• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Don't Buy The Washington Post's False Choice on Immigration

    The Washington Post editorializes today: “In a handful of Southern and Western states, Republican governors and lawmakers are vowing to replicate Arizona’s harshly nativist law or go even further with bills that would outlaw the presence of undocumented immigrants or require police to screen suspects for immigration status – or both. The assumption underlying such legislation is that the 11 million illegal immigrants in this country, including the 7 million who hold jobs, can and should be deported en masse.”

    This is just plain false. Advocates for stronger immigration law enforcement do not believe that illegal immigrants should be deported en masse. Heritage analyst Jena McNeill explains:

    Solving illegal immigration is more often than not phrased as a choice between amnesty and mass deportation. … Undoubtedly, this is a great line for an op-ed, but not representative of reality. Most Americans want a solution that does neither. They want an immigration system that enforces the law, helps the economy, betters America’s image, and brings new immigrants into the United States, much like their ancestors did not so long ago. This should be the goal of real immigration reform.

    So what should Congress do about our broken immigration system. McNeill writes:

    Securing the border. While substantial work has been done to secure the southern border, there are still significant actions that need to be taken in terms of ensuring that the technologies and infrastructure on the ground can work to assist Border Patrol agents in doing their jobs. Deployment of additional key technologies as well as robust cooperation between U.S. and Mexican law enforcement are vital for gaining control of the border.
    Enforcement of immigration laws. Enforcement of current immigration laws inside the U.S. would discourage illegal immigration and the employment of illegal labor. Recent actions by the Administration, however, have degraded enforcement policies even further—including the Administration’s recent announcement that it would not enforce the law against “non-criminal” illegal aliens. Congress should insist on robust enforcement of immigration laws.
    Emphasize legal immigration. The process by which individuals enter the country legally should be fair, orderly, and efficient—welcoming those who abide by immigration laws and denying entry and advantages to those who violate the law. Reforms in visa services are important for achieving this goal. The U.S. should pilot truly temporary worker programs that allow for a market-driven source of legal labor.

    Posted in Security [slideshow_deploy]

    12 Responses to Don't Buy The Washington Post's False Choice on Immigration

    1. Jerry Graf, Berlin C says:

      I am the grandson and great-grandson of legal immigrants to the United States. It is not lost on me that this great nation is a diverse nation of immigrants and that continued acceptance of immigration is essential to maintain our heritage and to remain the light of freedom for the world. However, while it is necessary to avoid bigotry and xenophobia, it is also evident that reasonable immigration control by reasonable laws is required given the situation of the world. It is my belief that the immigration laws of the United States can be best reformed by finding the political will to predicate changes on four completely reasonable principles addressing application for entry, disposition of immigration law violators (illegal aliens), granting of publicly funded benefits, and birthright citizenship. By addressing these four areas, US immigration law can take away the incentive for making illegal entry into the United States, and greatly simplify enforcement. Border security, another necessity of immigration reform, can also be enhanced simultaneously, and I will not address that topic here; but enhanced security in combination with addressing the four basic principles of policy reform will have the effect of facilitating other modifications that are necessary to ease restrictions and bureaucracy involved with legal entry, and allowing the more liberal changes to our immigration laws that we are currently debating.

      First, any reasonable immigration reform policy must recognize that application for legal entry into the United States is something that must always be done from outside the United States, or while visiting the United States legally. No person who is in the United States in violation of immigration law (illegal alien) should ever be granted legal status without leaving and then applying for legal re-entry from the outside via the appropriate and legal procedures. Any law that conflicts with this requirement invites illegal entry by rewarding it, and is absolutely unacceptable.

      Second, any person who has violated immigration laws of the United States and who is caught in the United States illegally must be deported and forever barred from re-entry. There can be no exceptions. This does not mean the United States must engage in “round-ups” or “mass deportations”, it just means that illegal aliens must be deported as they are caught.

      Third, any reformed immigration policy must absolutely recognize that no person who is in the United State illegally is entitled to any benefits or services supported by public funds; and that identification and proof of legal status is an absolute requirement for application for any such benefits and services. This does not imply that emergency services and emergency healthcare should be withheld; however, once the emergency situation is resolved, deportation of persons here illegally must follow.

      Fourth and most controversial, the privilege of citizenship can no-longer be granted to children born in the United States when the mother is not authorized to be here legally under the jurisdiction of the United States. These children are here as illegally as the mother and, in my opinion, altering policy and law in this manner does not conflict with or require further amendment to the Constitution for several reasons.

      - The words of the 14th Amendment indicate that birthright citizenship applies to “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”. A person who is here illegally and without the knowledge of the government of the United States, and who is in the very act of defying the laws of the United States, cannot and should not be considered under the jurisdiction of the United States.

      - I have seen nothing in the record of the original congressional debate regarding the 14th Amendment that indicates that the originators were considering illegal aliens at the time of the amendment.

      - Certain Supreme Court decisions that are often cited as supporting the traditional overly-liberal interpretation of the birthright clause actually do not address the situation of children born to illegal aliens in the United States. The frequently cited case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) dealt with the citizenship of a child of non-citizen but legal Chinese immigrants. Another frequently cited case, Plyer v. Doe (1982), dealt with the education of children brought to the US as illegal aliens, but not born here. While the ruling in Plyler v. Doe may be seen to have bearing on the interpretation of the words “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in the 14th Amendment, the decision was a 5-4 split of the Court, with the dissent indicating that the Court was overstepping its bounds and that the matter should have been resolved legislatively; in other words, as a matter of law or policy.

      - It is additionally interesting that, in the Wong Kim Ark decision, the Supreme Court indicated that birthright citizenship of the 14th Amendment would, in fact, be excluded for “members of foreign forces in hostile occupation of United States territory”. While application of the term “hostile occupying force” may seem a bit harsh it is not unreasonable, considering that there are now in excess of 12 million illegal aliens (a number many times the larger than the combined US military forces) occupying the territory of the United States in defiance of our laws; and it is worthy to note that the Court was definitely allowing an exclusion of citizenship for the children of people who are present without permission and against the will of the people of the United States.

      There may be differing opinions on this issue, and legislative and judicial action will be required; but I think that a change of law in this matter should not require a change to the Constitution.

      Once these four principles are accepted, this will facilitate other reforms that are necessary to ease restrictions and bureaucracy involved with legal entry. We will be free to discuss any other reasonable reforms that would facilitate the legal application process. We can discuss and implement laws allowing more legal entries. We can discuss and implement making requirements less stringent. We can discuss and implement streamlining the path to permanent residency and/or citizenship. We can discuss and implement a controlled and legal guest or migratory worker program. We can discuss and implement tougher enforcement and consequences for employers who employ illegal aliens. We can discuss any reasonable reforms, as long as it is recognized that the United States has an absolute right and duty to protect its borders and control entry of any and all persons from other areas of the world. What we can not have is any law which provides any incentive to enter or remain in the United States illegally, or which provides any hope that by entering or remaining here illegally there will be a path to permanent residence or citizenship.

    2. Glenwood Springs, CO says:

      Excuse me? Deportation is not advocated? 7 mil jobs are at stake.

    3. George Fuller, Saras says:

      Politicians always take a simple problem and do their best to make it complex.

      Try mandating all businesses use e-verify so only legal workers are hired.

      Deny welfare benefits unless the applicant has proof of citizenship.

      Wait 5 years…….Immigration problem solved.

    4. Bill, Maryland says:

      I don't see any issue with deporting illegal aliens en masse. There are many who use the legal immigration process and can't take a short-cut just because of their physical proximity to the border. The "open borders" crowd do not respect our sovereignty. Someone who breaks a law and then gets a job, blends in and "contributes" to the community is none-the-less a law breaker. It is unfair to other immigrants to grant them some sort of legal status when they have broken the law.

    5. Diana Brown says:

      Yes, it is true that America welcomes immigrants. The ones that came here and were processed through Ellis Island were truly the backbone of our great country. That is what we need in immigration reform. They need to speak English and take citizen classes. These need to be taught in English only and why could we not establish another place like Ellis Island. Many of our grandparents came here and learned English and worked very hard to bring a good life for them and those who followed. Just because babies from illegals who are born here should not be afforded citizenship and rights because illegal is afterall illegal. Come in the right way or not at all. States are just now protecting the borders and I say that is a good thing because the Federal Government could not care less. They want the hispanics in so they vote for the lousy dems and I am sick of it. Why should they get a pass when the citizens here are suffering because of our hugh unemployment.

    6. G. Lewis, Michigan says:

      And remember that the Arizona law, and others modeled on it _only_ provide for illegal aliens to be turned over to Federal authorities, and then only after the Illegal has come to the attention of local law enforcement officials for other offenses.

    7. Bobbie says:

      do illegal immigrants who are working here illegally get unemployment if or when they're let go????

    8. Richard, New Orleans says:

      Of course "illegal immigrants who are working here illegally get unemployment if or when they’re let go", since it is not PC to ask anyone to prove citizenship when applying for govt bennies.

    9. Carol,AZ says:

      Jerry in Ohio thank you .Your points are excellent.

      What is happening in Ohio on this issue for the rule of law?

      RSVP/Bobby…Yes illegal's working here, and for certain the State of CO, are getting un-employment benefits that is also against Federal Law.

      In CO, the system was purposely and willfully allowed to be over ridden in that State to give illegals U.E. Benefits.

      W. Blowers turned-in the truth and a lawsuit is pending. Perhaps someone in Co , will update the decisions that will be heard there on this issue.

      But the primary issue it the fraud.

      The massive availability of high-jacked SS #'s, without the built-in system of the National use of E-Verify.

      If your state doesn't enforce this softwear search engine where you are, certainly YOU are paying for thousands of non-legals living here and also getting entitlement as well.

      Has the upper 49 States figured out , we are interdicting every countiy with terrorist ties that has the money to get here. Countries of origin are over 135, dif. countries. (ref border blog)

      It's a highly organized business with deep pockets on both sides of the border , in the B$$$ for profits, moving people from all points in the world, to the USA.

      We are doing our job here undermanned, with the drug cartels calling for prices on our Sheriff's Dept heads, and all of you know we buried another Border Agnet murdered last week.

      The safety and concerns of all citizens on border states and certainly the nameless , faceless bodies picked up daily from CA to TX, of those who died from exposure or were murdered , trying to enter here illegally: it has gotten worse on every level and the word is violence, and the unspeakable acts leveled towards the MX citizens who live in the border towns and certainly American ranchers who own thousands of acres of ranch land along the borders of N.MX, AZ, and TX.

      But who's listening to them?

      Who's protecting the American ranchers and their holdings . What would you do there, if someone came-in to your place of business from another country and moved-in?

      IN AZ We SAY NO TO THIS INSANITY.

      ENFORCE THE LAWS WHERE YOU ARE.

      OTHER WISE YOUR JUST PART OF THE PROBLEM and we have barely made a dent in this massive horror story.

      OUR hope, is after swearing -in, getting the help we have been promises here in AZ for so long.

      INSIST THAT YOUR STATE UTLIZE E-VERIFY.

    10. CPF, America says:

      E-verify is the only thing needed. Clean up the illegal employers and the problem solves itself. Anything else is just busy work moving border jumpers around.

      "I don’t see any issue with deporting illegal aliens en masse." – Bill, Maryland

      Cost. Cost cost cost. And it is completely ineffective because the border is so easily breached. No amount of fences, guards, or laser-guided alligators will stop the influx while there are jobs to be had.

    11. Steven Moody, San Di says:

      "Most Americans want a solution that…enforces the law, helps the economy, betters America’s image, and brings new immigrants into the United States, much like their ancestors did not so long ago. This should be the goal of real immigration reform."

      Conn, I think many will find it hard to disagree with this position, but the disagreement is on what helps the economy. Do immigrants create new jobs, such as the 25 percent of business owners who are immigrants? Or do they take jobs, such as the 7 Million illegals immigrants often working in manual labor? And can we afford to deport so many, or provide amnesty?

      Great provocation.

    12. Carol,AZ says:

      The answer to your question Steve in San Diego, is YES we can afford to deport.

      There's NO provocation coming from me.

      The place to start is in rabid liberal CA.If you haven't heard there, CA wrote the book on sanctuary cities.

      I know your pround of where your from and you should be.

      Are you aware there, that your states addiction to spending and higher taxes is forcing business OUT of CA.

      Cruiselines have pulled out from LA to San Diego in your backyard.This loss to you, translates to $54 million just in San Deigo.Not one mention of this from CA's liberal electors.

      The second reason for the decision is the drug violence on the MX Riveria and on your border. The latest act is the carnage in Acapulco on Jan 15;. 28 bodies including 15 decapitated were littering the streets. That was the tipping point..

      .Not the kind of photo op moment for a vacation while having breakfast on your balcony.

      And yes Steven, CA does have a full blown drug war on your border.Seems that the USA only hears about it when, a National News organization talks about it. All those murders in Tiajuna and heads showings up- isn't exactly a great place to want to move to in Southern ,CA..

      Do you think that it has something to do with illegal aliens? please do tell us how, this is helping your economy?

      Lastly , download the recently published budget from L.A. As stated, $500 M .JUST in border baby medical costs.

      Your state is heading over a cliff and you think that some taco stands will generate revenue from your empty coffers.

      Great provaocation!

      re: Why cruiselines are sailing away from CA… By Coach Collins/ 12/26/2011

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.

    ×