Immigration
|
The
biggest political news for the past two weeks has been Arizona's
passage of its bill to allow law enforcement to request documents for
those they reasonably suspect to be illegal. Despite the uproar,
Arizona’s law mirrors federal law. Arizona has an estimated 500,000
illegal immigrants within its borders. Arizona spends an estimated $2
billion on illegal immigrants and their children. Arizona is only
filling the void where the federal government has failed.
The
United States has an estimated 13 million illegal immigrants within its
borders. I do not blame someone for wanting to have a better life. In
fact, I respect someone willing to cross a desert, cross a river,
tunnel underground, float by raft, or smuggle by vehicle. What I blame
is our federal government failing at one of the actual few
constitutional duties it has – securing our borders.
When
someone’s first step in our country is an illegal step, that person
should only be entitled to our criminal system, not public services or
a pass to legal status.
I
believe we need to (1) secure our borders, (2) enforce workplace and
immigration laws, (3) deny welfare, education, and non-emergency public
health care, (4) reject any form of amnesty, but (5) streamline legal
immigration.
We need to secure our borders.
Our borders are porous. The U.S. Border Patrol apprehends over 1
million illegal immigrants each year. Nearly all of these apprehensions
are voluntary departures (escorted to Mexico and turned over to Mexican
authorities). The U.S. Border Patrol has increased from 9,000 in 2001
to 20,000. We should further increase funding for personnel and
technology at our borders to deter illegal entry.
We need to enforce workplace and immigration laws.
Unfortunately for legal Hispanics, there is a stigma that all Hispanics
are illegal. The reason for this stigma is, again, the federal
government is not doing its job. By federal law, any illegal immigrant
apprehended is deportable. Thus, if our state and federal agencies
sought out illegal immigrants and deported those apprehended, our legal
Hispanics would not suffer this prejudice. In addition, as of July
2010, South Carolina will be able audit all South Carolina businesses
as to whether the business is verifying the immigration status of its
employees. The punishment for businesses that employ illegal immigrants
should be severe and should be enforced.
We need to deny welfare, education, and non-emergency public health care.
Our modern welfare state offers perverse incentives for illegal
immigrants. Upwards of $300 billion in costs has been estimated for the
public services provided to illegal immigrants. Of course, illegal
immigrants contribute to the economy through sales taxes and
productivity, but not the amount they would if legal. The federal
government provides funds to each state for incarcerating illegal
immigrants and for treating illegal immigrants at the emergency room.
South Carolina taxpayers pick up the tab on educating illegal
immigrants and children of illegal immigrants. Especially when, next
year, South Carolina faces a budget deficit over $1 billion and our
federal government over $1 trillion, how can we justify these costs?
We need to oppose any form of amnesty.
Amnesty is providing an avenue to legal status for illegal immigrants.
Senators Lindsey Graham and Charles Schumer have proposed immigration
reform that includes a form of amnesty. Their plan includes a pathway
to citizenship for the 13 million illegal immigrants if they perform
community service, pay fines and back taxes, pass a background check,
and learn English. Any form of amnesty is wrong and misguided. This
undermines legal immigration. This undermines the rule of law. At the
S.C. Farm Bureau debate (an agricultural debate in front of primarily
farmers), another candidate in this race, Jeff Duncan, proposed
allowing legal status to illegal immigrants who are working in the
agricultural sector. This is an odd stance considering Mr.Duncan’s many
prior statements opposing “Grahamnesty” (except that the proposal was
in front of farmers). Mr. Duncan likely would support the Immigration
Reform and Control Act of 1986, which gave amnesty to illegal
immigrants who were in the country for four years and working in the
agricultural sector. This provided amnesty to 2.8 million illegal
immigrants. I disagree with any form of amnesty. We are a nation with a
rule of law. Rather than bend the law around special interests, I would
rather us enforce the law or improve our current laws (ie: improve H2A
visa rather than provide amnesty.)
We need to streamline our legal immigration.
The pathway to citizenship is not onerous by law. To become a citizen,
one must reside in the United States for 5 years, have good moral
character, be proficient in English, American history, the
Constitution, and take an oath. However, it is onerous by practice. The
waiting period of two or more years for INS to approve paperwork is
unacceptable. To encourage legal immigration, this process needs to be
streamlined. To alleviate the problems facing the agricultural sector,
we should implement temporary worker programs that help employers get
the employees they need to help grow the economy. One that is in fact
temporary, market-oriented and feasible. Again, we should improve the
H2A visa rather than provide amnesty.
In
short, I admire the Hispanic community. Their sense of family,
community, and hard work ethic must be admired. Legal Hispanics
contribute much to our community and economy. I believe we should
improve our legal immigration process and programs. However, we are a
nation with a rule of law. With illegal immigration, we need to deter,
apprehend, and remove. |
