JG: Your "compromise" has a few problems.
Posted on: January 19, 2019 at 21:05:35 CT
ScottsdaleTiger MU
Posts:
12565
Member For:
25.17 yrs
Level:
User
M.O.B. Votes:
0
I.e.:
1. Trump gives up the wall except in urban areas. I think you'll find that a "wall" currently exists in most "urban" areas (any town with a border crossing) in the Southwest. In my experience, it's typically a concrete wall 10 to 15 feet tall topped by razor wire. Usually there's a second wire mesh fence 10 to 20 feet inside the U.S. behind the wall.
In most of the rural areas, i.e. farms, ranches, desert, wilderness, the current border is perhaps a single or several wire fences, in places in Arizona a single four strand barbed wire fence. And the coyotes go where the walls ain't.
2. Your proposal will require some type of system to identify citizens, resident aliens and visa holders from illegals. That suggests that perhaps you're proposing or willing to accept a high tech high security national identity card. Something far more than the current system. It is relatively easy to obtain U.S. identity cards of one kind or another, i.e. driver's licenses, social security cards, even pass ports.
I do understand the country is going to a state issued card system for citizens for travel security.
There's also the small "California" issue. It issues driver's licenses to illegals.
3. Denying welfare, schooling and health care to illegals would appeal to many folks, but do you seriously think the country will accept a system that denies essentials to people based simply on their citizenship?
There's also the massive private charity system. It gives a very significant amount of assistance to the poor and homeless and it doesn't worry about whether the folks are illegals or not. Are you going to make the charities and their sponsors, i.e. churches responsible for enforcing immigration laws.
You are also essentially shifting the burden of policing the immigration system to the "private" sector. I.e. asking hospitals, etc to police the system imposes what is essentially a governmental function on them. That's a burden and responsibility they didn't sign up for.
3. The current system has substantial penalties for employers of illegals. Increasing them isn't likely to have much impact because I can tell you from personal experience that many businesses that employ illegals are not only aware of the potential penalties, but have taken steps to protect themselves from prosecution, even if they still "employ" illegals. And again, you're going to require the private sector to police immigration, you're going to have to have a much better system for the private sector to determine whether or not someone is an illegal.
4. Asylum standards are pretty lax right now. So loosing them is not a big deal unless you're proposing including economic hardship, i.e. poverty as grounds for getting into the country.
5. More temporary ag workers is becoming increasingly less and less important. Technology is producing machines that are replacing hand labor.
6. And bluntly, your compromise is not realistic because Chuck and Nancy can't deliver it, they can't get the liberal wing of the party to go along with it.
So, back to the drawing board.