Illegal immigrants, Mexico, immigration reform

“Making Canada and Mexico Responsible:”

“Immigration Reform Under the Democrat Congress and Obama; The Ellis Island of the 21st Century”

Last session, Congress debated, agreed on, then let die immigration reform. This spring, the issue will be resurrected as we look to maximize employment for Americans and reduce costs associated with immigration enforcement.

The ideas considered in the final package included $5,000 payments, repatriation and employer sanctions. Not discussed: the responsibility of the countries of origin. A plan putting responsibility exactly where it belongs, on Mexico, Canada, employers, and the immigrants themselves should be considered.

We can eliminate the incentive to come, increase the incentive to stay, and provide the ability to assimilate for those who enter the United States legally.

Put the Burden on the Sources: Canada and Mexico

First, the burden for stemming the flow of illegal entrants must focus on the sources: Mexico and Canada! We will send each country a specific amount of “designated-use” funds (the controversial $5,000 payments) conditioned on the creation of "Emigration Centers” (ECs). Such centers will then bear the responsibility for verifying identities, performing criminal background checks, certifying health and "readiness" for emigration to the United States. Readiness, by definition, will include some marketable skill and at least a rudimentary ability to communicate, orally and in writing, in English. (That's all we get from most of our public schools anyway; why hold our neighbors to a higher standard?)

Before any payments are made, each country will have to demonstrate interdiction of potential border crossers. For example, for every 100 apprehensions, or every "Coyote," (I know, 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 apprehended on U. S. soil. The U. S. and the neighbors jointly construct and organize the ECs, leaving the operations to the hosts, subject to our oversight. Since Mexican labor and materials cost less than those from the U.S., the construction and operation will be much less expensive than if done with U.S. counterparts!

To the extent we agree to participate in the construction and operation, we provide jobs for Americans, and ensure that facilities and programs meet the standards the U.S. sets for readiness.

Before an emigrant will leave to enter the U.S., transported by us, he must complete the EC program. He'll get a passport-type document for use in the States and an entrance package with a small amount of cash to get him started. They’ll cross 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 catering to travelers to the U. S. Entrepreneurial emigrants will establish hostels, motels and other facilities for their temporary accommodation.

But, that's long term.

The “Stick” Attached to the Carrot: Employer Sanctions

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

It will be an offense for employers to pay an illegal immigrant above the minimum wage. (That's more than they would make if they were at "home" anyway.) It is 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 will be economic only. Fines that increased by factors of 2, 5 or 10, based upon the number of illegals or violations, will be a disincentive to hiring and incentive to verification.

(The economic penalties will help offset the initial costs of those ECs we’ll be funding.)

Civilian and Law Enforcement Audits: “Verification” Raids

A 1,000 man Federal task force under I. C. E. will audit employer files; and enforce the Federal wage/verification laws, and certain local laws, against employers and supervisors, individually. These can be civilians, and do not need any law enforcement training or responsibility. Law enforcement will act on audit results as they are produced. Employers cited for (creatively thinking) "maintaining a common nuisance" or "harboring a fugitive" would be id'd to local authorities for custody and prosecution. Locals 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.

(Imagine how it will look on the 5:00 o'clock news as restaurant, factory, janitorial shop, or farm owners and managers were "ticketed", leaving the workers for I. C. E. or whomever to handle!) Business would howl; hence the need for a Federal face on the auditing and citing authority. The local prosecutors and judiciary could do whatever they wanted to the offenders, even dismiss or “nolle prosse;” 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. On the other hand, now is the time to eliminate the “off the books” illegal employees and to make room for jobless American citizens! Not only that, 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 illegal immigrant and the employer as well, at little real cost to them or the consumer. The huge upside is that for every illegal eliminated from the workforce, a job is created for an American!

End Result: Jobs, Accountability, and Assimilation

By requiring the sources of illegal immigrants to take responsibility, and verifying documentation by employers, we open positions for Americans.
At the same time, we minimize "economic opportunity" encouraging illegal immigration and provide a reasonable way to ensure tolerance and assimilation.

[edit on 28-12-2008 by jdub297]

[edit on 28-12-2008 by jdub297]

Related links:

"Obama Faces Pressure..."
www.boston.com...

DOJ Position:
www.whitehouse.gov...

Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR):
www.fairus.org...

U.S. Immigration Reform.org:
www.usaimmigrationreform.org...

I dont see a problem with this plan, the only probem I believe is that even though an Americian might take the minimun wage job it's going to be nowhere close to what said American wold have to pay to live for instance, in my area a 1 bedroom apt is about 550 to 700 bucks counting around 70 bucks for electric and maybe other utilities that kind of pay won't cut it.

Maybe if they did something about the cost of living in this country as well as the ammount of inflation might make it berable and would be great. I noticed when people started losing their houses due to loss of jobs or making bad judgments and signing for crap they couldnt afford whatever the reason, the people that own or run apartments started jacking up the prices, I find that appaling, yah yah I know their just trying to make money after all this is a capitalistic economy but it still blows, it takes all ones money just to put a roof over your head then there is food which is going up and gas is starting to rise again. I would have no problem working a job that an illegal currently has for minimum wage but the stress from being homeless cause I can't keep a roof over my head or food on my table would undoubtly make me loose it so where does it all stop?

I do feel this may be a good plan in the long run for the aliens that are trying to imigrate here legally may even speed up the process for them, who knows? Sorry for my rant as it appears that it went off topic.

Originally posted by Aleksander
I dont see a problem with this plan, the only probem I believe is that even though an Americian might take the minimun wage job it's going to be nowhere close to what said American wold have to pay to live for instance, in my area a 1 bedroom apt is about 550 to 700 bucks counting around 70 bucks for electric and maybe other utilities that kind of pay won't cut it.

I don't think employers would necessarily have to pay an American the minimum wage; he just can't pay illegals above it. Minimizes the attraction and subjects him to bad light publicity.

Americans would work for the "market" rate, whatever that is. Without cheap illegal labor, employers would have to pay the market rate to fill the spot. (Or so I would hope)

reply to post by jdub297


First of all, let me state that I think illegal immigration reform is a very important issue, and I also think it has been put on the back burner for the past year now.

And while I think you have the right intentions, I have some issues with your proposals.


First of all, I don't quite understand this statement:

Originally posted by jdub297
We can eliminate the incentive to come, increase the incentive to stay, and provide the ability to assimilate for those who enter the United States legally.

This statement seems contradictory. Are you speaking of legal immigrants, illegal immigrants, or both? You didn't mention illegals.

But why would you eliminate the incentive to come and then turn around and increase the incentive to stay, for either group? Doesn't make sense.

Put the Burden on the Sources: Canada and Mexico

First, the burden for stemming the flow of illegal entrants must focus on the sources: Mexico and Canada! We will send each country a specific amount of “designated-use” funds (the controversial $5,000 payments) conditioned on the creation of "Emigration Centers” (ECs). Such centers will then bear the responsibility for verifying identities, performing criminal background checks, certifying health and "readiness" for emigration to the United States. Readiness, by definition, will include some marketable skill and at least a rudimentary ability to communicate, orally and in writing, in English. (That's all we get from most of our public schools anyway; why hold our neighbors to a higher standard?)

Before any payments are made, each country will have to demonstrate interdiction of potential border crossers. For example, for every 100 apprehensions, or every "Coyote," (I know, 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 apprehended on U. S. soil. The U. S. and the neighbors jointly construct and organize the ECs, leaving the operations to the hosts, subject to our oversight. Since Mexican labor and materials cost less than those from the U.S., the construction and operation will be much less expensive than if done with U.S. counterparts!

Several problems with this:

First, this is the job of the US Immigration and Naturalization Services. Why would/should we duplicate our efforts by paying other countries to do this work? They do not have our best interests in mind, and would be strictly motivated by money.

Second, it would do nothing to stem the flow of illegals. Those immigrants who would participate in such a program are doing so the legal way today.

Third, it would benefit the US more to increase efforts on this side of the border by bolstering the INS instead of sending money to other countries. Keep the money in the US.

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

It will be an offense for employers to pay an illegal immigrant above the minimum wage.

It should be an offense to pay illegal immigrants anything. I mean, that's the point, isn't it? To stop illegal immigration?

Your proposal actually condones illegal behavior, i.e., as long as an employer does not pay more than the minimum wage, he is within the law. See what I mean?

There is already a mechanism and a path for those who want to follow our laws and enter the US legally. We should work to keep that in place. And we should also work to keep illegals out of our country.

Another thing we should do it to eliminate the anchor baby laws. It is outdated and misused.

It should be an offense to pay illegal immigrants anything. I mean, that's the point, isn't it? To stop illegal immigration?

I understand that you are speaking of people who snuck over the boarder illegally and have never made attempts to legally join the American populous, but don't forget that when broad brushes are applied to problems such as this that there are innocent people caught in the crossfire.
My husband is an English citizen who has been here since May 2007. We had/have every intention of filling out the proper papers and paying the fees. Then the government jacked the spousal fees up from around $300 to around $1300. There is not even a guarantee that your spouse will be approved and the fees do NOT include having a lawyer which is reccomended. Basically the government are the deciding factor as to whether or not you can be with your loved one. I know the majority of people on this site want minimal governement involvment in our lives. The US Immigration System is the most invasive, stressful organization you will ever deal with. Not to mention immigration is the biggest money making scam for the goverrnment that I have ever seen in my life.
That having been said, if he wasn't working, we would have no hope of ever even thinking of paying the outrageous government fees.
Please recognize that not every immigrant who is here illegally/undocumented/or who has over stayed a Visa/Visa Waiver is here to be a drain on the economy. I'm with you on deporting migrant workers who are only sending money home and plan on leaving eventually.
But the men and women who have children here, plan on being functional members of society and want to start lives here should be allowed to do so barring any serious issues. US Immigration destroyes lives and families.

The government fees for immigration are very prohibitive. If you think you are free look around at how hard it is to immigrate into or out of the United States and think again.
If some of the restrictions were relaxed, wait times (2,3, 4yrs sometimes more to see a loved one) were reasonable and the fees weren't ridiculous more people would be doing this legally. When the fees shot up, and no I have no proof of this, I would be willig to bet that the rates of undocumented immigrants and those who just over stayed Visas went up considerably.

[edit on 29-12-2008 by Ailin]

reply to post by jsobecky


The INS/ICE efforts thus far are hugely ineffective and burdened by layers of bureaucracy.

This is a labor and money issue. Waged are controlled by US DoL, status is controlled by ICE. The civilian "auditors" will enforce wage laws agains t employers and refer them to the approriate Immigration authorities as warranted.

However, Labor violations(i.e., paying illeglas more than minimum) will subject the employer to immediate sanction and local/national publicity. Vacancies arising from or related to these disclosures will become openings for Americans.

The reform package Congress previously considered included a $5,000 to the illegals as they were deported/ given amnesty! That makes no sense. Creating "Emigration Centers" with these funds would be a better use of moneyt Congress has already decided to spend. It would be conditioned on Mexico and Canada verifying interdiction of illegals and smugglers. Part of it would go to Americans who assist in the set-up and operation of the ECs.

The "incentive to stay" refers to an incentive to stay in the home country until qualified for "guest worker" staus thru the EC processes, including work and language skills.

Bottom line is, they're already here and still coming. Employers are flaunting ICE rules and enforcement.

Quick audits of employer records and "per se" violations eliminates the red tape and bureaucracy of current enforcement efforts. Monetary sanctions and bad publicity will accomplish more than all that ICE/INS ever have or ever will.

reply to post by Ailin


I understand your situation and those of others with expired/overstayed visas. The proposal I've suggested is one that would address the ICE/INS inertia by granting a type of "guest worker" staus to those who met basic 'assimilation' requirements: language skills and employability.

The government in general, and Barack Obama in particular, are considering amnesty programs that do nothing to stem the tide of illegal immigration (which overburdens ICE/INS, thus adding to your difficulties).

We should look to the originating countries to bear some of the burdens of policing shared borders and of ensuring that immigrants seeking work in the U.S. meet certain minimum standards. Employers who skirt the rules should be up for monetary and social sanctions.

Good luck in resolving your staus situation. I wish you the best.

reply to post by Ailin



I understand and empathize with your husband's plight. I had no idea of the fees involved. It came as quite the surprise.

Is it possible that your husband's employer would be willing to sponsor some or all of the fees?



reply to post by jdub297

Originally posted by jdub297
The INS/ICE efforts thus far are hugely ineffective and burdened by layers of bureaucracy.

This is a very persuasive reason to fix the problems in that bureaucracy instead of adding another layer to it.

This is a labor and money issue. Waged are controlled by US DoL, status is controlled by ICE. The civilian "auditors" will enforce wage laws against employers and refer them to the approriate Immigration authorities as warranted.

I don't think you meant "enforce", did you? That would not be a good idea, imo.

However, Labor violations(i.e., paying illeglas more than minimum) will subject the employer to immediate sanction and local/national publicity. Vacancies arising from or related to these disclosures will become openings for Americans.

There is no incentive for the employer to pay more than necessary, i.e., less than minimum wage.

You will get great political pushback from groups who will say that you are treating illegals like second-class workers because of the unequal pay.

By paying them anything at all, you are subverting existing immigration laws.

There is no guarantee that the vacancies will be filled by Americans.

The "incentive to stay" refers to an incentive to stay in the home country until qualified for "guest worker" staus thru the EC processes, including work and language skills.

A better idea would be for their own gov'ts to create jobs in their own countries so that they do not become *our* problem to deal with.

Bottom line is, they're already here and still coming. Employers are flaunting ICE rules and enforcement.

And there are reasons that they are coming. The benefits of living in the US. Benefits that they lack at home.

We cannot accommodate every person that wants to live here. It's just a fact of life.

If you want to see some strict immigration laws, look at Australia.

Quick audits of employer records and "per se" violations eliminates the red tape and bureaucracy of current enforcement efforts. Monetary sanctions and bad publicity will accomplish more than all that ICE/INS ever have or ever will.

Bad publicity has done, and will do, nothing. Most of these illegals work for small companies and mom and pop shops. Nobody cares about boycotting those companies.

The short-term costs may go up, but that is something that I as a taxpayer am willing to pay for. I am against any illegal immigration.

originally posted by jdub297

Quick audits of employer records and "per se" violations eliminates the red tape and bureaucracy of current enforcement efforts. Monetary sanctions and bad publicity will accomplish more than all that ICE/INS ever have or ever will.

originally posted by jsobecky

Bad publicity has done, and will do, nothing. Most of these illegals work for small companies and mom and pop shops. Nobody cares about boycotting those companies.

Most employers are"mom and pop shops," but many large corporations and their franchisees (e.g.: McDonald's, Chili's, Hormel, Tyson, Walmart) can employ dozens of undocumented workers at a single location.

When local managers are subject to local publicity, it makes a difference. Witness the meat packing operation in Iowa. Dozens of undocumented workers and their families left town, managers were left "holding the bag."

There has to this date been little or no publicity whatsoever. An agency dedicated only to identifying and publicizing violators will be very effective compared to what we see with ICE today: nothing.

There's no need for an additional "bureaucracy," the DoL already has dozens of local offices. These "auditors" would just be the enforcement arm of the verification program. Obama has committed to creating more jobs anyway; might as well have them assist in creating openings for Americans willing to work.

[edit on 1-1-2009 by jdub297]

reply to post by Enigma Cypher
the costs are worth the benefits on both sides of the border.

It will pay for itself in the long run.