Being Thoughtful on Immigration

On Tuesday night, President Trump opened the door to discussion about the disposition of illegal immigrants who have not committed crimes, who have lived productive lives (i.e., have been working) and thus are not a net financial drain to the nation.  We're going to talk about that today.

Let us remember first that there is a border issue, meaning that we need to stop illegal immigration at the source, and if a wall is the best idea, or at least a good and cost-effective one, then that comes first.  Stop the problem from getting worse.

We know that the president has said throughout the campaign that we needed to fix the border first, at the same time start deporting the criminals among those living here, and only then deal with the illegal population.  He did not want to say what detailed approach he would want to take on the working, non-criminal illegals, partly because he had compassion for them, and partly because, well, this:

There is a host of discussion points on this issue, starting with doing it in the first place -- "doing it" means allowing the productive, non-criminal illegals to stay, rather than living under a risk of deportation.  And to that, I say that reality might as well play into it -- we are not going to deport ten million illegal aliens.  You know that, I know that and President Trump certainly knows that.

So my view is that the solution that he would prefer is a path to legality for them.  And he didn't want to campaign on how to implement that, because he would run into some opposition in his own party that he didn't want to face in the campaign -- and because there are a lot of right answers -- and a lot of facets to what would be a reasonable solution.

So let's assume that we're going to develop a path to legal status for currently-illegal immigrants with no record, whom for convenience we will call "good illegals."  What do we have to consider?

Well first, where is the path supposed to lead?  There are really only two places -- citizenship and an indefinite "legal resident" status.  If we are giving them a path that leads to being permanently here, then it might as well be to citizenship.  Not right away, of course, but if people intend to stay, fine, let's work toward citizenship so they can be Americans, not foreigners living here forever.

That plays into the second area, which is "what will be required of the good illegals to reach citizenship."  And this is important -- whatever path is developed, it is the price of being here.  In other words, you prevent your being deported, or subject to deportation, only by following the progress that the law (or executive order) on handling good illegals dictates.

So let's deal with some things that I believe have to be part of, or considered to be part of, such a program to implement:

- Priority -- good illegals are in a separate program from legal immigrants and in no situation are put ahead of those going through the legal process to citizenship.  There's no way to codify that, but it needs to be a policy by executive order.  Those here legally come first in any area of priority.

- Productivity vs. Dependence -- in order to stay, you need to be working, enough of the time to be considered employed and self-dependent.  In a family situation, at least one cohabiting family member must be employed, so as to ensure that the family does not receive Federal or State welfare, because ...

- Welfare is Not Available -- good illegals in the program to citizenship must be a net contributor to the economy.  No one in the program may receive Federal welfare, and it shall be Federal law that any State providing welfare to such illegals shall have their block grants from the Federal Treasury reduced by 1.5 times the amount granted in State welfare to good illegals.  The principle?  Coming to America illegally may never be used to be carried financially by the taxpaying citizenry.

- What Does "Non-Criminal" Mean -- we have to decide what constitutes a crime that ends a person's stay here.  Minor traffic violations, no.  DWI, yes.  I think we all understand the philosophy behind where that seam actually should exist -- we expect illegals "in the program" to behave themselves reasonably.

- School is OK, and So Are Drivers Licenses -- It will be OK to allow the children in a good-illegal family to attend public school.  They will have to declare their status as being "in the program", for registration purposes, but the education will be what everyone else gets.  They may be given drivers licenses like anyone else, but the license will have a prominent notation of being "in the program", so that non-citizenship is plainly evident.  That is important because of the identifying role that drivers licenses play; they can never be used to pretend citizenship.

- Language -- good illegals and their families are required to attend ESL classes or show basic competence in English to maintain their status.  The law/executive order will specify the required learning track, which is no longer needed as soon as a good illegal and each family member passes a basic English competence test.  I don't care what is spoken in the home, but they each need to function in American society, and that requires at least a basic ability in English.  I don't expect them to quote Shakespeare, but I do expect that they can read a stop sign and a menu.

- Classes -- they are going to become citizens, so they need to learn our history at the level we require of our naturalized citizens -- in English.  So they need to become Americans, and they need to learn the language so they can learn about our country.  And -- they have a finite period, e.g., five years, to pass that, which is more than enough time.

- Exemption from Certain Laws -- this is one I really want people to think about.  These people are being given a marvelous opportunity to be free of the specter of deportation, having come forward and signing up for this path-to-legality program.  They will not get it free; they have to learn English, and learn to be Americans, as part of the price for being allowed to stay after violating immigration law by being here.  I think there are possibly some employment laws to which they are not entitled coverage until citizenship is granted.

For example, I think there could be an argument for exempting them from protection under state minimum-wage laws.  That is actually something to discuss rationally.  Minimum-wage laws depress employment, and we are talking about people under a work-or-be-deported status.  The Federal minimum wage is high enough, even at $7.50 or whatever it is, so that if a good illegal shows him or herself to be worth it to the employer, he or she will earn it and more.  We would not want someone subject to deportation as a consequence of extended unemployment, to be forced out of a job because their limited skill is only valued at $7.50 and not the California or Seattle $15 an hour.

I've only sat down at this piece for 45 minutes or so, and I have a good structure to start with.  Surely the brilliant folks in Congress can weigh this sort of thing as a basis for an intelligent, competent and compassionate plan.

President Trump has my Twitter address.

Copyright 2017 by Robert Sutton
Like what you read here?  There's a new post from Bob at www.uberthoughtsUSA.com at 10am Eastern time, every weekday, giving new meaning to "prolific essayist."  Appearance, advertising, sponsorship and interview inquiries cheerfully welcomed at bsutton@alum.mit.edu or on Twitter at @rmosutton.