Where do we have consensus?

There is a general consensus that our current immigration system is not working and we need to fix it.  Beyond that, the differences appear to be many, but this committee believes we are closer to consensus than it might appear and immigration reform can be achieved.

There is the basic division between those who support enforcement-only immigration reform, and those who support comprehensive immigration reform.  And then within each of these camps, there are divisions.
Within the enforcement-only camp, there are those who actually believe comprehensive reform is needed, but they do not believe now is the time for it, and then there are those who believe that both the short and long-term solutions to our immigration problems lie only in absolute border security to keep illegal aliens out and absolute enforcement of our current laws by deporting illegal aliens or engaging in dogged employer crackdown measures to encourage self-deportation.

Within the comprehensive reform camp, the divisions lie primarily in specifics and details as to what particulars will make a guest worker program feasible and productive, and what is the best way to handle 12 plus million illegal immigrants already here in the United States, i.e., should they have a path to citizenship, and what is an appropriate penalty?

Can we reach consensus?  Rational minds should be able to come together to address the primary concerns of both groups within the comprehensive reform camp, as well as the first group within the enforcement-only camp.  These groups are all on the same page as to the end goal and even the basic means to that goal.  They simply have not been able to yet reach agreement on specifics.  So long as each group’s primary concerns are addressed, they should be able to come to an agreement.

What about the hard-line enforcement-only camp?  The hard-line enforcement-only camp does not believe any change in current law is needed to make LEGAL immigration more viable and workable; they seem to believe that very much immigration only harms our economy, our security and our culture.  We may still be able to reach consensus if this camp will specifically answer why and how our economy, security and culture will be harmed, and if the other three camps would attempt to address any legitimate concerns in any legislation that is passed.  If, however, these beliefs actually arise out of a bias against immigrants, with no willingness to engage in the discussion, then no consensus will be reached with this group.  But if those unable to compromise in this group appear to be in the minority, Congress should still be able to get a good bill passed.

Some would say that the only consensus between both camps and all groups lies in basic border enforcement – both camps agree on employing technology for a “virtual fence;” both camps agree on increasing border personnel, ports and checkpoints; both camps agree on implementing biometric data systems for entry-exit; both camps agree on improving our ability to detect and prevent document fraud; both camps agree on improving basic communication within our agencies, amongst our agencies and with the neighboring countries that border us.  But the consensus ends there; even on border security, we don’t agree on the extent of a fence or wall that is needed (we only agree that some areas need fences or walls); nor do we agree on the extent to which national guard or other military troops should be used to actively guard the border.  So should we stop there simply because that’s where our initial consensus stops?  No!  We could only stop there if stopping there would fully solve the immigration problem.  AND, FRANKLY, THERE IS CLEAR CONSENSUS AMONG ALL THAT STOPPING WHERE WE HAVE INITIAL, OBVIOUS CONSENSUS WILL NOT FULLY SOLVE THE IMMIGRATION PROBLEM.

We need to be honest, putting politics and personal agendas aside, sticking to the issue of how we can fully solve our immigration quandary without negatively impacting our security, our economy or our values.  And then we have to roll up our sleeves and seek to truly resolve legitimate concerns.  To solve this problem, which we must, if our primary concerns have been addressed, we need to be willing to “compromise,” even if we didn’t get exactly what we wanted.

Where there isn't consensus...

A primary endeavor of this committee is to take a detailed look at specific areas in the current legislation where congress is stalled, and try to peel the issue apart to see what the primary concerns are.  Then we will see if we can tackle those items from a new angle to address those concerns and reach a consensus.  Below are examples (and only examples) of how this can be done (some of these items were addressed in the original Committee’s Final Report and Recommendations)

If one believes we have to get control of the borders before we can pass comprehensive reform; why not, instead of opposing comprehensive reform, find ways to phase-in different aspects of comprehensive reform, i.e., don’t kick in the guest worker program until the necessary infrastructure is in place to make it work . . . but by all means, let’s solve the problem NOW; it doesn’t need to fester for longer!

If one believes that border security must come first, without a guest worker program, out of a concern that a guest worker program will encourage more illegal aliens to flood across the border in hopes of taking part in “amnesty,” why not, instead of flat out opposing any mention of guest worker programs, think of ways that a guest worker program will not encourage such a flood of illegal immigrants to come, i.e., only allow guest workers to apply for the program from outside of the country.

If one believes that we could never require guest workers to apply from outside of the country because it is impractical to require those already here to return home, not to mention that fear and distrust would keep people from “buying in” to the idea, why not, instead of rejecting any “return home” proposals, think of ways in which such a proposal could be practical and could be “bought into” by immigrant communities, i.e., have a pre-application process, such that the time outside of the country would be very minimal for those who qualify and wouldn’t cost any more than fines of the past or hiring a coyote.

If one believes that illegal immigrants will not come out of the shadows without sufficient incentives, i.e., amnesty, why not, instead of opposing anything short of an automatic path to citizenship, think of other incentives that will encourage people to come out of the shadows, i.e., the ability to obtain a renewable work permit, without initial citizenship, provided that they pass a background check, medical check, have a job and pay taxes.

If one believes that guest workers will only drain public resources . . . medical care, schools and prisons, why not, instead of flat out opposing a guest worker program, think of ways to ensure guest workers will have a background check and pay their taxes to cover school and other expenses, and then find ways to ensure they will have basic health care (not publicly funded), i.e., health savings accounts or other innovative means.

We could go on and on.  But most areas where consensus has not been reached, we find that people are willing to compromise if their underlying concern is addressed.  The items below represent some of those concerns:  

  • “We need to know who’s here, who’s coming and why.”
  • “I pay high wages, but can’t find enough workers to hire.” 
  • “Laws need to be ENFORCED.  If a law isn’t working, Congress needs to FIX it.”        
  • “I don’t care if we increase LEGAL immigration - if they pay taxes, and respect American ideals.”   
  • “My business can’t compete with cheap, illegal labor hired under the table.  Employers who violate the law need to be accountable.” 
  • “We need to deal with the 12 million illegal aliens who are already here – we can’t deport them all.  But amnesty isn’t a solution either.”
  • “It’s not fair when those who are trying to do it right are the ones punished.” 
  • “Citizenship must be valued, EARNED.” 
  • “If they pass a background check, medical check and have a valid, tamper proof ID, let them come.”    
  • “We need to keep the criminals, drug dealers, gang members and terrorists out.”
  • “Those who come need a healthcare plan; our emergency rooms are overburdened.”
  • “Just make sure they’re not putting Americans out of work.”
  • “Secure our borders.” 

CONGRESS CAN FORMULATE A BILL THAT ADDRESSES ALL OF THESE CONCERNS AND MORE . . . LET’S LOOK AT THE CURRENT PROPOSALS IN CONGRESS TO SEE HOW WELL THEY DEAL WITH KEY CONCERNS AND ISSUES, AND WHERE THEY DON’T ADDRESS A VALID CONCERN, OR WHERE THEY ADD A NEW CONCERN, LET’S TACKLE IT POSITIVELY!