A "Grand Bargain" on Immigration?
 

Stepping back from the ledge, I think the Supreme Court's ruling, and the Obama administration's reaction to it, may open up the possibility of a "Grand Bargain" on immigration reform.

Why?

The essence of the Supreme Court's ruling was based on field preemption - the idea that the Federal government has so fully regulated immigration that it has, implicitly or explicitly, excluded the ability of states to regulate in that area (even where there is no direct conflict between Federal and State law).

Which means that Congress can reverse the Supreme Court's ruling with a simple stroke of the pen, by including in a bill provisions allowing States to regulate immigration (in all or only certain regards) and aid in enforcement of Federal law.

And that means that both sides of the aisle now have something significant that they want - and can trade - in the immigration area.

The Democrats - and some Republicans, including superstars like Marco Rubio - want to pass some version of the DREAM Act, giving illegal aliens who meet some criteria for good behavior and contribution to the country a path to citizenship. The Republicans want individual states to have at least some authority to regulate or enforce immigration laws.

Why not tie the two together? Propose a Comprehensive American Immigration Reform and Enforcement Act - call it the CAIRE Act, has a nice ring to it - that:

1. Provides a path to citizenship for young adults meeting good behavior/contribution/current employment or education standards who were brought to the country as children;
2. Provides a path to citizenship for any illegal alien who signs up for two tours of duty in the U.S. armed forces in times of war;
3. Provides a path to permanent residence (but not citizenship) for any other illegal alien who can meet those standards (but not including "currently in school" as a viable alternative; these folks need to show gainful employment), and are in the U.S. as of the date the bill passes;
4. Provides that no illegal alien who enters the United States after the date the bill passes can take advantage of option 3, and prevents Congress from granting any such newly entered illegal aliens any path to permanent residence or citizenship other than enlistment in the armed forces in times of war;
5. Authorizes states to enforce federal immigration law, including allowing states to commence deportation proceedings in their own right (and on their own resources) in the Federal immigration courts, but which the Justice Department could choose to block by issuing specific orders in individual cases (i.e. no blanket orders - each case must be individually stopped, if the executive branch so chooses);
6. Authorizes states to enact criminal penalties of up to 3 years in jail for violation of select federal immigration laws (such as obtaining employment); and
7. Provides that the bill is not severable, so any repeal of or court challenge to any of the bill's provisions would invalidate the entire bill, except that a congressional repeal of the "no other newly entered illegal aliens can have a path to citizenship or permanent residence" would repeal only the first 3 provisions of the bill, but would leave the latter three untouched.

I think that could fly, since it gives both parties pieces of legislation that they desperately want. Now, is it wise?


I think so.



The downside of the bill, from a conservative, law and order point of view, is that it contains a limited amnesty. Illegal aliens who do not contribute to society are still deportable, but if you are already here and have kept your head down and worked hard - or were brought here as a child - you will be able to stay. On the other hand, the bill demagnetizes the US by slamming the doors on Amnesty in the future, as any future amnesty bill would immediately wipe out the DREAM Act aspects of the current bill - so no "if you make it here and want to enlist while we're at war, we'll take you" and no "if you were brought here as a child, you can stay". The political consequences of repealing those provisions would make future calls for amnesty less likely, IMO.


More, the provisions regarding state enforcement would be a huge win for the right. States such as Arizona and Alabama would be able to aggressively address an illegal immigration problem that is disproportionately affecting them, even if the Federal government and other states did not see the urgency or have the willingness to allocate the necessary resources. Border states could directly deter illegal immigration and job competition. That would be painful for the left to accept - but the concessions on the DREAM Act provisions would make it worth it.


Thoughts?

Not to dismiss your efforts, but I have two brief (for me) points:

1. Why would democrats/the left compromise now, after what can only be viewed as a total victory for them on the issue? The SC in effect struck down the entire deal in AZ (with only a VERY temporary stay on the one portion not struck down, until enough folks complain of being racially profiled). Combine with Obama getting away with choosing to simply not enforce (you say "prosecutorial discretion") an entire swatch of the Law.

I see no reason whatsoever for them to give an inch now. They've effectively already won.

2. What portion of your listed plan is actually a compromise or bargain for my side? I see nothing in your listed plan that I would or could support.

Yes, the RINO-Romney types, who are as open-border-friendly and pro-free-trade as G.W. Bush was, will embrace it and chortle with hand-on-chin about it not being Amnesty, not really, sure.

No my friend, the reason some of us are "on the cliff" is because we see how close we to this issue being a total and complete loss for the side of limited, controlled immigration, the rule of law, and any form of real meaningful immigration enforcement. Reform will not correct the problem, anymore than accounting tricks correct fiscal deficientcies. You plan, like most, simply corrects the issue via amnesty (generally) with a few tacked on, never going to actually be enforced, rules after the fact.

Sorry, but no deal. There can be no compromise. Either we live nder the rule of Law, in whcih case the lawbreakers cannot ever recieve benefit for having broken the law, or we live under a system of political expediency and convenience, where the value of citizenship, and the entire status as citizen, is merely up to the whims of the Federal Leviathan and it's Dictatorial headmaster.

You have confused the GOP position here. Republicans want secure borders first and foremost. the parts of Arizona's law that were struck down are already Federal law. The Federal Government has simply refused to enforce it. Once the borders are secure we can deal rationally with the people that are here. If that means adopting Rubio's proposal so be it. That would be a fair trade off for actually securing the border. A robust work permit program would be acceptable as well though at a time of high unemployment I'd rather see those jobs offered to unemployment recipients.

No I havn't.

Republicans SAY they want secure borders, but when in power most recently, did literally nothing of note to create those secure borders, quite the contrary.

Show me, don't tell me. Till then...

If you add real border security (permanent Natl guard troops, etc), I would sign up for this in a nano-second. Which makes me sure that WF bolded point is absolutely correct.

When you're holding a straight flush, why would you chop the pot?

The reason we're hearing differing opinions on what each side wants
is that its not clear (particularly on the R-side) what they want.

I'll give it a shot (mixing in some of my own bias):

The Republicans want lawfulness. They want sensible laws and they want
these laws enforced (meaning those that violate them suffer the prescribed
penalty).

The Democrats want PEOPLE to live productive and happy lives. They
particularly champion those whose law-breaking was not of their own
choice, but (for example) made by their parents. They don't really care
what the law is, but want each case evaluated via "social justice".

Doggin94it, your compromise solution stresses that the republican side
wants "states rights". Even though that is, in general, consistent with
the limited-federal-government vision that most republicans hold (as the
means to preserve our freedom for another generation), the aspect of the
AZ law that appealed MOST DIRECTLY to the R-side was that it proposed to
enforce existing law. R's view the SC decision as upholding the CENTRAL
peice of the original statute, ENFORCE THE LAWS WE HAVE.

The president has taken the action most offensive to the Rside,
"prosecutorial descretion" to change existing law with a wink and a smile.
D's (IMO) view this move as protecting people who deserve protection.

Let me see if I can make a compromise pass on your proposal to make
it more acceptable to the R-side. Here are your provisions:

Here is what an R hears when you make these remarks (not what you
intended, I'll bet but nonetheless)...

The first three provisions are CLEARLY the D-spin on the issue. "Providing
the path" is an after-the-fix provision regarding what to do with past
law-breakers. R's want to start by making law, not making paths.

The fourth provision is a law that says "starting at some future date, we will
begin to enforce our laws". Prior to that we continue to ignore them.

The fifth/sixth provisions encode permanently into law the confrontational
concept that the feds cannot be trusted to enforce law and so we have
to hand this off to those states who are willing. This is the R-bandaid, not a real fix.

Let's take another cut at the problem:

1. Invest (D-word!) resources sufficient to limit illegal entry to some small
   fraction (20% or less) of the (to-be-revised) legal entry figure.
2. Define a legal entry path to the US that is simpler to apply for and
   targeted at a legal entry rate (yes, we let you in) that is REALISTIC. In
   analogy to speed limits, 5 mph speed limits are guarantees to lawlessness.
   while 65 mph are partly enforcible (NOTHING is ever perfectly enforcible).
3. Define a "path to citizenship" for those from the prior list who meet
   a series of provisions (provisions up for debate). Limit this rate to a
   realistic amount.
4. Provide a time period for which foreigners already within the US territory
   can apply for legal entry.
5. Provide a priority list for acceptance that reflects compassion.

In the R-order, providing for people is (sorry) last among the provisions.
To me this hits all the right points, leading with an enforced border that
is sold through the principle of what is and is not enforcible.

Compromise (the in-between) is what happens after each proposal is on the
table.

Doggin94it and Greengeek for congress!
(Sh1t, the primary was yesterday :eek:).

But you know that's not realistic. You even say so yourself. Sometimes you have to choose bad over terrible, no?

No.

When you support bad vs. terrible, you get what you support.

Bad.

Not good enough.

I believe in standing by ones ideals, so-called pragmatism be damned.

Which is why I am still unsure as to my own vote come Nov. Romney, frankly, has not earned it in any way, and is, IMO, bad in many ways. His being marginally better, in theory, than Obama, is simply not good enough for me, although it clearly is for many (R) voters.

I refuse to accept the premise that enforcement of the Law is "impossible". In fact, I'd say it's more than possible, and affordable, if the political will existed to do so.

Sadly, it that political will thats lacking. Not our abillity to enforce the Law.

There is no such thing as compromise when it comes to the security of this country. Immigration is just a political tool used by each side. The country be damned!

I've really enjoyed your entry into the poli forum... Great contributor thus far...

I understand. I just wish it were possible (here in 2012).

+1

What is a secure border, how do we secure our borders and what is the cost in both dollars and civil rights to US citizens and those on our soil legally who aren't US citizens?

Why would a political party that can tip elections through more illegal entrants want to secure the border?

Why would a political party who wants to drive down the cost of labor and break Unions want to secure the border?

It seems to me both parties have a strong interest in maintaining a leaky border and pandering to their base.

Our border is too large and open to be "secured".

"Securing the Border" is Republicanspeak for "we really really care, trust us".

Enforcement of illegal immigration laws, and addign new common sense policy to bar illegals from services, benefits and employment is how to "fix" illegall immigration.

No jobs. No social services. No places to live. Emergent life-saving medical care only. Problem solved, cheaply at that.

They obviously wouldn't. As events already show.

They obviously wouldn't. As events already show.

Agreed.

The liberal/crypto-liberal propaganda/meme that (R) is pushing for illegals for business reasons as patently and laughably false- only one party is pushing for illegals and that is (D) and primarily for votes.

Illegals' unskilled, half-assed labor output is far outstripped by the leeching of public services so the economic engine they power needs better fuel. Do you think these indentured servants would stay and could support a family just for $9 / hr off the books? Break out your calculator and do the math.

The firms that use illegals if not (D) aligned corporations (e,.g Tyson)
are small businesses largely of teh same ethnicity (and not just Hispanic) and almost unilaterally (D) voters.

(D) aligned unions are even bolstering their ranks with illegals.

Any concept of immigration legislation is geeky and dogsh!t without a penalty - there is no teeth in that POS up above ^^^ - $10K minimum per person for every year in the country illegally, get to the back of the legal immigration line,limits and taxes on remittances (just like other countries do), no anchor bastard citizenship (the 18th amendment was written to expressly prohibit it, the Wong Kim Ark decision needed to be challenged and limits delineated), no legal entry permitted for criminals, etc.

There is no "cost" to anyone's civil rights except current American citizens who are now burdened with immense costs. Illegals don't have any rights except to hit the road.

The borders could be secured using the national guard. Spread 20,000 soldiers around the border states. The program should be permanent. We have 50K troops in Germany. Bring some of them back if necessary. Send them to the more remote regions where the smugglers operate. Minimal cost because we use active duty military. Have them coordinate with local border patrol offices. We have drugs and people being smuggled through the southern border virtually unimpeded at the moment. Mexican gangs are literally warring with each other over the spoils.

Once the border is secure we could put a package together to deal with the more sympathetic illegals. People with no criminal histories, military service or advanced degrees could be allowed to stay after going through a rigorous application process. They shouldn't be given citizenship however, just a residency card. They should not have access to wellfare, food stamps, social security, medicare or any of the social safety net program.

Never going to happen. We are not going to militarize our border with Mexico.

Why not?

Because we have become a nad-less country (at least at the fed govt level) and don't want to miss off our great trading partner and neighbor Cartelexico.

Probably because it's a really bad idea, that isn't cost or manpower efficent or effective, needlessly involves millitarization of home territory when other better options exist, needlessly places a potentially violent confrontation situation in the mix (where peopel will be killed wrongly), and at the end of teh day still would not be effective givent he size and scope of the U.S.-Mexico, U.S.-Canada and U.S.-Maritime Borderns and Ports on Entry.

Far more efficient and effective to siply make basic steps to ensure illegals cannot work here. Cannot rent or buy property here. Cannot recieve social benefits or welfare of any kind here. Can not birth anchor babies here if not here themselves legally. And can only get lifesaving medical care here, followed by removal.

And not a single soldier is required to do that. Only sane, solid, basic processes of verification at employment, rental/homebuying processes, etc.

If Obama is elected, this immigration "problem" will be solved b.c in four more years nobody will want to come here. It is already happening now.