Illegal Aliens: Immigration Regulations in the United States - Term Paper Example

 Amnesty We should not allow blanket amnesty for illegal aliens. Granting them amnesty in effect absolves their illegal actions of residing, working and driving in the United States under false documentation. It rewards large numbers of foreigners who openly break the laws of the U.S. for their deeds by providing them with legal status. Numerous polls indicate that a majority of Americans, including Mexican-Americans, want the government to prevent the tidal wave of illegal aliens cascading over the border. A nation without borders is not a nation and this country has been losing control of the borders for many decades, losing prosperity, security and autonomy along with them. One of the most important issues of the White House and Congress should be securing the borders, but homeland security is all but non-existent. This is a complex problem that is not being solved by the congressmen, who continuously fail to act in the country’s best interests. These congressmen are hoping to gain political ground with tough talking television sound bites but their actions have demonstrated that they are willing to disregard the demands of the majority. Throughout the history of America, people of differing ideologies have generally agreed on immigration controls. Public opinion polls have continually shown an overwhelming opposition to illegal immigration as well as for the concept of amnesty. The most persuasive rationale to be in opposition to this latest bill again does not respect the rule of law. Amnesty for illegal aliens is merely a reward for law-breaking and by whatever name, causes ever escalating future illegal immigration. “No system depending on a strict regard for the rule of law can treat law-breaking so casually” (Erler, 2004). Congress is under tremendous public pressure and is attempting to undertake the most extensive renovation of the country’s immigration laws in four generations. On May 25, 2006, the U.S. Senate version of an immigration bill that focuses on stricter enforcement of the border passed by a 62-36 margin. The House bill, passed last year, is limited to border enforcement and would make all illegal immigrants subject to felony charges. It contains no stipulations for either a new temporary worker program or citizenship (Espo, 2006). The Hagel-Martinez bill now goes to the House for compromise negotiations during the summer session with no assurances of success. The proposed Senate legislation allocates additional funds to better enhance border security, provides for a ‘guest worker’ program and gives an estimated 10 million immigrants amnesty by putting those who are currently in the country illegally on the fast track to citizenship. Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala. is skeptical about the legislation saying, “This bill will not secure our borders” (Kiely, 2006). It has been estimated that the added cost to the federal government will be more than $15 billion per year when the present illegal aliens become citizens and begin collecting welfare benefits. The proposed bill will add greatly to this number because it will encourage a new surge of low skilled workers through its guest worker program. Traditionally, immigrants to the U.S. were less likely than those born in America to collect welfare. This historic arrangement has radically changed over the past three decades. Today, immigrant families are at least 50 percent more likely to receive federal benefits than those born in this country. Additionally, immigrants are more likely to adapt their lives to rely on the welfare system and studies have shown the longer immi­grants stay in the U.S., the more likely they are to be on welfare. To further aggravate the situation, when an illegal immigrant becomes a citizen, he can legally bring his parents who also have the right to become citi­zens. The estimated long-term cost of overall federal benefits could exceed $50 billion per year for the parents of the 10 million beneficiaries of amnesty. “In the long run, the bill, if enacted, would be the largest expansion of the welfare state in 35 years” (Rector, 2006). Approximately half of current illegal immigrants do not possess a high-school level education. Welfare use among this group and for low-skill immigrants granted amnesty is three times the rate for the U.S. born citizens. Over the past two decades, about 10 million people who do not possess a high-school diploma have entered the country and predictably end up on welfare. The federal government already manages the redistribution of a substantial proportion of its citizen’s income. In 2004, for example, more than $500 billion was transferred to the low income segment of the population from taxes levied from the top 25 percent. Legalized mass immigration will cause an imbalance in the proportion of uneducated people as an increasingly higher percentage of the population will earn lower wages and pay little, if any, federal taxes. “The overall costs such individuals will add to government programs throughout their lifetime (including welfare, social security, Medicare, education for children, transportation, and law enforcement) will greatly exceed taxes paid” (Rector, 2006).  Immigration to this country should provide a benefit, not be a burden to society. The U.S. could consider adopting similar immigration regulations as in the U.K. where a person cannot immigrate without first securing employment. The British employer must obtain permission from the government upon submitting evidence that the position cannot be filled by a resident. Non-residents cannot apply for state benefits of any type. Legislators should consider the net effect on society and encourage the immigration of high-skilled and well educated people who will contribute to the economic health of the nation rather than low or no-skilled workers who are a heavy economic burden. The Hagel/Martinez bill will, in effect, initiate massive shortages of federal revenues, lower the average American’s income and bring the U.S. closer to third world status by its allowance of blanket amnesty to millions (Rector, 2006). While on a recent visit to Arizona, President Bush tried to explain his position on the subject. “Nobody should be given an automatic citizenship. That’s called amnesty.” That, to say the least, is a creative definition. Illegal aliens broke the law when they crossed the border by not trying to become citizens first. If they are allowed to stay, as the president’s plan advocates, they are being pardoned of their initial crime of entering the country illegally. That, by anyone’s definition, is amnesty. Bush has to attempt a redefinition of the word amnesty because he realizes the majority of the country opposes it. The White House ‘spin’ is that the president’s plan is not an amnesty because illegal immigrants will confront penalties and ‘benchmarks.’ White House Press Secretary Tony Snow explained illegal aliens allowed to stay under the president’s plan will pay fines and back-taxes, avoid criminal activities and maintain continuous employment. They must remain current with payments of current and future taxes and carry a tamper-proof identification. “And when all of that is done, you get to go to the back of the line, and you wait, what, 11 years or more for a chance to become a citizen, at the end of which you have to have a command of English, as well, to be able to become a citizen,” Snow said. “Now, with all those benchmarks, it is hard to square that with the idea of amnesty” (Hayworth, 2006). Snow is correct; it is hard to ‘square’ with the idea of amnesty because those items have little in common with amnesty. Illegal aliens will have to pay taxes, just like everyone else under the president’s plan, but would have the option to pay back taxes for just three of the last five years. Not only are they offered amnesty but are given preferential treatment. American citizens paid all five years. Illegal immigrants will have to obey the law. This ‘benchmark’ applies to us all. They must also obtain a federal ID card; again, anyone with a Social Security card has also passed this ‘benchmark.’ They must maintain continued employment. This requirement to full citizenship status forces them to do what they came here to do in the first place, work. Having to learn English ultimately is of greater benefit to the immigrant. It is and has been a requirement in the U.K. How these ‘benchmarks’ explained how a plan allowing those that are presently breaking the law open access to the country is somehow not considered amnesty was a poor attempt to veil the truth in a chronic display of twisted logic. One of the ‘benchmarks’ is punitive in nature. Immigrants must pay a monetary penalty for their crime, $2,000 payable in two installments. Pretty good deal for American citizenship, a person could make that back from the government in a year drawing welfare payments. The President is practically giving away citizenship when compared to the going rate of $100,000 for a green card on the world market (Hayworth, 2006). It is a federal crime to use a counterfeit Social Security card. If caught, legal citizens face five years in jail and a $250,000 fine. The president’s plan pardons illegal immigrants for this and all other immigration-related offenses. In addition, the money earned while employed illegally is counted towards their Social Security benefits. While awaiting legal status, they are allowed the same rights and privileges as legal citizens enjoy except the ability to vote and to sit on a jury. Every child born to an illegal resident automatically becomes an American citizen. In a very real way, it’s worth many thousands of dollars to a child of illegal immigrants to be born in the U.S.A. Essentially; President Bush wants to allow masses of poorly educated, welfare dependent people into the American society at bargain basement prices. Not only is he offering a generous amnesty plan, he is rolling out the red carpet to admitted criminals (Hayworth, 2006). This year, President Bush went on a ride with the Border Patrol in an apparent effort to bolster the public’s perception that he intended to seal the borders. Every American, whether conservative or liberal now has no doubt that Mr. Bush was only feigning opposition to illegal aliens streaming across the border. The president pledged to deploy 6,000 National Guard reservists to the border last week but only after negotiating a deal with Mexican President Vicente Fox that these reservists would be “temporary, unarmed and kept away from direct enforcement roles” (Ponte, 2006). The President’s motivations are not based on what’s best for the citizens of the country but rather in pandering to the businesses that profit from cheap Mexican labor and make substantial donations to Republican lawmakers. Furthermore, Republican legislators are afraid of disaffecting a growing political constituency of Hispanic voters. Evidently, the Republican leadership has determined that the Hispanic voting demographic is the most important one to court. They seem confident that their conservative base will vote for them no matter what they do as the only alternative is the distasteful idea of liberals winning a majority in Congress. The same Republican-controlled House of Representatives that offered American drivers $100 to offset high gas prices presented what they described as a ‘tough’ immigration bill that would provide 700 miles of fence along the southern border. The Republican-controlled Senate presented its own version, a ‘comprehensive’ bill that would erect 350 miles of protective fencing on the border – the 2000 mile border. Last week the Senate passed two related amendments that had illegal immigration overtones. Both addressed the concerns of an overwhelming majority of Americans who believe English should be declared the country’s official language. One declared English the ‘National Language of the United States,’ the other declaring English our ‘common and unifying language’ (Ponte, 2006). While some issues surrounding immigration control are varied and complex, adopting English as the official language seemed a simple, straightforward piece of the immigration legislation puzzle. Neither law mandated nor did a lawmaker propose the designation of English as the ‘official’ language which would thereby prohibit the increasing use of Spanish by government entities. Americans were assured that a 1986 reform law would add tougher penalties for the employers of illegal immigrants and that this step would forever resolve the issue of illegal aliens. Around 16 million illegal immigrants have arrived since then. The promised employer penalties, which would have gone a long way to solve the problem, have been, at best, loosely enforced. The Congress has not only failed, again, to solve the immigration dilemma, the latest bill passed by the Senate has served only to give blanket and effortless amnesty. These attempts, feeble as they may be, to stop the avalanche of new illegal aliens will be forgotten immediately following this November’s election, as they were in 1986 (Ponte, 2006). News reports have documented many examples of illegal immigrants who were detained by local police but instead of being deported, were allowed to go free to then commit heinous crimes. One such instance is the 2002 New York gang rape by five illegal aliens of a mother of two. These men had been arrested on several occasions but were never turned over to the immigration agency and deported. The most infamous recent example was the Washington, D.C. area sniper Lee Malvo. The Jamaican-born man was apprehended by local law enforcement near Washington and was identified as an illegal alien prior to these tragic incidents. He should have been deported at that time but was instead released by federal authorities, let free to kill innocent Americans at random. “Three of the September 11, 2001, hijackers, including ringleader Mohammed Atta, had been stopped and ticketed for significant traffic violations, such as driving without a license and speeding at 90 mph” (Schlafly, 2004). Why are illegal aliens allowed and now seemingly encouraged to take advantage of U.S. generosity? There are hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens who are currently under deportation orders of whom tens of thousands that have been involved in criminal activity while in the country. If Congress were to put the country’s interests ahead of its own, it would pass an illegal immigration bill which grants no amnesty. Congress should also pass legislation amending the Immigration and Nationality Act eradicating the idea that children born of illegal aliens are automatically citizens. That privilege should be reserved for children of legal immigrants. Congress should also criminalize illegal entry into the United States which would force government administrators and health workers to report these people to the authorities. Laws should be enacted that bring criminal charges against all those who aid illegal aliens to gain entry into the country and against those employers who hire them. All social benefits, including medical care, education and welfare for illegal immigrants should be eliminated with the only exception being medical treatment given when first contacted before deporting the criminal. If the U.S. can’t secure its own borders, what confidence does this instill in the world’s view when it tries to police other areas of the globe? The U.S. can hardly be seen as credible when helping to solve other countries’ problems when it can’t solve its own immigration dilemma, a problem many other countries don’t seem to struggle with. References Erler, Edward J. (January 22, 2004). “Amnesty for Illegal Aliens.” The Washington Times. Retrieved May 25, 2006 from Espo, David. (May 26, 2006). “Senate Passes Landmark Immigration Bill.” Excite News. Retrieved May 26, 2006 from Hayworth, J.D. (May 25, 2006). “Call it What it is: The President’s Plan is an Illegal Immigrant Amnesty.” National Review Online. Retrieved May 26, 2006 Kiely, Kathy. (May 25, 2006). “Senate Passes Immigration Bill; GOP Advocate of Crackdown Pledges ‘Battle.’” USA Today. Retrieved May 26, 2006 from Ponte, Lowell. (May 23, 2006). “No Amnesty for Illegal Immigrants.” News Max. Retrieved May 25, 2006 from < http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/5/22/195030.shtml> Rector, Robert. (May 25, 2006). “The Wrong Course: The Senate’s Proposed Amnesty Will Cost a Fortune.” National Review Online. Retrieved May 26, 2006 from Schlafly, Phyllis. (May 3, 2004). “No Argument Justifies Amnesty for Illegal Aliens.” Copley News Service. Retrieved May 25, 2006 from Read More