Phoenix Law Blog
Immigration Reform: Dealing with Reality
I, among other things, defend those placed in deportation proceedings. Some are detained, some aren't. All cases come with a significant cost to the taxpayer (courts, security, detention, transportation, etc.). Allegedly, there are about 12 million undocumented people in the U.S. We can't afford to deport them all, regardless of how much many Americans would like to see that happen. It would be too expensive. We don't have enough courts, judges and lawyers to handle that workload. We don't have enough jail space. We don't have enough money to transport them all back to their home countries (not all deportees are from Mexico; many are from Europe, Asia, Africa, etc.). Those from Mexico are bussed there from Arizona. Those from Australia and the like? They're flown. Either way, it is very expensive. Moreover, many deportees are dropped off in their countries and then promptly return to the U.S. (sometimes on the same day). So after all of the saber rattling, detention, arrests, legal proceedings and costs, the bottom line is that the deportee is right back where he was before and with an even higher motivation to live on the fringes of society. My problem with those opposed to any compromise on immigration reform, is that they think that enforcement alone will solve the immigration problem. After all, if we "get tough" on the undocumented (I refuse to call them illegal), they will be deterred from violating our immigration laws, right? The answer is an emphatic "no". Clearly we still have a severe immigration problem despite the fact that deportations are up. Their answer might be, "in that case, we need to get more strict". My answer to that is when an undocumented person has no right to stay here in the U.S. (no pathway at all) and little to no due process rights anyway once placed into proceedings, how much more strict can you get? The death penalty? Beyond that, when the choice is let your family starve or violate the immigration laws of a country that hates you anyway, then the risk is one millions are already willing to take. At some point, a sense of reality must set in. We, as a country, have an opportunity to benefit, financially and otherwise, from a labor and intellectual pool already here in the U.S. Let's register them so we know who and where they are. Let's provide them an incentive to step out of the shadows and become open tax paying members of our society by giving them immigration status. Let's not give away the farm though. Let's make them earn it. Make them pass an English proficiency examination. Make them pay whatever taxes they may owe. Make them pay penalty fees. Don't immediately give them residency. Place them on a type of multi-year probationary status where their compliance with the legalization program can be checked (including the requirement that the person remain law-abiding). Amnesty is returning an offender to the place of an innocent person. Amnesty is total forgiveness without any further obligation. This program is not an Amnesty. It is not amnesty when the government makes you earn legalization. This legalization, depending upon the person's performance, can still be denied (and the legalization applicant can be subsequently deported). It is not a forgiveness program. At the same time, tighter border security is necessary. Part of that, is stiffer penalties for employers who employ those who are not authorized to work. Once a legalization program is implemented, those employers who still hire undocumented workers should be treated harshly. Also, however, a guest worker program should be implemented in those areas where there is a demonstrable need. Conceivably, there might still be employment pockets where there simply are not enough workers. If there are, then a streamlined and efficient foreign worker recruitment program should be implemented. There will be people from both sides who disagree with my thoughts on this issue. I just feel that it is a pragmatic approach to a problem which is simply not going to go away without immigration reform. Is this a broad-brush, over simplified analysis? Yes. Is it a start? Yes. Dan Ballecer (@dballecer on Twitter) Last Updated (Friday, 12 June 2009 14:42) |
Current Immigration Law Encourages Illegal Immigration
Why do people come to the U.S. illegally? Probably to find work, one would guess. I doubt they risk life and limb to come here to go visit Disneyland. But why do they stay? First of all, the conditions in the U.S., even in depressed times, are still better than in the countries from which the immigrant hails. However, a little known fact is that U.S. immigration law attaches harsh consequences to those who leave the U.S. after spending a certain amount of time illegally here. By so doing, Immigration Law currently encourages illegal immigration. Specifically, if the immigrant was unlawfully present in the U.S. for 180 days or more, and then he leaves the U.S., then he's banned from re-entry for 3 years. If the immigrant was unlawfully present for 365 days or more, and then leaves, then he's banned from re-entry for 10 years. Yes, you read right. Those bans apply ONLY if the immigrant leaves the U.S.!!! I thought that was supposed to be the point of anti-illegal immigration enforcement (i.e. to remove those illegally present here). Yet, the law actually encourages illegal immigration by discouraging the immigrant from leaving the U.S. This strange law is colloquially called the 3/10 bar. Certainly even those vociferously opposed to immigration reform must be scratching their heads about this. In my practice alone, I have seen numerous examples (probably in the hundreds) of people who would like to return to their home country but who do not specifically because of the 3/10 bar. The reasons they would like to leave the U.S. range from attending a family member's funeral to simply being sick of living here in the shadows. Regardless of the reason of why they would like to return, one has to wonder about the sanity of a law which actually encourages the immigrant to continue to violate his status here in the U.S., rather than just return home. Shouldn't Immigration Law encourage those illegally here to return to their home countries? This is especially true since it would be much quicker and cheaper for the U.S. Government if the immigrant leaves on his own volition, as opposed to being detained and being placed into Court Proceedings. To state the uber-obvious, there is a huge cost associated to detaining and deporting the undocumented. This inane law was passed in 1996. And people wonder why the population of "illegal aliens", as they are perjoratively called by some, has risen during that same time period. They have a better shot of hoping for the ever-elusive immigration reform rather than risk the statutory bars to re-entry. Now really, does current Immigration Law make sense? Dan Ballecer (@dballecer on Twitter) DREAM Act: Action Needed Now
http://progressive.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/article.php?article_id=373 This article not only gives a broad overview of the DREAM Act, it also puts a face onto it through the eyes of a student who could benefit from the Act. Let's bring these students, who are here through no fault of their own, into legitimacy so that our country can benefit from them. Dan Ballecer (@dballecer on Twitter) Last Updated (Friday, 05 June 2009 14:21) |