Mediaboss Marketing

Sign Up for

Our free email newsletters

If one thing was crucial to the election of President Trump, it was the support of anti-immigration hardliners. Indeed, the country has become more draconian on the issue of immigration, and one reason is certainly the cack-handed way the country has been going on about it. And I do mean "the country," and not just the United States government. While Washington has been unable to produce actual immigration policy, a significant and influential minority of the country are dedicated to the view that increasing the number of persons on American soil is a profound humanitarian endeavor that requires disrespect for American laws or the view of a majority of the people. The result has been the worst of both worlds.

The actual immigration policy of the United States has been one of negligence and neglect. Millions of illegal immigrants have been allowed to live here in various stages of limbo, leaving many law-abiding citizens, whatever their views on an ideal immigration policy, with the impression that their leaders either can't or won't enforce one of the basic duties of any functioning government, which is border control and legal policing of who comes and who goes.

The whole debate is fundamentally broken. I support vastly increased immigration levels to the United States. But I certainly don't support doing it through a policy of semi-official neglect that lets millions of people in just because they happen to have been born in countries located in geographical proximity to the United States. America is an experiment, a grand national project to build a functioning liberal republic of the special kind envisioned by its Founders it is a kind of team effort. You recruit people who will do well on that team and bring something special to it.

In this spirit, I'd like to introduce an idea for an immigration reform plan that would increase immigration levels while being economically and culturally productive and, probably, politically sustainable.

The idea revolves around "charter cities," promoted by the development economist Paul Romer. Romer wants to make the poor world richer by creating, essentially, mini-Hong Kongs in the developing world. These would be small enclaves whose governments would be run with first-class institutions by a first-world country say, Norway or New Zealand. The idea here is that corrupt governments are what is holding back the world's poorest countries, and just as Hong Kong's success while under British rule prompted China to modernize and liberalize to imitate it, creating small Hong Kongs in Africa, South Asia, or Latin America would have a similar effect on those regions.

As a firm believer in the virtue of city states and political experimentation more generally, I've long supported the charter cities concept. I don't know if they would have the ripple effect Romer believes they would, but it's worth trying, and even if they don't, they would certainly be valuable experiments in their own right.

What does that have to do with the U.S. immigration debate, you ask?

The U.S. should seek to create U.S.-administered, low-tax, low-regulation charter cities on every continent surely the world's lone superpower can wield any combination of carrots and sticks to get that done and then make it a law that anyone who moves to these sorts of charter cities gets a green card if, after three years, they speak English and have "made good" in some specific way that is both broad and demanding. Perhaps they've earned a selective degree, started a business, founded a church, or written a book.

Here's why the idea is great. There is a debate about what makes a "good" immigrant: perhaps it is IQ, or a degree, or a Judeo-Christian background. But what the previous great waves of immigrants had in common wasn't a particularly high degree of intelligence or culture or skills, or any common culture. It was, for lack of a better term, a "can-do" spirit. Voluntary immigrants are by definition a self-selective group of people who dare and try things, and certainly that "can-do" spirit is the thread running throughout the diverse and strange thing that we call American history and culture. It's certainly obvious to a foreigner like me. Immigration sophisticates call for bringing in foreign math PhDs, and while I'm not opposed to that in principle, it seems to me that what makes America special is not its IQ level but rather a certain kind of spirit. Most of the people who built California through the Gold Rush were not Harvard graduates, but they certainly were the kind of people who would try anything and do anything to accomplish their dream. That's America.

If you can make it there, you can make it into America. This is how to select the people who have the greatest drive to join and contribute to America. You wouldn't take this bargain move to a foreign, strange city for three years for just a green card if you didn't have a strong belief in the American experiment, and you wouldn't succeed in it if you didn't have something to contribute.

This would also be politically sustainable, since by definition anyone who would come to the country would be someone who had demonstrated the qualities for what makes a successful immigrant: belief in American ideals and a capacity to contribute economically and/or culturally to the life of the country.

It's a strange idea, I freely admit. But if there's one thing we can all agree on, it's that the ideas that have been batting around Washington haven't succeeded. I think it's time to consider something far-out . Something that could break us out of our immigration stalemate.

See the article here:
The radical idea that could actually fix America's broken immigration system - The Week Magazine

Aldridge Kevin Aldridge(Photo: Kareem Elgazzar)

Opinion Editor Kevin S. Aldridge can be reached at kaldridge@enquirer.com.Twitter: @Kevaldrid.

How can two rights make a wrong? The answer is easy when you examine Americas broken immigration system.

Look no further than the deportation case of Fairfield resident Maribel Trujillo-Diaz, an undocumented immigrant and mother of four, for proof. There are those who say Trujillo-Diaz broke the law by entering the country illegally 15 years ago, and she should be sent back to her native Mexico. Meanwhile, others argue the United States government shouldnt be tearing families apart. Compassionate alternatives to deportation should have been explored for a woman, who by all accounts, was an asset to her community.

The truth is both sides are right. We are both a nation of laws and of compassion. But without reforming our immigration system and laws, we will continue to come up with the wrong outcome in cases like Trujillo-Diazs no matter what we do.

When politics and faith conflict, politics must yield

Americans have to start putting more pressure on our elected officials to take meaningful action on immigration reform. Build that wall is a great campaign catchphrase, but it wont stop those thirsting for a better life or fleeing Mexican drug cartels from finding more creative ways across the border. And for fans of mass deportations, good luck rounding up the millions of undocumented immigrants already entrenched in neighborhoods throughout the U.S.

What we need in America today is immigration reform that embraces the reality of the conditions on the ground. Reform that starts with addressing the way things are, not how we wish they were. Some have argued there can be no true reform until current immigration laws are obeyed first. But that stance only doom us to spin on this merry-go-round of dysfunction in perpetuity.

Nothing unfair, unjust or immoral about Trujillo Diaz deportation

America needs a reset.

That reset has to begin with the acknowledgment that everyone wont be happy or satisfied with the end result. Some might even feel cheated. But the reality is theres no good way out of this mess that doesnt harm someone in some way.

The first step should be to bring undocumented immigrants out of the shadows by offering amnesty (not citizenship) to anyone who registers with ICE by a government-specified deadline. These immigrants would not be deported so long as they were employed and had no criminal record. ICE could assign them IDs, immigrant registration numbers and work VISAs, all of which would need to be renewed yearly.

These undocumented immigrants would pay a fee (similar to a drivers license) to cover the material and administrative costs. And they would have to report to ICE officials at least once or twice a year and stay employed to maintain their amnesty status. Failure to do so would result in deportation.

This would allow the federal government to keep better tabs on who is in the country, weed out criminals and potentially collect millions in tax dollars from these workers. This new system could also create hundreds of new government jobs paid for through the fees collected annually from these immigrants.

A path to citizenship could even be established for those who work consistently and stay out of trouble. Some might argue this would be unfair to immigrants who try to enter the U.S. legally. To those people, I would say it is no more unfair than what is already happening.

Letters: Trujillo-Diaz is an asset, not a danger to US

To offset those feelings, our government needs to speed up the process for those waiting patiently to enter the U.S. Theres no reason why an immigrant should have to wait a decade or more to enter our country.

Immigrants add to the fabric of our communities. They work hard and are more likely to start businesses, therefore creating rather than taking American jobs.

We can all agree, no one wants the bad hombres in our country. Trujillo-Diaz was not a bad hombre. But flawed U.S. immigration policy does not make a distinction between a bad hombre and a mother who is part of a beloved community.

Thats a shame, and the loss is ours.

Take the news with you. Download the Cincinnati.com app on both theApple App StoreandGoogle Play.

Read or Share this story: http://cin.ci/2oeK1Pv

More:
America needs a reset on its immigration policy - Cincinnati.com

Supporters and opponents of increased immigration have something in common: President Trump is making them nervous.

Pro-immigration reform advocates who want to see a pathway to legal status for undocumented workers say they are horrified by the White House's policies.

They argue that Trump is taking a more aggressive approach to deportation that risks breaking up families and that is raising fears within immigrant communities.

Critics of increased immigration who cheered Trump during last year's campaign, on the other hand, are nervous that Trump is failing to keep his promises.

Breitbart, the far-right news site once led by White House chief strategist Stephen Bannon, called Hassett pro-immigration, pro-outsourcing, and said his confirmation will be a win for the corporatist, business-first faction in Trumps White House.

Other appointments made by Trump have left the other side of the immigration debate fuming.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement hired Jon Feere of the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) as an adviser to Acting Director Thomas D. Homan, and Customs and Border Protection hired JulieKirchner of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) as an adviser to Acting Commissioner Kevin McAleenan.

CIS and FAIR are advocacy groups for reduced immigration.

Instead of offering workable solutions to our nations outdated immigration system President Trump, Attorney General Sessions and their anti-immigrant advisors, Jon Feere and Julie Kirchner, only offer blunt force, Rep. Michelle Lujan Grisham (D-N.M.), head of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, said in a statement criticizing the hires.

Anti-immigration groups say that despite some reservations, Trump has generally been a step in the right direction particularly from the policies of President Obama.

Ira Mehlman, a spokesman for FAIR, said Trump and Attorney General Jeff SessionsJeff SessionsWhy black and Latino communities must join forces in resisting Trump Sweeping change at DOJ under Sessions Ari Fleischer: Press biased, 'particularly on social issues' MORE have sent a clear indication that they're serious about enforcing immigration laws.

Mehlman also downplayed the importance of Hassletts appointment.

He's got a lot of other people who have advisory positions, cabinet positions, who believe illegal immigration or mass immigration is harmful to a lot of people in this country, he said. I'm not sure that having one person in there with a dissenting opinion is going to change things all that much.

But there is frustration on the right because of the lack of success Trump has had in changing U.S. immigration laws.

We would like to see certainly more in terms of legislation. Most of what has been done to this point is through some form of executive action, but that can only go so far and won't outlast the administration, Mehlman said.

Roy Beck, president of NumbersUSA, an organization that promotes reduced immigration levels, said he has some real praise for Trump's immigration policy. But Beck said focus on the wall has detracted from E-Verify, an existing program that requires employers to check new hires against a federal database to determine whether they can legally work in the United States.

The administration is not putting out any signals that I can see about E-Verify. And the indications are that the majority of new illegal immigrants in this country are visa overstayers, so it has nothing to do with the border, Beck said.

E-Verify is currently only mandatory for bigger companies and government agencies, but proponents of making the program mandatory for every hire say it could take away the top incentive to come to the country illegally.

On the campaign trail, Trump promised to do away with the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, which gives undocumented immigrants who were brought to the country as children a work permit and temporary protection from deportation.

Trump has somewhat softened his stance on the Obama-era program since the election, allowing it to remain on the books.

Pro-immigrant groups say Trump continues to target immigrant communities.

They say that DACA could be wiped out any day, and that the personal information given to the government by applicants to the program could be used to find and deport them.

Brent Wilkes, CEO of the League of United Latin American Citizens, the country's oldest Hispanic civil rights organization, was unsparing in his criticism of Trump.

He's going out of his way to do what's not in the country's interest but what appeals to white nationalists on immigration, he said.

It seems he's declared open season on immigrants. It's deeply concerning, very troubling and unfortunately doesn't take into account the effect on real people.

Wilkes does express optimism over the fact that DACA has survived, something disappointing to anti-immigration groups. They say they will put pressure on Trump to end the program.

We have gone to our members to tell the administration they're very disappointed on the broken promise on DACA, said Beck.

Mehlman and Beck both said they were being patient with the new administration.

We're still waiting to see how things emerge. He has made reasonable efforts through his use of power as president to move things along, Mehlman said.

Overall, I'd say I'd give the administration a B on immigration, said Beck.

Read this article:
Trump frays nerves on both sides of immigration fight - The Hill

Back in 2013, during the discussions to approve an immigration reform, the Senate proposed to assign the amount of $46 billion to complete 700 hundred miles more and increase that number of agents at the border of Mexico to 40,000. Today, the balance of the miles to be completed remains 1,486. It is obvious here that the money needed to complete the whole wall would be much more than the actual estimates of $12 billion, $21 billion and $30 billion.

It has been estimated that 65 to 70 percent (7.1 to 7.7 million) of the 11 million illegal/undocumented people in the country did not enter illegally, but rather overstayed their visas. Some experts also estimate that the cost to deport all these people would be $6 billion or more, plus the impact to the local economy and the bank industry: about 3 million of them own their homes and, of course, who will keep paying their mortgages (?). Not to mention, the tremendous cost of the private detention centers to keep them until their deportation.

Finally, no 11, 20 or 30 million of the illegal/undocumented people weren't here if they don't have a job. Throughout years and years of problems with the illegal immigration, no government has done enough to stop the illegal hiring of illegal/undocumented people by some of our employers. The Washington Post pointed out during the administration of George W. Bush Jr., that 6 million businesses that employ more than 7 million illegal foreign workers. Yes, they needs the cheap labor in order for them to compete with the rest of the world, but they better do it the legal way and not at the expenses of the American taxpayers.

Jose Gonzalez

Brodheadsville

The rest is here:
Letter:Taxpays should not pay for immigration reform - Pocono Record

SUNNYSIDE - Nearly 150 people turned out Thursday evening to hear from U.S. Rep. Dan Newhouse on issues ranging from immigration to dairy regulations to President Donald Trump's taxes.

It was the second of three semi-public events Newhouse scheduled to hear constituents opinions for the first time since President Donald Trump took office.

The turnout was the largest Newhouse says he's seen at such an event.

Questions from the audience, which was restricted to people who could prove they lived in Newhouse's Fourth Congressional District, covered a variety of topics including Trumps tax returns and how Republican Newhouse has been working across the aisle. But the most contentious issues focused on immigration reform and environmental regulations for dairies.

When asked how he is working for immigration reform, Newhouse pointed to his co-sponsorship of the Bridge Act, which temporarily bars deportation of people brought to the country illegally as children while Congress crafts a new immigration plan.

But that wasnt enough for many at the meeting.

They wanted to know how Newhouse was going to create immigration reform for all the nations undocumented residents.

He didnt have a specific answer.

If I could be a part of a solution for immigration I would feel comfortable coming back to Sunnyside, he said. When Newhouse said he doesn't believe a wall stretching from the Gulf of Mexico to the Pacific Ocean will be built, he got warmer response.

Some were unhappy with Newhouses stance on regulating dairies, specifically his bill that would prevent manure from being regulated under federal solid waste regulations. The measure has farmers hopeful and environmentalists concerned.

Newhouse contends a 2015 federal court ruling that several Yakima Valley dairies violated solid waste regulations for managing manure misinterpreted the regulations contained in the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).

Critics argue that allows dairies to over saturate the ground with manure as fertilizer and causes harmful nitrates to leak into the groundwater.

But Newhouse contends his bill simply clarifies that Congress never meant for dairies to be included in the RCRA and that residents would still have safe drinking water.

Some in the audience criticized Newhouse for using pretty words, but not taking any real action on immigration reform, Trumps acts of war in Syria, internet privacy and a host of other issues.

Newhouse said he'd help write a bill making it mandatory for a president to release his tax returns.

Newhouse is one of only a handful of U.S. Congress members from Washington state to host listening sessions or town halls during this recess.

While many residents were happy to see him in person they still had to show proof of residency to get in to the event.

According to a news release from Newhouses office, that was because of limited seating. The Sunnyside High School Auditorium where the session was took place seats about 700.

Newhouse will host a final listening session from 6 to 7 p.m. in Okanogan County on April 20 before Congress is back in session April 25.

More here:
Immigration reform, dairies two major issues U.S. Rep. Dan Newhouse discussed with residents - Yakima Herald-Republic