Jeb Bush and Clint Bolick offer a handy and thoughtful conceptual primer on immigration reform. Light on details, but they have a book coming out in March which presumably will flesh out their ideas. But even so, this part of their WSJ op-ed was annoyingly thin:
Amnesty promotes illegal immigration. The U.S. must find a fair way to deal with its 11 million illegal immigrants without sending the message that America’s laws can be broken with impunity. Crossing the border illegally must have consequences. At the same time, we must recognize that children who were brought here illegally have committed no crime and in most instances know no other country.
OK, pretty sure they are not going to recommend trying to round up those 11 million and send them home or some kind of “hard attrition” strategy to nudge them to self deport. Likely they will outline a path to citizenship, though it may look more like a steeplechase with plenty of obstacles to hurdle. Another option is eventually giving the undocumented a green card, but one with no option to become an American — permanent non-citizenship status. But neither Hispanics nor Americans in general seem to prefer that option. All the more reason, I think, of refocusing on a more robust naturalization process. Yuval Levin:
As much as reasonably possible, coming to America should be linked with becoming an American. This means that as our immigration system is reformed, our assimilation efforts need to be similarly reformed.
For one thing, a modest element of civic education can and should begin early on in the process. To that end, the civics test now administered prior to naturalization could instead be administered prior to granting legal permanent residency. The test requires only a minimal grasp of English and some key concepts of American history and government—and all questions are available to applicants in advance. But administering it early will signal our belief that immigrants are required to take steps toward becoming Americans before enjoying the benefits of living here.
Later on, final qualification for citizenship can be made contingent on completing an actual course in American history and civics, rather than just taking an exam. Such courses might be certified by the Office of Citizenship, and conducted (in English) by civic or religious groups, community colleges, or private companies like those that prepare students for the SAT. They need cover only the basic concepts of American civic life—as found in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the speeches of some of our great men—and the outlines of how these concepts have functioned in American history. Learning the basics in the presence of a teacher and fellow students can make a great deal of difference—for the student, the teacher, and the culture in general.
“Crossing the border illegally must have consequences“…
Consequences…
“At the same time, we must recognize that children who were brought here illegally have committed no crime and in most instances know no other country“…
Not only invade the country but these illegal aliens are child abusers too…
Well now that’s a horse of a different color…
The real question Bolick and Bush aren’t addressing is what to do about Importing Poverty…
Agreed 100%, Juandos. According to the Center for Immmigration Studies, around 60% of illegal immigrants have less than a high school education, pretty much condemning them to poverty and condemning us to pay a conservative $2.6 trillion in benefits.
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2007/06/amnesty-will-cost-us-taxpayers-at-least-26-trillion
“Juandos. According to the Center for Immmigration Studies, around 60% of illegal immigr
ants have less than a high school education, pretty much condemning them to poverty and condemning us to pay a conservative $2.6 trillion in benefits“…
And the dance never quits paul…
Report: Medicare and Medicaid paid more than $125M for treatment of inmates and illegal immigrants
When you run a business one of the questions you routinely answer is: What kind of customers do I want and how many of them do I want? If you answered that, “As many as I can get of any kind”, then you’re qualified to work in government.
Why is it so difficult to say that we want more immigrants who can immediately start earning a lot of money, and we want fewer of those who add little (or negative value if they drawing welfare)?
Sam,
“Why is it so difficult to say that we want more immigrants who can immediately start earning a lot of money, and we want fewer of those who add little (or negative value if they drawing welfare)?”
The leftists in power have a competing business model that flips the strategy you outline upside down. The GOP passed the STEM act a few months ago. It will die a lonely death sitting on Harry Reid’s desk. Obama would veto it if it managed to land on his desk.
Mr. Pethokoukis comments on the Bush/Bolick column in the WSJ about “immigration reform”. In all the editorials and other discussions about this issue there has been almost no mention of the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act signed into law under President Reagan originally stemming from the Simpson/Mazzoli bill considered in the early 1980′s. As a former Foreign Service Officer, I commented at the time to colleagues and superiors in the Department of State that the “grand bargain” of amnesting millions of individuals who had entered the U. S. illegally in exchange for employer sanctions likely would be unsuccessful due mainly to the resistance to requiring practically everyone in the U. S. to be issued tamper proof ID’s. Now that another estimated 12 million illegals appear to be under consideration for a “path to citizenship” it is no surprise that the Republican Party remains the stupid party. In 1988 George H. W. Bush received approximately 30% of the Hispanic votes – just about the same Romney got last year. Why would anyone believe that newly legalized voters would not simply conform to longstanding Democratic voting patterns instead of somehow dramatically changing the political landscape due to gratitude to Republicans for changing their position. At least in 1986 amnesty was called amnesty.
Heya! I just wished to ask if you have any downside to cyber-terrorist? My own last weblog (hubpages) has been hacked and that i wound up losing weeks of effort as a result of absolutely no files back-up. Are you experiencing any solutions to control cyber-terrorist? San Diego County California Lawyer http://bostonherald.com/blogs/entertainment/disney_days/index.php/2011/01/18/africa-trek-at-animal-kingdom