The Supreme Court has recently decided that states are not entirely without power to enforce immigration laws, and this has amnesty advocates terribly worried. What they've been trying to sell, "comprehensive immigration reform," has failed to attract a lot of buyers. The idea that allowing most illegal aliens to stay, pay a fine, learn English, pass a background check, etc. is not amnesty, or more importantly, is an acceptable solution, has clearly been rejected.
Conditions suggest that to sell it, the people hawking it have to modify it. Therefore, after a brainstorming session that included lots of Starbucks beverages, the staff at DerailAmnesty.com cooked up these proposed alterations, that might succeed. Folks on the left, in our humble opinions, will have a better chance of obtaining the mass granting of residency rights for millions of illegal aliens, if they incorporate one or more of the following changes.
By the way, we harbor no delusions that people who want to hand out an amnesty to our undocumented population will utilize any of these suggestions (There's a good reason this piece is entitled "Not On The Menu"). We simply believe that if they did, they'd stand a better chance of obtaining the "pathway to citizenship" they desire.
1. Put a cap on the number of illegal immigrants, currently in the U.S., who will qualify for the proposed legalization. In 1985, the American public was assured there were about 1 million people unlawfully present in the country. But only a year later, 2.7 million people were on their way to being amnestied in. In 2011, we are advised that there are about 11 million of the undocumented inside our borders. Under what is currently proposed, however, there is nothing to prevent 25 to 30 million or more illegals qualifying for the so-called pathway to citizenship.
Putting a ceiling, of 10 or 11 million, on the number who would be legalized would go a long way to allay the fears of skeptical Americans who worry about a repeat of IRCA, and want to avoid being overrun with poorly educated and financially desperate newcomers.
2. Make those illegal aliens who want to be legalized really go "to the back of the line." As a defense of their legalization plan, amnesty advocates like George Bush and Lindsey Graham have argued that illegal aliens must "go to the back of the line," behind other people who have applied to enter lawfully. This suggestion is patently false. As per the terms of what the McCains, Obamas, and Bidens of this world have proposed, illegal aliens would remain here and not become citizens for approximately ten years. Well, that is simply not "the back of the line." Many people who have applied to live in America, with hopes of one day earning citizenship, are in their home countries awaiting entry visas. Outside the U.S. is the real "back of the line."
3. Limit the amnesty to illegal aliens over the age of 40. Younger people have more time to leave the country and attempt to obtain traditional rights to enter, and are far more likely to have children they can scarcely afford, if they stay.
4. Reduce the number of future admissions to the U.S. from countries that have supplied the undocumented immigrants. 70% of illegal aliens currently in the States are believed to be from Mexico. The next largest group hails from El Salvador. Try appeasing skeptics of the legalization proposal with an offset. If 8 million of the beneficiaries of the legalization proposal are Mexicans, reduce the number of Mexicans allowed to enter legally during the next ten years, by 8 million. If 1.5 million are Salvadoreans, reduce that country's allotment of future U.S. entrants by 1.5 million, during the next decade. This could be done for every country, based simply upon the number of illegal aliens we absorb in the amnesty, from each nation.
Note: Were any or all of these changes made to what is now being proposed, the staff at DerailAmnesty.com would still be, to a man, opposed to it. However, we recognize that we are more conservative on this issue than most Americans and, if acted upon, our suggestions for fine tuning might win amnesty advocates enough support to get most of what they want. Fortunately, at least for us, they are unlikely to heed our advice any time soon.