks ago.

Posted by: jesse | February 28, 2008 10:38 PM

why don't we advocate for what would really be historically and ethically just- to return the whole Southwest, California, and the other states (stolen in the predatory and shameful "Mexican-American" war of 1846-1848) back to the United States of Mexico and every U.S. citizen who is now living in those states (like me) can apply for a temporary work/residence permit from Mexico..in the mean time we will be considered "guest workers" and "illegals" and will hope that the Christian community will treat us with love and dignity and help us meet our needs as they arise....

Posted by: PKman | February 29, 2008 12:48 AM

"I would allow all immigrants, legal or otherwise, to break any laws they felt imposed an undue burden on their pursuit of the American dream, including criminal laws. In fact, if I had my way, I'd pass a Constitutional amendment that only illegal immigrants could vote or hold elected office. I mean, we're Christians, right?"

Since you're asking (I'll take you at your word), no.

Posted by: N.M Rod | February 29, 2008 1:31 AM

Mark, calm down. Nobody, least of all Rev. Rodriquez, is suggesting anything like what you said. If you don't believe me, re-read Rev. Rodriguez when he wrote:

"It is time for reasonable U.S. citizens and for the faith community to rise up and clearly state that while we all desire to protect our borders and apply the rule of law, we will not embrace the nativist and discriminatory rhetoric articulated under the guise of border protection. We can stop illegal immigration, protect our borders, protect our values, and simultaneously protect the American dream only if we work within the framework of our Judeo-Christian heritage and repudiate all discriminatory and bigoted threads."

Peace,

Posted by: Don | February 29, 2008 7:47 AM

Mark's derogatory, hateful and inflammatory posts ought to be deleted, regardless of which name he posted them under.

Perhaps Mark is a Christian - Lord only knows, but these comments are not.

It is obvious, if one gives him the benefit of the doubt, that he has no direct experience of what his fellow human beings, those he denounces and dehumaizes, have to go through, especially those the Lord calls His "least of these."

If we fail to live out Jesus' command to us to "take up our cross" and die to self, regardless of what protestations we later make to Him about prayers and praise and church attendance, He is clear that He will say,

"Depart from me ye accursed, I never knew you."

That's not a fate we can wish on anyone of our fellow human beings.

To Mark, I prayerfully submit, please think twice or however many times it takes to make sure that what you publicly post serves the Spirit of our Lord. At the last day, we will be held accountable for every idle word, and be judged by the same standards we demanded for others. That's a test we're guaranteed to fail if we don't have compassion. Everything else other than love will fail in the end.

To the moderaters, I as that these posts that are highly embarassing to the cause of Christ and destructive to meaningful dialogue be deleted.

Posted by: Sojourner Truth | February 29, 2008 12:16 PM

why don't we advocate for what would really be historically and ethically just- to return the whole Southwest, California, and the other states (stolen in the predatory and shameful "Mexican-American" war of 1846-1848) back to the United States of Mexico and every U.S. citizen who is now living in those states (like me) can apply for a temporary work/residence permit from Mexico..in the mean time we will be considered "guest workers" and "illegals" and will hope that the Christian community will treat us with love and dignity and help us meet our needs as they arise....

The "jobs" would not remain there. Rather, the wealthy would leave, the employers would leave, and we'd just have everyone fleeing north to find work, prosperity, etc.

The economic issues in Mexico are NOT geographic, they are political and ethical. Just moving the border will not cause there be prosperity. It will simply move the border they cross north.

Maybe instead of rather pointless rhetoric, you might want actually address why people are so desperate to come north.

Posted by: The Watcher | February 29, 2008 11:58 PM

I think that anyone who's in favor of NAFTA, should also be in favor of an open border policy. The US seems to be able to dictate the rules of the game, which, believe it or not!, can sometimes be detrimental to other countries' economies. We dump our corn in Mexico. Corn prices go down. Then we turn around and place tariffs on crops like cotton, while Indian cotton farmers are committing suicide. (based on reports from PBS' Newshour). Perhaps conservatives will reach a point where they understand that we won't always be able to have our cake and eat it, too. Against illegal immigration? Then oppose NAFTA, CAFTA, etc.

Posted by: Ande | March 2, 2008 8:00 PM

That's a fair statement, in my book. Posted by: Rick Nowlin

Point well taken.

Posted by: JamesMartin | March 3, 2008 1:32 PM