The Talk Of The Town Is Healthcare. What Happened To Immigration, Mr. President? By Senior Patrick Ryan

I brought my computer in to be re-imaged at Houston Christian School’s tech office last Tuesday when I saw Carson diligently working on an outside presentation while the rest of the school was effectively closed. I had hoped to catch up with him because I had recently been formulating the perimeters of a new public policy and wanted to bounce our ideas off of a strongly, left-leaning person. In essence, the plan sounds very leftist (and you can only imagine the look on Carson’s face at the thought of one of the last vocal neo-conservatives shifting into a conforming member of society). I hate bursting his bubble, but I (and likely many others of the same value system) don’t see immigration policy reformation as a partisan subject because we can all agree that our current system is superfluous. If you don’t then just look at the 20,000,000 plus illegal immigrants that have entered our country thus far. Enough with the back story though. Simply put, Carson asked me to write up the bill proposal that we already have in mind and put it up for discussion here on the professor. I hope you enjoy. And please, be critical to your heart’s desire. Every bit helps.

 Proposition: The basis of my proposition is the institution of a working visa. It is to address many of the problems that currently plague our immigration system; viz. the length of time required to obtain a green card, the high cost of English courses for lower class citizens from other countries, and the prerequisites involved in obtaining a green card. Said visa is to have a cost of no more than 0.05% of a potential immigrant’s annual wages and will allow that migrant to work within the borders of the United States for five years. During that period, said immigrant is to be paid in the same fashion as a regular citizen and they will pay all of the same taxes that other members of our society currently pay. They will be allowed to take citizenship courses during their time within our borders and hopefully can obtain full citizenship before the maturation of the visa comes to pass. 

Voting rights are null and void during the time that they work under the visa and will only take effect two years after full citizenship rights are granted, thus allowing for an initiation period to the American system of politics. The children of immigrants who possess said visa will be allowed to attend both public and private American schools as long as their parents do pay their appropriate taxes to the Internal Revenue Service. Immigrants are to be allowed to visit free clinics and, if possible, buy health insurance that will transfer with them if they achieve the status of a citizen. Felonies committed during the maturity of the visa will result in prompt deportation to the country of origin and misdemeanors will be accompanied by appropriate jail time. Immigrants are not to be allowed to claim social security for nine years after the appropriation of the visa in order that they can pay in some money to the system before they withdraw from it.

Current illegal immigrants within our borders are to be allowed to visit their city courthouse to obtain the visa. Finally, the first revenue generated through taxation and other associated costs to immigrants hoping to obtain the visa will go towards the creation of the South Texas wall in order to discourage further illegal immigration to the United States of America.

 Pros:

  1. From the reports that I have read, the cost of Illegal Immigration to the United States runs anywhere from $30 billion to well into the 300 billions of dollars. In order to stem the tide of losses to the average American taxpayer, it is necessary that something be done that both allows immigrants to escape the poverty that they currently experience, while allowing our government to appropriate the funds necessary to house them here.
  2. Current immigrants who took the time to obtain the United States green card will have less complaint because the people who obtain the visa are still going to be required to obtain a green card to take up permanent residence in the United States.
  3. We will be able to take a small chunk out of the 20% extra that will be deficit spending by the end of FY 2009 (90% of the GDP in deficits is just really scary and needs at least a little boost).  
  4. Migrants will be able to receive their full citizenship while being allowed to work for proper wages here in the United States
  5. Social Security will be protected because the immigrants cannot take out of the system before it is first paid into.

 Cons:

  1. There is the possibility that this could instigate a large northern migration from Mexico into the United States where it could outstrip the number of jobs available (we can barely support our own people), but under those circumstances, the immigrants can always return to their country of origin to find work.
Advertisements

10 thoughts on “The Talk Of The Town Is Healthcare. What Happened To Immigration, Mr. President? By Senior Patrick Ryan

  1. I like this.It is well thought out. Can’t believe we even thought of building a wall in South Texas. Why not build it by Canada? Oh, they are not Mexican. If we invested more in Latin America, large migration here would not be an issue. Why is this an issue?

  2. Interesting proposal. (I see that the wall/fence IS included)

    Would there be a way to regulate how many people can enter the country at a given time? I think to do that you’d have to build a fence at the front end of the system, not the back end. Otherwise it would be like trying to attach a hose to a spigot with the water turned up full blast.

    Assimilation is very important, both culturally and economically. I don’t see how that happens without a secure border and a fair quota system. Helping immigrants become U.S. taxpayers is good plan, and the citizenship courses are crucial.

  3. Matt S, I do not see how one could regulate the number of people; that would be like instituting the one of the quota acts of the 1920s or the exclusion act to limit the number of Chinese coming in. I think absolute assimilation is not doable. I am not a fan of citizenship exams; I suspect if a person wants to be a full member of a society he or she will take the time to figure it out since it is in his/her best economic interest.

  4. I know of this work; the issue of European assimilation is far more complicated than it is here. Both France and Germany are dealing with a large number of Muslim migrants who place their faith above that of the state; interesting enough, if you were to ask American Christians if they should place Jesus above the state of Texas, they would say yes of course; however, that is not true if one is not a Christian. Our issue here not as complex.

  5. You’re largely correct on the Muslim (be they Turkish in the German case or Algerian in the case of the French) issue. However, I am not much a fan of debates on assimilation that draw on gut emotions. The book represents two different approaches to assimilation and gives a good general ground work for thinking about and forming a more solid opinion on this issue.

  6. Here is what I think might be a better book on this topic:
    While Europe Slept: How Radical Islam is Destroying The West from Within by Bruce Bawer

    Very interesting; he essentially agrees with me in that Europe is a time bomb on this topic. He does contend that N. American does not have a big problem; I do disagree with that. When race and religion are factors of differences, there is an issue. But, in his defense, the US history on race and immigrants is far different from that of Europe’s.

  7. Fair enough.

    I’ve read a little of that one. I’m not a big fan of the title. Destroying is a harsh gerund. Islam in the EU is sort of like slavery was for the US in the earliest days. No one wanted to touch it because it would set off a political firestorm. It will, like slavery in the US, eventually have to be more thoroughly addressed than it has been up to this point. Note I am not comparing this issue 100% to slavery in the 18th and early 19th century in America, nor am I comparing it to the issue of race in America today. I’m saying that it is an elephant in the room.

    On destroying as a harsh gerund: destroy has a connotation of being a bad thing. New cultures in Europe don’t necessarily have to destroy it. However, as we can see in French Banlieues and their German equivalents: if new populations of different cultures become part of a lower socio-economic class, tensions are going to abound. This issue could be applied to the US southern border immigration discussion in the sense that if Central Americans largely are stuck in one lower socio-economic class and thereby corresponding areas of cities, social tensions will be an issue. Even if the are just Catholics after all…

  8. The moral thing might be to let everyone in. The practical thing would be to find a smart way to let enough people onto the ferry without sinking the boat. I think the U.S. is currently using a weird formula based on the population of the immigrant’s home country, so obviously it’s not easy finding the sweet spot.

    Can a nation really “sink” under the weight of over-immigration? Another good book to check out is “America Alone” by Mark Steyn. Because of Europe’s flagging birth rates, allowing massive immigration has helped prop up government ponzi…er…entitlement programs. The downside is that what we once knew as “Italian” or “German” culture could one day no longer exist because immigrant breeding outpaced assimilation. A creepy number of European countries have a native birth rate below what is necessary to replace themselves. Last year or so, Russia saw the grim statistics and started paying couples to have kids. They even held youth rallies to encourage procreation.

    Cultural richness is great, and immigrants bring new energy, ideas, and customs for us to enjoy. On the flip side, “a house divided against itself cannot stand.” Borg-style assimilation? Not necessary. Agreeing that English is the language of the country? Seems reasonable. Accepting that burquas are not allowed in school? That’s how we roll.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s