The Right’s response, predictably, is that he should go back to where he came from. Oh, and he’s no different than the 9/11 hijackers.
Sooner or later the conservatives in America will have to deal with the illegal immigration problem. And “deport them” so they can come in legally is not a sufficient answer – not the least because it’s fundamentally dishonest. They can't come back, and it's not only because of of the ten year bar on readmission, but because of the backlog behind that.
One report from 2009 explains:
In 2007, the Bush administration estimated that 3.5 million to 4 million people had been approved for family-based immigrant visas, but had not yet received them as a result of annual statutory limits on visa issuance. In 2009, the DOS Immigration Visa Control and Reporting Division revised those estimates up to 4.9 million, and provided a detailed breakdown of the backlog figures.
The 4.9 million figure includes 2.7 million awaiting consulate processing outside the United States and an estimated 2.2 million (many of them on temporary visas) who are in the Untied States awaiting permanent visas. . . . It is likely that a high percentage of persons who have been approved for visas wait in the United States (often in unauthorized status) with their sponsoring family members until their visa numbers become current.
For numbers slightly more recent, we need look no farther than the Department of State’s monthly Visa Bulletin for June 2011. In many of the family entry categories, for example, the waiting list stretches back over a decade:
- Unmarried Sons and Daughters of U.S. Citizens: waiting list back to May 2004; for applicants from the Philippines (Vargas' native country) it’s February 1996
- Spouses and Children of Permanent Residents: waiting list back to August 2007; for applicants from the Philippines it’s August 2007
- Unmarried Sons and Daughters (21 years of age or older) of Permanent Residents: waiting list back to April 2003; for applicants from the Philippines it’s June 2000
- Married Sons and Daughters of U.S. Citizens: waiting list back to June 2001; for applicants from the Philippines it’s March 1992
- Brothers and Sisters of Adult U.S. Citizens: waiting list back to March 2000; for applicants from the Philippines it’s May 1988
Being here illegally is in many cases a documentation crime. And in the case of children, it’s one committed by their parents. In any other field, such an oppressive licensing scheme would be condemned. Why not here? Is a ten year bar on reapplication, followed by a ten to twenty year wait to much to ask to make up for a lack of documentation?
And I complain about a visit to DMV.
Good article, Nicholas. I don't have any comment on how to deal with the illegal immigration problem, but I think legal immigration has to be made faster and easier. When people say that immigrants should have to "wait their turn in line," I don't think many of them realize that for the overwhelming majority of wanna-be-immigrants, there IS no line. If an immigrant doesn't have (1) a relative in the U.S. who is willing to sponsor him, or (2) a bachelor's degree + a job offer from an employer in the U.S. who is willing to go thru the tedious process of certifying that it cannot find another qualified American to fill the job, he can pretty much forget about obtaining a green card. (And even if the immigrant qualifies under one of these exceptions, the wait and the expense can be immense. I mean, when a husband and wife have to live apart for 1-3 years while one spouse waits to get a green card, you know your immigration system needs to be tweaked. If I remember correctly, the K visa has only partially alleviated this problem.) Practically speaking, the number of immigrants who can qualify for a green card some other way (such as the lottery or asylum) is pretty much nil.
ReplyDeleteMy grandmother was only able to come to the States because she married a U.S. serviceman; my mom was only able to come to the States because of HER mom; and my dad was only allowed to STAY in Arizona (after coming in on a F visa) because he married my mom.
I don't have a good solution to the illegal immigrant problem, and I agree with the conservatives (and my parents) that amnesty encourages future wanna-be-immigrants to break the law and, in a sense, "rewards" those who have already done so. However, (1) increasing and streamlining legal immigration will do much to decrease future illegal immigration, and (2) I don't understand why so many conservatives treat illegal immigration (which technically isn't even a crime but a civil offense, if I understand correctly) as being more akin to a malum in se crime (such as murder or kidnapping) rather than some other civil infraction (like violating some licensing statute).
Oh yes, and one final thought (from Peter L, who I believe you worked with) concerning the argument that we can't afford more legal immigration because immigrants would take away "American jobs": Our jobs don't belong to workers before they get the job. If that were the case, I would like to think the next U.S. Supreme Court vacancy belongs to me. Our jobs are "American jobs" only in the sense of them belonging to our employers.
Anyways, just my two cents. Thanks for posting this, Nicholas.
Foreign visitors and immigrants must be in the country legally. They must have the means to sustain themselves economically before they arrive. They must not be a burden on society (i.e., they must not get on welfare. They must have their own health insurance that is up to date before they arrive so that they will not use health services as a freebie). They must have no criminal record and be of good character. They must be contributors to the general commonwealth of the nation. Immigration authorities must have a complete and accurate record of each foreign visitor. Foreign visitors may not violate their visa status, upon penalty of immediate deportation. Foreign visitors are banned from interfering in the country’s internal politics (i.e., no marches, protests, organizations attempting to coerce or lobby politicians). Foreign visitors who enter under false pretenses are imprisoned or deported. Foreign visitors violating the terms of their entry are imprisoned or deported. Those who aid in illegal immigration in any way will be sent to prison
ReplyDelete"I don't understand why so many conservatives treat illegal immigration (which technically isn't even a crime but a civil offense, if I understand correctly) as being more akin to a malum in se crime (such as murder or kidnapping) rather than some other civil infraction (like violating some licensing statute)."
ReplyDeleteIf legally accurate, that is extremely helpful. Why have I never heard anyone make this distinction?
Considering Andrew's post (less a "response" than a reflection of my own internal mental processes)...
ReplyDeleteAm I required to have health insurance before I'm allowed to visit other countries? Certainly I am not particularly happy about recent legislation trying to compel me to have insurance as a resident citizen in this country (even though, at the moment, I do have coverage for catastrophic events).
Perhaps your views on the health insurance system are different than mine. But I balk a little at compelling others to do something that I consider inappropriate when someone tries to compel me to do it....
Romans 13:1-7 ESV
ReplyDeleteLet every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience. For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed.
Elliot, thank you for the thoughtful response. Your malem in se versus malem prohibitum distinction is very helpful—I’ve been trying to place my finger on that for some time, and you just laid it out quite clearly.
ReplyDeleteJonathan, I think the distinction is fair in this regard. It's applying a criminal law theory, but it seems to work.
Andrew. Reread your post. Then look at the date. Enjoy the irony.