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)