Better Immigration

I should say that in my view a "better" immigration bill than the one that just died, from my point of view, might also be a "better" one from a restrictionist point of view. No guest workers seems like an obvious point of overlap, and I'd be happy to endorse whatever kind of draconian employer sanctions you like. It also seems to me that on the core amnesty point, what the negotiators came up with was simultaneously unduly cumbersome from a humanitarian point of view while also not in any way appeasing restrictionist concerns. Why not do away with all the pointless hoops the compromise contained, but make the core background check process tougher?

A well-designed amnesty could go hand-in-hand with a well-designed enforcement agenda. By bringing the vast majority of illegals who just want to live and work in peace "out of the shadows" (to use the cliché), you make it dramatically easier to isolate the rest -- people who wouldn't be comfortable presenting themselves at a government office to begin a rigorous background check process -- and get them out of the country.

Comments

If the primary concern is really to keep out criminals and the like, the best way to accomplish it is to present all noncriminals with a simple, legal route to immigration. The supply of services for illegally getting into the country would fall drastically, and there would be far less angst over imposing heavy sanctions on illegal immigrants, as very few noncriminals would be here illegally.

(I'm basically using "criminals" here as shorthand for "people who wouldn't be comfortable presenting themselves at a government office to begin a rigorous background check" - feel free to include whatever things you feel should lead to failure of something like that, I'm sure there's stuff I'm not thinking of.)

Posted by Crag | June 8, 2007 10:41 AM

Matthew,

Where in recent history has the government been interested in enforcing any immigration laws, both with the individual or with business? So, why would anyone believe that making more laws that will not be enforced will make a hill of beans?

I found it interesting that Ezra Klein, on his recent television spot, suggested "snitching" possible lawbreakers to authorities. That is exactly what he banned me from his blog for!
I guess it's OK to snitch on people he doesn't like, but not for those he does.

Posted by Fred Jones | June 8, 2007 10:50 AM

Reporting someone to the authorities for breaking the immigration laws is exactly the same as reporting someone to the FBI for posting a blog comment you didn't like. That's what passes for wingnut logic these days.

Posted by Steve | June 8, 2007 11:10 AM

I think that the compromise that you are suggesting is probably not politically feasible. If anything, it will unite virtually all sides in opposition. Businesses will hate it (no guest workers, employment sanctions) and restrictionists will hate it (amnesty, no border controls, restrictions on employers not nearly enough to overcome those problems). You MIGHT be able to get some support among the pro-immigration groups and the law and order types, though it would be tough to swallow for many of them, but I just don't think that that would be enough to overcome the joint opposition of the business community and the restrictionsists. Especially since IMO the current drive for a bill is due in large measure to the support of the business community.

Which isn't to say that your proposal is BAD; I have some reservations, but overall I'd get behind it.

Posted by LarryM | June 8, 2007 11:21 AM

I like the steamship, but I feel your image selection has the potential to be more FreeDarko, something the policy blogosphere could really use.

Posted by Delicious Pundit | June 8, 2007 12:21 PM

Unless your proposal includes that the newly legalized change their last names to Smith or Jones, promise to only speah English, ever, from now on and undergo skin lightening treatments, I don't see much hope of gaining support from the restrictionists. Especially given that you just eliminated the one Republican block that supports a deal: business.

Posted by AJ | June 8, 2007 12:32 PM

"A well-designed amnesty could go hand-in-hand with a well-designed enforcement agenda."

It could, but we'll need a more rational group of Senators to make it work, instead of Mexicrats* just looking to increase the size of their party and Banana Republicans* just looking for more cheap labor for their business supporters.

Fortunately, there are now some rational, conservative Democrats in the Senate like Webb and Tester who voted against cloture on this latest bill. Now we have to organize primary challenges against cheap labor Senators like Lindsey Graham. It would be ironic if the Dems maintained their majorities in Congress in '08, but Congress still moved to the right, and further away from George Bush's stance on immigration.

*Credit goes to Tommy on isteve.com for these terms.

Posted by Fred | June 8, 2007 12:34 PM

"No guest workers seems like an obvious point of overlap, and I'd be happy to endorse whatever kind of draconian employer sanctions you like."

So you'd like a program that will make _both_ US Citizens _and_ foreigners worse off than they'd be under another plan? That doesn't seem too reasonable to me. You really need to think about this more clearly.

Posted by Matt (not the famous one) | June 8, 2007 12:34 PM

How do employer sanctions hurt US citizens, unfamous Matt?

Posted by AlanC9 | June 8, 2007 12:47 PM

Reporting someone to the authorities for breaking the immigration laws is exactly the same as reporting someone to the FBI for posting a blog comment you didn't like.

Whata maroon!
Whether I liked or disliked the comment was irrelevant. Reporting someone that states that they "have always hated the US" (which is OK) along with the statement that they "would not hesitate to see it turned into a parking lot" (*NOT* OK)was not a choice for me. I guess Steve-0 would also like to string up the kid at the photo counter that reported the Ft Dix six as well. As was the case, you don't know who is a blowhard and who is not.
I wish someone would've reported some comment Timothy McVeigh had said in advance....but then Steve would've had a cow about it, I guess.

Posted by Fred Jones | June 8, 2007 12:49 PM

It all sounds so simple when MattY explains it. Of course, doing all those millions of in-depth background checks might take just a little bit of time, especially with an agency that's already overloaded and won't even have a FraudManagement system in place until 2011.

Let me ask again a question I've asked a few times and MattY still hasn't answered, and this time I'll make it even more specific.

Several non-profit orgs have direct or indirect links to the MexicanGovernment, including major ones you've heard of, such as the ACLU and the SPLC. And, those groups invariably have an agenda that's aligned with that of the MexicanGovernment.

Does MattY see a problem with non-profit orgs having some form of link to a foreign government and then (for one reason or another) pushing that government's agenda inside the U.S.?

Won't legalization give those non-profits even more power? Won't they use that to (for one reason or another) continue to push the agenda of that foreign government?

Does MattY see a problem with that? If so, what does he intend to do about it?

Posted by TLB | June 8, 2007 1:20 PM

Employer sanctions as part of a comprehensive plan that includes a reasonable guest-worker program _doesn't_ hurt US citizens and would not. But, without a guest-worker plan you have one of several options- high levels of illegal immigration pushed even further underground and a draconian enforcement scheme and intrusive methods to unearth them, hurting both immigrants and citizens; large-scale legal immigration of unskilled workers of a sort that will be a near-certain net drain on the economy (since unskilled workers who are granted permanent residence are nearly universally expected to be net fiscal consumers rather than producers, even when you figure in contributions from future citizen children) _and_ perhaps a depression on wages; or, a lack of unskilled labor in segmented sections of the economy leading to lessened growth hurting everyone. Those are your options without a guest-worker program but with employer sanctions. Now, you _could_ see this and then try to craft a reasonable and fair guest-worker program, one that avoided these pitfalls but also was fair to would-be guest workers. It's possible to do this, I think. But the famous Matt (and Mark Kleiman and others) don't want to bother trying to do so or looking at the work of those who have. They also give no indication of having thought about the issue other than nothing that the German experience was bad. But of course we don't have to follow _that_. Matt's a smart guy but he often writes about issues in an authoritative voice that he's clearly not thought much about or studied up on beyond reading the paper and chatting with his friends. That's a time-tested journalistic strategy but not very good for developing policy or finding the truth.

Posted by Matt (not famous) | June 8, 2007 2:04 PM

Reporting someone that states that they "have always hated the US" (which is OK) along with the statement that they "would not hesitate to see it turned into a parking lot" (*NOT* OK)was not a choice for me.

I'd almost have some sympathy if I could believe that someone capable of forming sentances truely believed that bob mcmanus was actually making some sort of terrorist threat, that would make you a complete, drooling idiot, but maybe well intentioned. You didn't, you called the FBI because you are a shit and snitch and decent people should shun you.

Posted by Ed Marshall | June 8, 2007 2:20 PM

Fred, who did you report to the FBI?

Posted by Zagnut | June 8, 2007 2:29 PM

I'm with Zagnut, this is fascinating! What the hell happened, Fred?

Posted by Jake | June 8, 2007 2:56 PM

http://ezraklein.typepad.com/blog/2007/05/unlearning_help.html

here ya go.

Posted by Ed Marshall | June 8, 2007 3:02 PM

Don't forget the PSA. We are told a lot more about Fred there as well. One of the many entertaining parts of that thread:

I've passed on some excerpts from Mr. MacManus' rant to Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs.

You may have alot of company here soon boys.

Posted by: Stu/art Brown/ing

Posted by Cyrus | June 8, 2007 3:29 PM

Yglesias needs to ban Fred Jones too. I am too big a parking lot fan to feel safe here otherwise. Stop the snitching, snitcher.

Posted by joeo | June 8, 2007 3:33 PM

Yes, PSA gave all of the real wack-jobs a chance to disparage and lie after I was unable to post, so they said pretty much what they wanted unchallenged. Little of it, if any, is true.

Stop the snitching, snitcher.

Better still, don't do anything that anyone can snitch on you for.

Posted by Fred Jones | June 8, 2007 4:19 PM

Rather than derailing Matt's thread any further, why not email me if any of you wish to know the truth of this matter. I would be happy to answer any question you may have.

Posted by Fred Jones | June 8, 2007 4:31 PM

Hello! Good Site! Thanks you! jvbjdnhyudev

Posted by dgbhgizbdx | June 18, 2007 2:20 PM