Attrition through enforcement works. We have empirical data from Georgia, Oklahoma, and Arizona proving that it does. During the 2006 amnesty debate, the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) commissioned a Zogby poll offering respondents not the false choice between mass deportation or amnesty (a word CIS did not use in the survey), but rather a three-way choice between mass deportation, earned legalization, and attrition — and attrition was preferred two-to-one over legalization.
Here is what we should do to reform our immigration policies:
We need a pro-immigrant, low immigration policy that contains the following elements:
A merit based immigration system that brings in the skills and talents to keep us competitive in the global economy;
Reduced immigration levels based on need and more closely approximating 500,000 immigrants a year recommended by the Jordan Commission;
Elimination of extended chain migration, i.e., family reunification, limiting it to the nuclear family;
Enforcement of existing immigration laws to reduce the current illegal alien population and limit future illegal immigration, i.e., attrition thru enforcement. Enforcement would include: (1) ending the job magnet; (2) increasing coordination at the federal level by eliminating barriers to information sharing among agencies; (3) leveraging state and local enforcement resources; (4) fully implementing the US-VISIT Program to track and deport visa overstays; and (5) make mandatory and improve such programs as E-Verify and 287 [g] authority to assist employers and law enforcement in identifying illegal aliens;
Elimination of birthright citizenship;
Ensure that anyone who enters this nation illegally is not rewarded by being permitted to stay and work here; i.e., no amnesty;
Streamline the processing and adjudication of immigration cases; and
Promote pro-immigrant measures that help newcomers assimilate and embrace the values and principles of our Founders and the Constitution.
These are good ideas. However they are in conflict with those on this thread who are repeatedly screaming “throw them all out”.
Granted, some of these ideas are very hard to implement, like birthright citizenship, which is why the 14th Amendment needs adjustment. But this is only practicable in context of a constitutional convention, which I advocate.
I reject any amnesty that permits in violent criminals, convicts and gang members, as well as others who use the border for nefarious purposes and do not seek citizenship. These need to be clearly distinguished from those that *might* legitimately seek citizenship, under whatever circumstances.
Adjudication of immigration cases is also bizarre right now. It often comes under the non-rules of customs regulations instead of reasoned immigration law. Twilight zone law benefits nobody, there has to be clarity.
As far as the process to achieve citizenship, it is far too reflective of international law, and needs to be more focused on US law. That is, there should be a straightforward process that if performed, will expeditiously allow a quota of foreigners to become US citizens each year. If a person makes the cut, they are in. If they do not, then they apply the next year. No jerking people around for half a lifetime.
Importantly, this should rise to the “reasonableness” standards of US citizens. That is, the process to become a citizen should be able to be easily explained to US citizens, and they should be able to say whether it is reasonable or not. “Does this sound reasonable to you?” is a powerful way of finding out if a law is good or not.