Immigration Reform and The Ellis Island of the 21st Century, or "Help Us Assimilate Your Tired, Your Poor"

Last year, Congress debated, agreed on, then let die proposed immigration reform legislation. This fall, the issue will be resurrected in the run-up to the general election.

The ideas discussed included $5,000payments, repatriation/deportation and employer sanctions. None of the discussion considered the role that the countries of origin, or at least of crossing, should play.

Perhaps a plan involving all of these concepts should be considered, putting major responsibility exactly where it belongs: on Mexico, Canada, employers, and the immigrants themselves. The following represents just an outline of such a plan; but, without an outline, you really can’t get started. So, consider the following as one possible solution to the problem of illegal immigration.

Perhaps the idea of a $5,000 payment for aliens who have repatriated isn't so bad after all, if you work it correctly.

We should plan to eliminate the incentive to come, increase the incentive to stay, and provide the ability to eventually assimilate for those who would otherwise enter the United States illegally.

First, the United States should place some of the onus for stemming the flow of illegal entrants on the sources: Mexico and Canada! What if we agreed to send each country the funds (the controversial $5,000 payments) conditioned on the creation of "Emigration Centers” (ECs)? Such centers would bear the responsibility for verifying identities, performing criminal background checks, certifying health and "readiness." Readiness would include some marketable skill and at least a rudimentary ability to communicate, orally and in writing, in English. (That's only what we get from most of our public schools anyway; why hold our neighbors to a higher standard?)

Before any payments would be made, each country would have to demonstrate successful interdiction of potential border crossers before they crossed. Say, for example, that for every 1,000 such apprehensions, or every 10 "Coyotes," (I know, you'll say it's a bounty; but so what?) we would make a $5,000 payment toward the construction, staffing and operation of the ECs. There might even be a "debit" for those who got through and were apprehended on U. S. soil. Maybe the U. S. and the neighbors could jointly construct and organize the ECs, leaving the operations to the hosts, subject to our oversight. By participating in the construction and operation, we provide jobs for our own people, and ensure that facilities and programs meet the standard the United States sets for readiness.

Before an emigrant would be able to leave, transported by us at our expense, he would have to demonstrate completion of the EC program; he'll get a passport-type document for use in the future in the States. Upon boarding the transport, he would be given an entrance package and a small amount of cash to get him started. Since we'd cleared the occupants, crossing would simply be a matter of using an HOV lane at the border and debarkation at some pre-determined location. Many border and near-border communities already have bus and transportation facilities specifically catering to travelers from the host country to the U. S. Entrepreneurial emigrants could establish hostels, motels and other facilities for their temporary accommodation.

But, that's long term.

Short-term enforcement would be more drastic and politically costly.

First, it will become an offense, for a 5-year period beginning with the enactment of the EC legislation, subject to Congressional extension, for any employer to pay an illegal immigrant any wage equal to or above the minimum wage. (That's more than they would make if they were at "home" anyway.) It would be a “per se” offense; there'd be no requirement to prove knowledge, awareness, or negligence. In other words, if there’s an undocumented worker on the payroll, making minimum wage or more, the employer is presumed guilty. Penalties would be economic only. Fines that increased by factors of 2, 5 or 10, based upon the number of illegals or violations, would be a disincentive to hiring and an incentive to verification.

During the 5-year period, the ECs would be established and opened, and must be in operation before its' expiration. The economic penalties could help offset the initial costs of the ECs.

Second, a 1,000 man Federal task force under I. C. E. will be empowered to enforce the Federal wage/verification laws; and certain local laws against employers and supervisors, individually. Random raids, following the establishment that an employer was in violation, would occur. The raiding squads would be small; these aren't thugs after all, and we're not "rounding up" scores of employees. Employers arrested for (creatively thinking) "maintaining a common nuisance" or "harboring a fugitive" would be delivered to local authorities for custody and prosecution. Of course, although not likely, local aw enforcement enforcing such laws would not be doing Immigration or Border Patrol enforcement. They’d only be working under local ordinances. Lists of offenders would be published. If the local charging authorities or courts decide to release on recognizance or “nol prosse” (elect not to prosecute) these arrestees, that's their prerogative. But, the point will have been made.

(Imagine how it will look on the 5:00 o'clock news as a restaurant, factory, janitorial shop, or farming operation were raided, and the owners and managers were carted off, leaving the workers behind for I. C. E. or whomever to handle!) Business would howl; hence the need for a Federal face on the arresting authority. But the point, once made, will not likely be forgotten.

Of course, the result of this two-pronged approach could potentially be expensive for consumers, due to decreased or more expensive production. But it will also prove or disprove the stodgy argument that "illegals are taking our jobs." If Americans fill the places at the same cost, there's no loss. If they don't, then we'll have to step back and reevaluate the necessity of border enforcement again, but at least with solid facts to support the arguments, rather than speculation and cries of racism or liberalism.

The net effect will be to minimize the incentive for the potential illegal immigrant and the employer as well, at little real cost to them or the consumer.

So, here's a plan that minimizes the "economic opportunity" that encourages illegal immigration in the short run, and provides a reasonable way to ensure that those who do come in in the future will at least have the clearance and ability to immerse themselves in the American culture and workplace. They will be, if not welcomed, at least tolerable and functional. It's not Ellis Island; but this isn't the 20th century, either.