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.
There is a difference of opinion between constittutional scholars as to whether we need another amendment to the Constitution to get rid of birthright citizenship or not. Congress could pass a law and see if it is constitutional or not. IMO a constitutional amendment would probably be required but there is no harm in Congress passing a law prohibiting it. We don't need a constitutional convention to pass an amendment. FYI: The Irish passed a Constitutional amendment ending birthright citizenship, thne last country in Europe to still reconize jus solis citizenship.
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.
There are an estimated 2 million criminal illegal aliens in the US. But it should also be noted that every illegal alien has violated a number of our laws including illegal entry, identity theft, failure to pay taxes, working illegally, falsification of employment documents, etc. I don't given them a pass just because they have not committed a violent crime. They should be deported or made to self-deport. The Rule of Law and the Constitution form the very foundation of this Republic.
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.
The adjudication has become a lucrative business. Once someone gets into the country, it is very difficult to deport them. Legal proceedings can take years. There are over 500,000 absconders running around this country, i.e., they have gone through all of the legal proceedings, including appeals, and ordered deported voluntarily. They are not leaving. Obama's aunt was one of them and living in taxpayer assisted housing in Boston. She has now won another appeal and is now staying. We need to streamline the process giving judges more authority and reducing the appeal process.
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.
That's not the way it works. We grant 1.2 million people a year permanent residency. No one is being jerked around because they must wait in line for many years, which is mainly a function of the caps on various immigration categories. It may take years for someone's second cousin to get in. In the meantime, they don't have to put there lives on hold. Immigration to the US is a privilege, not a right. There is no way we can take in everyone who wants to come here. In fact, we should be taking in far less. We are importing poverty. 53% of immigrant headed households are on welfare.
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.
The American public does need to be educated about immigration. Immigration, legal and illegal, has had and will continue to have a major and far-reaching impact across a broad spectrum of existential challenges that confront this nation, e.g., national security, the economy/global competitiveness, jobs, health care, taxes, energy independence, education, entitlement reform, law enforcement, social welfare programs, physical infrastructure, the environment, civil liberties, and a continued sense of national identity/shared sense of endeavor. Immigration is the defining issue of our time with enormous implications for the future of this nation and the preservation of our patrimony. Yet, seldom will you hear immigration mentioned by our political and intellectual elites in connection with these challenges.