More on Illegal Immigration
No question has been asked more times in this campaign than the question of illegal immigration, and as I said below, it dominated today's radio program too. Not surprisingly, my position is not a typical one for either major party, and it's gotten various responses, like at Free Republic.
One of the biggest things I've learned in this campaign is the importance of encapsulating a position for new listeners. This is very tough for me on the illegal immigration issue, because my stance is impossible to sum up in sound bites. Most candidates start with saying we should "Secure the border," but I can't help but consider that unresponsive; is there anyone who honestly believes we should have an unsecure border? The question is how do we best make our border secure.
The biggest downside to my position is that because it's so different, it's often misinterpreted. Part of this is my failure to better explain the nuances of my proposal. On the other hand, I'm rather happy with how I framed the issue over at the aforelinked Free Republic page:
First, like I said on the show, any statutory reform would still require visa applicants to go through a criminal background check and a health screening. Immigration law should *always* be concerned with keeping out criminals and the diseased.
Also, I'm not suggesting that we allow for unlimited visas. Like I said on the air, what we need is a more lenient system. A system that allows more people to immigrate legally, and allows them to do it with less bureaucracy.
The benefits to a more lenient system are numerous. Legal, documented immigrants pay taxes, and thus contribute more back to the system they're benefitting from. The government would know a lot more about the individuals coming in to work or live. We could all but eliminate the human rights abuses of illegals. And like I said on the air, a more lenient policy towards innocent immigrants allows us to focus our attention on the not-so-innocent illegals who would still choose to circumvent the system. The combination of that focus with better documentation would have the effect of making our border *more* secure than it is now.
Are there downsides? Sure, every proposal has its downsides. But attempted enforcement of the current laws does nothing to address the actual, underlying problem. As long as people want to come (and they *will* still want to come), merely throwing up more hurdles won't change that. I believe that what I'm advocating does more to get at that core cause.
It's the third and fourth paragraphs I should have utilized more, detailing the benefits of a more lenient system that aren't often considered, and what I believe are the inherent problems in the "Enforce the laws on the books" approach.
One of the biggest things I've learned in this campaign is the importance of encapsulating a position for new listeners. This is very tough for me on the illegal immigration issue, because my stance is impossible to sum up in sound bites. Most candidates start with saying we should "Secure the border," but I can't help but consider that unresponsive; is there anyone who honestly believes we should have an unsecure border? The question is how do we best make our border secure.
The biggest downside to my position is that because it's so different, it's often misinterpreted. Part of this is my failure to better explain the nuances of my proposal. On the other hand, I'm rather happy with how I framed the issue over at the aforelinked Free Republic page:
First, like I said on the show, any statutory reform would still require visa applicants to go through a criminal background check and a health screening. Immigration law should *always* be concerned with keeping out criminals and the diseased.
Also, I'm not suggesting that we allow for unlimited visas. Like I said on the air, what we need is a more lenient system. A system that allows more people to immigrate legally, and allows them to do it with less bureaucracy.
The benefits to a more lenient system are numerous. Legal, documented immigrants pay taxes, and thus contribute more back to the system they're benefitting from. The government would know a lot more about the individuals coming in to work or live. We could all but eliminate the human rights abuses of illegals. And like I said on the air, a more lenient policy towards innocent immigrants allows us to focus our attention on the not-so-innocent illegals who would still choose to circumvent the system. The combination of that focus with better documentation would have the effect of making our border *more* secure than it is now.
Are there downsides? Sure, every proposal has its downsides. But attempted enforcement of the current laws does nothing to address the actual, underlying problem. As long as people want to come (and they *will* still want to come), merely throwing up more hurdles won't change that. I believe that what I'm advocating does more to get at that core cause.
It's the third and fourth paragraphs I should have utilized more, detailing the benefits of a more lenient system that aren't often considered, and what I believe are the inherent problems in the "Enforce the laws on the books" approach.
posted by Loren @ 10:32 PM | Permalink 
