I think you are generally right regarding the ways to get in (after the last thread on this, I had occasion to meet our old colleague RC, who is an immigration lawyer, whom I asked about this. His answer was basically what you say (there are other categories, asylum, for example, but that really supports your view of the facts). There is a lottery for up to 50,000 visas a year, but apparently, they are not available to citizens of countries, like Mexico, the UK, etc. that already are the source of a lot of immigrants.
I do not know that these facts dispose of the issue of differentiating between those who play by the rules from those who do not. For example, I would like to see increased legal immigration--immigration by those willing to play by the rules, no matter how onerous, and who meet reasonable criteria for admission, rather than simply say to the people who entered illegally--OK, you avoided getting caught long enough, you can stay. Repeated grants of amnesty are guaranteed to make the maintenance of a legal immigration regeime unworkable. It is hard for people to take seriously the requirements of legal immigration when we do not take them seriously.
We need immigrants, we certanly agree on that. I just do not know why we cannot focus on legal immigration.
We certainly can (and should) focus on legal immigration, but we've got the problem that there's already all these illegal immigrants and we've got to decide what to do with them. Mass deportation would be expensive and impractical, so some sort of amnesty combined with reform of the immigration process to make it easier to come here legally from Mexico looks like the only reasonable solution to me. I wouldn't hold my breath, though.
As I said in the other thread, the 'line jumping' concerns are mostly a matter of appealing to people's senses of fair play and avoiding resentment to ensure that sensible legislation doesn't get shot down, rather than a worry about justice. Whatever options are taken for illegal immigrants wouldn't affect the other quotas; it's not like legalizing 11 million immigrants would mean no more legal immigrants.
An election-year ill-planned push, however, could be poorly executed. That's my biggest concern. It's one thing if someone here illegally gets permanent residency before (say) my boyfriend. I don't care about that at all.
I also want sorting out illegal immigration to be a priority. But I would care more if the strain on Customs and Immigration, being told to sort out 11 million applications, meant that instead of taking 9 months to get a fiance visa, or an asylum visa, or any of the legal routes it takes 4 years, not because of any quota overlap (because there isn't any), but because in a push to get votes in November, no one realized that they'd need to hire more people to process applications.
Beyond that I think Idealist is right -- we need a long term fix that makes the immigration system manageable, rather than 'every 20 years we'll grant everyone amnesty.'
A big ill-planned push to legalize everyone by November would indeed be bad, but is there any evidence that it's going to happen? Is the administration seriously going to do this and thereby alienate the important racist xenophobe section of their base?
but we've got the problem that there's already all these illegal immigrants and we've got to decide what to do with them. Mass deportation would be expensive and impractical, so some sort of amnesty combined with reform of the immigration process to make it easier to come here legally from Mexico looks like the only reasonable solution to me.
I certainly agree with the idea of some sort of reform to make it easier for people to get here legally. Immigration should be easier both in terms of the criteria (although I do believe in immigration criteria) and, even more, in the speed and ease of administration.
However, there are answers other than mass deportations or amnesty. I would give people in the country illegally a choice. I would make a window during which they could return to their home countries without suffering the current penalties (such a bar to reentry) and the right to apply for legal entry--maybe even on an expedited basis. (I guess this is a very limited amnesty) On the other hand, people who refused to leave would be subject to deportation and a bar to reentry if caught--and worse penalties if they are caught reentering anyway.
Sure, there probably would be a need for special exceptions for people (families with kids in school, for example) for whom leaving would be a particularly serious burden, but the fact is, some people who are here illegally will just have to leave. Sorry, but if they are breaking the law and do not meet reasonable criteria to be here, they should not be allowed to stay. We should create a mechanism for letting others come legally in their place.
Doing it the right way and waiting one's turn isn't an indication of being conscientious, it's an indication that one is in the limited group of people who the US has given that option.
I do take issue with this. And nothing to do with my situation. I, as has been established, am rich and not conscientious because I can 'afford' to wait. Plus, I'm an American citizen; that makes sponsoring a person for immigration a lot easier. Fair enough. So let's ignore me and all the other fiance visa types.
But a guy from the Phillipines who isn't a citizen, who managed to get an employment visa, who can't regularly go home to see his family, and has been applying for years to bring them over legally, probably isn't in such a privileged position. Maybe he's not conscientious either, but he is following the law, and while increasing visa opportunities is a good part of the Senate proposal, someone who's been waiting for eight years for a spousal visa to go along with his employment one should get the first shot at the new employment visa class.
The devil really is in the details on this one. If the Senate increases the program to 500,000 new visas, but all the undocumented types get the first shot, that is unfair. Probably not unfair enough not to implement given the size of the problem, but definitely one that would send the message that it's better to sneak into the U.S. illegally, because doing it legally does nothing for you.
appealing to people's senses of fair play and avoiding resentment to ensure that sensible legislation doesn't get shot down, rather than a worry about justice.
I guess my point is that part of the process of appealing to people's senses of fair play is reminding them that most illegal immigrants aren't taking an easy way of getting into the US, they are taking their only option for getting into the US.
On Ideal's point in 1: I absolutely agree that the best solution is to expand legal immigration, eliminate the demand for undocumented workers, and do whatever is reasonably necessary to stop illegal immigration in that context. My concern with illegal immigration is solely due to the fact that our policies (particularly lax employer-side enforcement) have been encouraging it for decades, and in that context, it's not reasonable to consider undocumented immigrants wrongdoers.
But a guy from the Phillipines who isn't a citizen, who managed to get an employment visa, who can't regularly go home to see his family, and has been applying for years to bring them over legally, probably isn't in such a privileged position. Maybe he's not conscientious either, but he is following the law, and while increasing visa opportunities is a good part of the Senate proposal, someone who's been waiting for eight years for a spousal visa to go along with his employment one should get the first shot at the new employment visa class.
I really think you're confusing two meanings of 'privileged' here. Your guy isn't 'privileged' in the sense that he is the rich oppressor whose interests don't deserve to be considered, nothing like that. But he is 'privileged' in that he has the option of coming to the US and bringing his family legally, even if the process is onerous. Lots of people (my hypothetical Mexican guy without a professional job and with no close family in the US) have no legal options for immigration. Your guy isn't 'privileged' in some overarching sense, but he's 'privileged' with respect to my guy -- he has the privilege of immigrating legally.
If we determine that it is a good thing for my guy to work in the US (which, given that he generally seems to be able to get hired, pay taxes, and all other good things once he gets here, seems likely) then we can't judge him as a wrongdoer or less deserving because of the illegality of the route he took to get here. He took the only route open to him.
I think that Cala gets it right in 6.
it's not reasonable to consider undocumented immigrants wrongdoers
Uh, a bit strong, don't you think? I can see that you might view them as having committed an administrative violation rather than a morally culpable crime, but even illegal immigrants know they are doing something illegal.
having committed an administrative violation rather than a morally culpable crime
That's my point. All I'm talking about here is that rhetoric about undocumented immigrants having taken the 'easy way' into the country is misplaced -- the 'hard way' wasn't generally open to them.
Repeated grants of amnesty are guaranteed to make the maintenance of a legal immigration regeime unworkable.
There are a couple of things this could mean:
1) Repeated grants of amnesty mean that even with increased levels of legal immigration, there wil always be some level of illegal immigration insofar as being in the U.S. is economically and otherwise beneficial to people in nearby countries and we don't have an enormous amount of legal immigration such that anyone who wants it gets it.
2) Repeated grants of amnesty are a peverse incentive which will meaningfully hurt legal immigration.
1) is true, but I don't think we should have, even as a goal for our policies level of truly zero illegal immigrants. I only say this because it seems to be an impossible goal (or possibly met be seriously lowering the U.S. standard of living).
2) doesn't seem right, there are still overriding advantages to being a legal immigrant.
He took the only route open to him.
That's like saying that I am not a criminal for stealing a car because I did not have enough money to buy one, so I took the only route available to me to have one.
Implicit in your argument that immigrating to the United States is a right rather than a privilege. Even with vastly improved immigration laws, some people will not get admitted. I know that sucks for them, but that does not mean that they then have the right to get here by other means.
I don't want anyone deported as a first step. Plus, given the clogs in the system, it would take years for people who were deported to get the visas and come back. Even if we get up to 500,000 new visas per year, it will take a long time, and that long time will just encourage more illegal immigrations.
What I'd like to see is a sort of staged process. Stage One: just get everyone who is working now (some footwork to be done for migrant farmworkers, but just sketching this) an Employment Authorization Document. An EAD is basically a temporary social security number. On a K-1 visa, you can get this when you enter the country, and I think it's good for 90 days. But on the EAD, you're a legal worker, and your employer has a record of you, etc.
Stage Two: Once you have your EAD, you have 90 days to file the Magic Cala Visa Class paperwork. If you don't, out you go. The MCVC-1 is a path to citizenship, and it includes your spouse and children (but they don't count in the # of visas allowed per year). Amnesty comes in because as long as you've filed the paperwork, you won't be deported. Here you have to get all the shots and the criminal background check (we'd probably exclude as a crime 'crossing the border illegally'), and if you don't, out you go. And, if the MCVC-1 is limited by a quota per year, people who have been waiting and have applied get the first shot. That's okay, because as long as you have the packet stamped and sent, you're not at a risk for being deported. (They do give you a receipt.)
Once your MCVC-1 is approved, you'll have to enter the country formally on it. So you have to go back to your country of origin and return (or just drive to Mexico or Canada and come back), and it can be a big party with cake. *Then* the clock starts for permanent residency. And from there you go through the normal green card channels.
That's like saying that I am not a criminal for stealing a car because I did not have enough money to buy one, so I took the only route available to me to have one.
Only if you believe there is no such thing as a distinction between malum in se and malum prohibitum.
Only if you believe there is no such thing as a distinction between malum in se and malum prohibitum.
How so? Both are crimes. I think that is the point in 9-10. I am happy to say that illegal immigrants are not evil people whom we should hate. That does not mean that they are not breaking the law.
That would be the point of this sentence in the post:
An argument against amnesty for undocumented immigrants on this basis has to rest on the merits of the US's policy decision to allow some people and not others into the country legally -- not on the personal deserts of those who play by the rules versus scofflaws.
You can look at illegal immigrants and say "According to our policies, we don't want you and your ilk ('ilk' here defined as non-professional Mexicans, for example) in the country at all. You have no right to be here, you're deported." And that would be a reasonable argument to have. I think the premise it rests on is untrue: on a revealed preference basis, we do want non-professional Mexicans in the US -- we just like it better when they are outside the protection of the law -- and I think that given that, withholding legal status from them is unjust. But I may be wrong, and there's an argument to be had about who and how many people we want in the country.
The argument that seems to me to be illegitimate is that the specific people who are in the US illegally are wrongdoers with respect to some class of similarly situated potential immigrants who played by the rules, and have to suffer through a long, arduous process to get in legally. There is no such class of similarly situated legal immigrants -- people who are in the process of immigrating legally are not similarly situated to undocumented workers, because undocumented workers generally don't have the option of legal immigration, however arduous it may be, open to them.
I like 13. Quick, make Cala head of the INS (or whatever they are calling it these days).
I was just going to say, it's not bad. I mean, to me it looks pretty much like an amnesty, but I don't consider that a drawback.
15: I'm pretty sure you know this, but the whole point of the distinction is to be able to compare different crimes by saying that some are bad solely because they're prohibited and others are bad in and of themselves. Such a distinction both exists and is should never be judicially cognizable.
then we can't judge him as a wrongdoer or less deserving because of the illegality of the route he took to get here. He took the only route open to him.
That I'll agree with. I don't think the illegal immigrant is less deserving. But I don't think the Filipino blue-collar worker isn't being conscientious just because he got a visa, either. The number of visas compared to the demand is very small, and even if you're from a country that gets allotted a generous number of visas, there's still much incentive to try to get here illegally. On paper he may have had an option, but we're talking years or decades for a non-professional type.
It's kind of a cool place, this U.S.A. Our hypothetical Filipino guy didn't do anything illegal and he certainly had incentive. Ideally, our immigration system would be such that it makes more sense to play by the rules than it does to ignore them. If it doesn't, it's really broken and no amount of amnesty or deportation is going to solve it.
because undocumented workers generally don't have the option of legal immigration, however arduous it may be, open to them.
This seems to be right as a generality, but, to nitpick a bit, I am pretty sure that it is one of those truths which is generally true, but not overwhelmingly true. That is, it is my experience (of course, anecdotal arguments are worth what you pay for them) and it makes sense that even people who could come here legally might choose to come illegally. Let's say that you have a family member here legally who could bring you over legally in five years. But you do not want to wait five years. So you get a tourist visa, come visit your family member, and just do not go back. The incentive to take this route is particularly strong if your long term plan is to return to your home country eventually anyway.
Just a quibble, but I think this happens more than a little.
Ideally, our immigration system would be such that it makes more sense to play by the rules than it does to ignore them. If it doesn't, it's really broken and no amount of amnesty or deportation is going to solve it.
This couldn't possibly be truer, except that I would say that with or without any particular amnesty, it doesn't make more sense to play by the rules, and the system is really broken.
I also like 13. And Ideal, I don't think anyone's disputing that illegal immigrants have committed a crime by entering the country (I mean, obviously they have), just saying that that doesn't make them "wrongdoers" since what they did isn't morally wrong but more in the nature of an administrative violation.
I think this happens more than a little.
Probably, but who cares? That doesn't seem like a major problem in the way that illegal immigration from Mexico is.
Why the professional class exemption, anyway? I mean, I understand it's in the interest of the U.S. to recruit doctors and scientists and bright people, and that we might want to give that special consideration. And I can see why we might not want to just have an open policy.
But, look, clearly we need farm workers and builders and nannies. We might want to control the numbers to keep wages steady or something, but to have no visa class at all when one is clearly desired by both American employers and foreign workers (revealed preferences) just seems like, well, the sort of system you'd design if you wanted 11 million undocumented workers running around.
Just a quibble, but I think this happens more than a little.
This is almost certainly true -- if I were going to guess, though, I'd say that it's largely an effect of disrespect for the legal immigration system due to its obvious insanity and injustices. Once we've got it working sanely, then policing scofflaws should get much easier.
And a strong you-betcha to 25. I try, with probably not all that much success, not to go straight for the 'Those bastards are doing this awful thing deliberately' explanation, but in the case of illegal immigration, I think it is deliberate. The presence of a pool of low-wage workers outside the protection of labor laws is very economically valuable to business interests, and I think that's the explanation for why the immigration law is so screwed up.
21: This is true, at least, for people who know people in the U.S. My boyfriend jokes that every time he visits his family assumes this is the time he won't be coming back. And certainly, you get viewed with suspicion when you cross the border if there's a reason (like a sig other) that you might not be coming back. (I carry my lease and student stuff with me to prove that I'm returning to the U.S., just in case.)
I'm not sure this is as much of a problem with the immigrant workers, though, since they're not coming for visits or for sig others, usually, but to get a job and make some money.
I'm not sure this is as much of a problem with the immigrant workers, though, since they're not coming for visits or for sig others, usually, but to get a job and make some money.
The way I have seen it work is that a person wanting to come here to work gets a tourist visa or a student visa and then simply disappears into the illegal immigrant workforce. It really is the easiest way to get into the country if you can get the visa and have the money.
You are all bleeding-hearts. We should nuke Mexico.
You really did used to be a Republican, didn't you?
(Apologies to the actual Republicans reading, of course.)
I think that's the explanation for why the immigration law is so screwed up
The last time we had a big national debate on this subject, one group of opponents to harsher sanctions on employers were legal immigrants. If you create a situation where employers are afraid (some exageration here) to hire anyone who is not white and has no accent because they are afraid that if they make a mistake, they will lose their business (and some of your prior proposals would result in just that), it is going to hurt legal immigrants.
Do business owners have an interest in not cutting off the supply of illegal immigrants, in some industries, yes, of course. Have they had an effect on immigration policy. I imagine so. However, the problem is not nearly so simple as blaming the owners of capital. If you cannot see the whole situation, it will lead to solutions which will work no better (or maybe eve nworse) than the status quo.
Both Ideal's and Cala's plans have immigrants returning to their home countries (or crossing into Mexico/Canada) and then coming back. Why bother? Couldn't they just as easily show up at an immigrant processing center of some sort? Seems an undue burden, and likely to inflate the costs (to the government, to the immigrants) of any plan.
I've wondered about that. This is something that I don't understand even enough to oppose, because I don't get the arguments for it at all -- why does the legal immigration process involve so much control over where the prospective immigrant may travel to during the process? There seem to be all sorts of complicated 'if you're in the country legally waiting for something to happen in your process, you can't leave the country', 'if you're trying to immigrate and live in another country, you can't travel here even temporarily,' regulations, and I don't quite see the function. There may be good explanations for most of it, but I don't get it.
As far as I know, the immigrant processing centers designed for this sort of thing are at the borders, which was the only reason I suggested a symbolic leaving/coming back. Plus, it would be an excellent occasion for an American wake kind of party.
I'm thinking streamlining, mostly. I don't have any big problem with just making someone travel to L.A. or D.C. or somewhere to officially 'enter.' I was just thinking you'd probably have to travel somewhere anyway, to an embassy or a processing center, but every airport or border crossing is already set up to handle immigration, so far as I know. Plus, then you have a formal date-of-entry (which you'll need for green card timeline), where you show up in person and get approved, and get your visa activated, and if you distribute it over lots of locations rather than one big processing center, you'd reduce delays.
It's mostly an a) we don't want you to get fed up with the process and immigrate illegally or b) we don't want you to travel to another country and then make us chase down police reports there and c) if we need to get ahold of you, we want to be able to find you.
Anyhow, all I know about is the K-1, and you *can* travel while that's pending, but you have to be prepared to face extra scrutiny. It's not the visa pending status that's the problem, it's more that now they know you *intend* to immigrate, eventually, and that means if they suspect that, then they have to ask you more questions to prove that you're going back on this visit.
31: I can't see that as anything other than a 'too bad' problem. We have antidiscrimination laws, we have mechanisms by which people can prove that they are legally in the country. While it isn't impossible that harsher employer sanctions would increase discrimination against legal but obviously recent immigrants, that just isn't a sufficient reason not to have such sanctions.
34: That makes sense, and international airports is a interesting idea, given the presence of immigration officials. I wonder if this would add a perceived security risk, since airport security is teh suck right now.
Regardless, I don't think you need to have people travel to the borders. Isn't North Carolina in the top three for states with the fastest growing immigrant population? That's not all workers in Apo's fast-growing Mexican-style drug cartel. And NC's a long way away from a border.
Yeah, I also like the idea of just having people go to an immigration center (such as an airport) for their "official" entry and start of green card clock etc. Immigration is no longer confined largely to border areas, and leaving the country is not necessarily easy for all immigrants.
None of this would be an issue at all if common citizenship was granted to all countries with which we had free trade agreements -- NAFTA and CAFTA, basically. That is my proposed solution, and I will settle for nothing less.
Is your proposal sort of like an EU, but for our continent, Adam?
I can't think offhand why that would be bad.
The main problem with Adam's proposal is what the heck we'd call it. We already have a United States of America.
Upper West Hemispherica.
The geopolity for none but the elitest, latte-sippingest immigrants.
I wanted to write my thesis on the political/economic integration of Latin America, to serve as a balancing actor in a future geopolitical scene where the US, the EU, and China are dominant powers.
But then I got lazy and never wrote a thesis. (Plus almost every Chilean I asked about integration was opposed to the idea.)
And NC's a long way away from a border.
Unless you count the Mason-Dixon line.
Or the border with Tennessee.
Isn't North Carolina in the top three for states with the fastest growing immigrant population?
#1.
Just adding my two cents here, as one who has dealt with the immigraton laws on a personal level.
Short answer: anyone who wishes to immigrate to the U. S. can do so by filling out the correct forms and "waiting in line."
Long answer: There is not just one line. Immigration laws have set up a variety of lines with different priorities depending on what relationships you may or may not have with the U. S. or U. S. citizens, or from which part of the world you reside in. Your place in any given line is demarked by your Priority Date. This is basically the date that U. S. Immigration recieves your initial paperwork. Immigration sends out a monthly bullitin with the Priority Date that is currently scheduled for immigration (i.e. who is "next in line")
The problem is that these lines are ridiculously long, and have slowed to a crawl post 9/11/01. I know unmarried children of U. S. sponsors who had only a two year wait. But I also know of married children of U. S. sponsors (in the same family, but they are given a different priority) who are now waiting for 9 years and counting. And these are people who have priority, due to their connections in the U. S. If you have no connections, I think it could easily be a 25 - 30 year wait. And while you're waiting, your status will change (i.e. you get married while you wait, status changes, you have a kid, status, changes.)
Thus the only "waiting in line" which has relevance within a human lifetime is in the priority lines reserved for work, marrige, relation in the U. S. etc.
It is a crap system, and anyone who complains about doing their taxes should try dealing with the INS.
Furthermore, while waiting in line, the INS may well lose your file, and it's like drawing the "Go bqck to the start" card in some surreal board game. Or like the person we sponsored as a care giver for our infant, their green card may come when the kids are about to start high school.
Actually, the INS is no more. It's now the USCIS and is part of the Department of Homeland Security.