BENJAMIN YOUNG
Staff Writer
There is, perhaps, no hotter issue in the United States right now than immigration. Hundreds of thousands of people have marched in protest in cities all over the United States. Congressmen, senators and a certain California governor have published recent op-ed pieces espousing how and why their particular plan is better than the rest. Some political analysts are saying that immigration could be the “make-or-break” issue in the next presidential campaign. I say, though this issue is important, some moderation in policies is much needed.
Last year, I had the privilege of interning for Congressman Sam Johnson (R – Texas) in Washington, D.C. The work wasn’t that interesting – my daily workload mainly consisted of administrative work, answering the phone and giving tours of the Capitol building to constituent families. In spite of that, I found ways to keep myself entertained. The greatest part of an intern’s job is receiving angry phone calls from complaining constituents. Over the summer, I was fortunate to take many of these kinds of calls about immigration politics.
At first, I thought the people yelling about building fences, putting landmines on the border (I kid you not) and building towers that shot lasers at illegal immigrants crossing the border (again, I am dead serious) were all crazy. These were, after all, red-blooded callers from North Texas. It makes sense, doesn’t it? The sad thing is, this isn’t a geographically isolated opinion. People all over the United States are shouting that a wall is the answer.
To put it bluntly, a wall isn’t the answer at all. The wall is expensive to build and even more expensive to maintain. Who will patrol the wall? Certainly not the racist, vigilante militias that have been the darling of the right wing over the past few years. Will the wall cover the entire southern border? What about Canada? There are so many people yelling for the wall and very few showing any critical thought about how to make the wall a feasible option.
The amnesty bill is a more reasonable option, although it too has some flaws. The critique that it rewards illegal behavior, though shortsighted, is valid.
The reality that the United States must become comfortable with is that it will never have absolutely secure borders. There will, short of the Great Wall of China being built on all our land borders, always be people who wish to cross the border without the consent of our government. The goal, then, changes from keeping “them” out to figuring ways to ease integration and manage risk.
Documentation of illegal immigrants will always be difficult and costly. In spite of that, a national ID program is well worth pursuing. It helps manage risk by tracking progress through the integration process and it lessens the number of people who fall through the cracks. It has other practical applications as well including regulating underage drinking and tracking the purchase of weapons.
As far as integration goes, the process should reward individuals who obtain gainful employment and keep job for the period of at least one year. After that year, the individual should pay a fine for crossing the border illegally in exchange for receiving citizenship.
The fine holds the individual accountable for their illegal activity and generates revenue for both the citizenship process and the national ID program. If the individual cannot gain employment within 18 months of entering the country, he must pay the same fine, and begin an 18-month grace period, in which, if he holds a job for a year, he can gain citizenship.
We are a nation of immigrants and we depend on immigrants to push the economy.
To separate ourselves with a wall is the wrong choice and totally contrary to the freedoms that the United States exemplifies.
04-13-2006