{"id":7304,"date":"2017-09-07T11:22:17","date_gmt":"2017-09-07T17:22:17","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/admin.patheos.com\/blogs\/janetheactuary\/?p=7304"},"modified":"2017-09-07T12:38:58","modified_gmt":"2017-09-07T18:38:58","slug":"cant-solve-illegal-immigration-plus-reader-poll","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/janetheactuary\/2017\/09\/cant-solve-illegal-immigration-plus-reader-poll.html","title":{"rendered":"Why we can’t solve illegal immigration; plus, a reader poll"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<\/head>

\"800px-US-border-notice\"<\/p>\n

Why can\u2019t we solve the issue of illegal immigration?<\/p>\n

First, genuine policy disagreements.<\/p>\n

There are real policy disputes about the level of legal immigration, and the type of immigration we should have. \u00a0Silicon Valley wants high levels of all kinds of immigration \u2014 skilled workers to fill their offices cheaply during the day, and unskilled workers to clean them cheaply at night. \u00a0Hispanic activists want high levels of unskilled immigration to bring in family, neighbors, and compatriots, and to increase their political power. \u00a0Some employers are perfectly happy with illegal immigration, as long as they can hire them with false IDs, and know that they\u2019ll accept poorer working conditions than Americans or legal immigrants would. \u00a0Some people imagine themselves to be humanitarian because, if someone\u2019s going to\u00a0go through all the effort to come illegally, then they clearly by definition have a good reason to have done so, and shouldn\u2019t be sent back. \u00a0Some are genuinely convinced that immigrants are a better class of people than Americans (harder workers, try harder in school, etc.). \u00a0And then there are the libertarians, who reject enforcement measures on the principle of unwarranted government intrusion, because it\u2019s a violation of our rights to have to prove our identity, or something.<\/p>\n

In contrast, of course, are those who object to high levels of immigration for multiple reasons \u2014 its impact on the American labor market, the cost of welfare service provision for low-wage workers, the risk to American unity of large numbers of unassimilated immigrants with different cultural values, and, yes, the transformation of the American population, in terms of its ethnic origin mix, the skin color of its people, and their tribal identity.<\/p>\n

All of which mean that a compromise of \u201camnesty in exchange for future\u00a0enforcement\u201d has an array of people who object to enforcement, and who want to add increases in new immigrants to the bargain\u00a0\u2014 e.g., the 2006 proposal with its \u201cBlue Card\u201d concept of allowing in as many workers as employers wanted to hire, or the 2013 plan to give immediate legalization to illegal immigrants while claiming that they were not \u201ccutting in line\u201d by also clearing the whole green card backlog with massive numbers of new immigration slots \u2014 as well as those who, on the other hand, really want the amnesty to be as narrowly-tailored as possible.<\/p>\n

Still, it\u2019s in the nature of politics that one must compromise, right?<\/p>\n

But there\u2019s a larger issue: \u00a0lack of trust, on both sides.<\/p>\n

Those who object, in general, to open immigration and amnesties, but are willing to accept it in limited circumstances, do not trust the government \u2014 the administration, the bureaucracy, as run by whichever party \u2014 to implement enforcement measures in the context of a law which provides for immediate legalization. \u00a0\u201cFirst, show us that we can trust you to enforce the law,\u201d they say \u2014 and quite reasonably so. \u00a0How can you expect governmental bodies which have repeatedly rejected immigration enforcement to begin doing so?<\/p>\n

Those who support amnesty, on the other hand, say, \u201chow can we accept enforcement measures before we have amnesty? \u00a0Otherwise, you\u2019ll be deporting the very people you claim you\u2019re willing to grant amnesty to.\u201d \u00a0And they, in turn, reject assurances of \u201ctrust us, in the meantime, we\u2019ll only deport those who don\u2019t deserve to stay\u201d or \u201cE-Verify implementation won\u2019t affect your guys, because they can just stay with their current employer.\u201d<\/p>\n

This is the problem that\u2019s much harder to fix.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s one thing to go to your constituents and say, \u201clook, we bargained hard, and got the best deal we could. \u00a0Sure, we had to accept amnesty\/enforcement, but that\u2019s a small price to pay for the benefit of enforcement\/amnesty.\u201d \u00a0It\u2019s quite another to make a bargain, and fear that it\u2019ll\u00a0blow up in your face as the other side fails to keep their side of the agreement.<\/p>\n

Now, for the poll.<\/p>\n

And, no, this isn\u2019t really a poll, in which you click on a response and then view results. \u00a0I\u2019m not sure how to set that up in WordPress. \u00a0This is more of a specific question for discussion.<\/p>\n

But there are a lot of potential trades being discussed. \u00a0Among the following, which do you think are (a) realistic and (b) acceptable to you, personally, as compromises to enact an amnesty for those immigrants brought here illegally as minors?<\/p>\n