Fred Announces Border/Immigration Plan (and I think you're going to like it)
By Brad G Posted in Immigration — Comments (45) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Fred Thompson announced his Border Security/Immigration Reform Plan today. The outline is below; there are more particulars at Fred08.com.
In the post-9/11 world, immigration is much more of a national security issue. A government that cannot secure its borders and determine who may enter and who may not, fails in a fundamental responsibility. As we take steps to secure our borders and enforce our laws, we must also ensure that our immigration laws and policies advance our national interests in a variety of areas, and that the immigration process itself is as fair, efficient, and effective as possible.
I. Securing the Border and Enforcing the Law
A fundamental responsibility of the federal government is to secure the nation's borders and enforce the law. The following policies and initiatives will put the nation on a path to success:
1. No Amnesty.
2. Attrition through Enforcement. Attrition through enforcement is a more reasonable and achievable solution, but this approach requires additional resources for enforcement and border security:
2a. Doubling ICE agents handling interior enforcement, increasing the Border Patrol to at least 25,000 agents, and increasing detention space to incarcerate illegal aliens we arrest rather than letting them go with a promise to show up later for legal proceedings against them.
2b. Adding resources for the Department of Justice to prosecute alien smugglers, people involved in trafficking in false identification documents, and previously deported felons.
2c. Maximizing efforts to prosecute and convict members of criminal alien gangs, such as MS-13 and affiliated gangs. These gangs have brought unusual levels of violence to more than 30 U.S. states and have also become very active in drug-smuggling, gun-smuggling, and alien-smuggling.
2d. Implementing fully and making greater use of the expedited removal process already allowed under federal law.
2e. Enabling the Social Security Administration to share relevant information with immigration and law enforcement personnel in a manner that will support effective interior enforcement efforts.
3. Enforce Existing Federal Laws. Enforce the laws Congress has already enacted to prevent illegal aliens from unlawfully benefiting from their presence in the country:
3a. End Sanctuary Cities by cutting off discretionary federal grant funds as appropriate to any community that, by law, ordinance, executive order, or other formal policy directs its public officials not to comply with the provisions of 8 USC 1373 and 8 USC 1644, which prohibit any state or local government from restricting in any way communications with the Department of Homeland Security regarding the immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of an alien in the United States.
3b. Deny discretionary Federal education grants as appropriate to public universities that violate federal law by offering in-state tuition rates to illegal aliens without also offering identical benefits to United States citizens, regardless of whether or not they live in the state.
3c. Deny discretionary Federal grants as appropriate to states and local governments that violate federal law by offering public benefits to illegal aliens, as prohibited by 8 USC 1621(a).
4. Reduce the Jobs Incentive.
5. Bolster Border Security.
6. Increased Prosecution.
7. Rigorous Entry/Exit Tracking.
II. Improving the Legal Immigration Process
1. Maximize Program Efficiency.
2. Enhanced Reporting.
3. Modernize Immigration Law/Policy.
3a. Reduce the scope of chain migration by giving family preference in the allocation of lawful permanent resident status only to spouses and minor children of U.S. citizens, and no one else (no siblings, no parents, no adult children, etc.).
3b. Eliminate the diversity visa lottery.
4. English As Official Language.
5. Freedom from Political Oppression.
6. Service to Country. Place those foreign persons who are lawfully present in the country and who serve honorably in the Armed Forces of the United States on a faster, surer track to U.S. citizenship.
If this doesn't draw distinctions between Fred and the other candidates, I give up...
I must have been busy writing my blog when you hit the submit button because I posted something very similar just a few minutes behind you.
Finally a candidate with a clue on this issue! Fred is now my guy!
Could this be a plan that might get Tancredo out of the race? I mean this is about as red meat as it gets for most conservatives on immigration. The only thing it doesn't advocate is deporting everybody that's here. Maybe Tancredo can drop out and let those with a focus on immigration migrate to Thompson.
to get worked up about. And certainly not enough to design a position statement around.
I think Fred's just setting himself apart from the field (and I doubt if he considers Tommy part of the field).
This would be comparable to Rudy's 12 point plan or his committee on the judiciary.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
I like it. What I didn't see (or just didn't notice) is:
- anchor babies. That has got to stop.
- ending grants to states and cities that do not enforce laws by an unwritten policy of benign neglect (similar to how the US has handled enforcement across the board for the last umpteen years).
We need to secure the border so illegals can't have kids here to begin with. Forget messing with citizenship; fix the REAL problem.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Let's nominate the Nash Equilibrium for President.
Neil,
I'm with you 100% on securing the border. However, as long as the possibility exists - however remote - that they can birth their child on US soil with benefits for that action, then they will try for that brass ring.
The instant granting of citizen's rights to that child will be enough to induce many to try. As long as the incentive exists, there is no border secure enough to stop everyone.
Those who still try will likely endure greater hardship and more deaths and their plight will be used to galvanize support for court actions.
If we remove all the incentives for illegal entry, while increasing the incentives for legal entry the problem becomes a lot easier to manage.
Or so I believe.
Let's prohibit giving visas to relatives of citizens in situations like this.
Let's not mess with citizenship though.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Let's nominate the Nash Equilibrium for President.
I'm glad that you agree that it would work.
Fred's plan call for restricting family reunification based visas to Spouse and Minor children only. NO parents, grandparents, siblings, aunts, uncles or cousins. That pretty much kills chain migration.
If an anchor baby is prohibited from sponsoring in his parents, then he is not much of an anchor and a great deal of the incentive for having a baby on our soil is removed.
Of course some parents will still want to give their children the gift of American citizenship even if they as parents won't benefit. I don't like that but I perceive it as a much smaller problem and realistically think that trying to get it changed would involve an unwinnable constitutional battle.
Under current law I saw an analysis by Mark Krikorian who is pretty knowlegeable that coupled with Fred's plan to also eliminate the "Diversity Visa" it would reduce current legal immigration by about 400,000 per year. But I'm sure that Fred plans to replace these immigrants with skills based immigration visas. As a restrictionist, I don't like that aspect of Fred's plan but I'd sure rather have an immigrant that is going to contribute to the economy rather than some immigrants elderly parent who is immediately going to apply for Social Security and other social assistance.
You're not going to get rid of citizenship for children born in the US without a Constitutional amendment. And no, Thompson isn't counting on some pie in the sky fantasy that the Supreme Court will give you the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" interpretation you want.
The plan doesn't mention anchor babies per se, but denying illegals employment and welfare, and deporting them when they come to the law's attention includes the illegal mother - without any exception for her because she has an anchor baby.
Thompson's immigration plan is about as ambitious as any President could realistically get, and I'm just fine with it. The biggest thing that I'd like to add is shifting legal immigration to fewer low wage net burdens and more high wage net contributors to our economy. Whether Thompson would be able to convince Congress to pass the parts requiring legislation is my big worry.
and I said so above. I would have liked to see those things, but it appears to be a pragmatic approach and would seriously curtail illegal immigration.
I especially like the 'English as Official Language' plank.
But as a lawyer himself, I'm guessing Thompson predicts it would be problematic.
My website: The Shield of Achilles
Without amending the Constitution (and the Dems won't let that happen) there's nothing to be done about babies born to illegals on US soil being citizens.
However, his plan does address chain migration.
One thing he forgot though (or I didn't see it for some reason) is build the fence along the border. It's worked for Israel (in most cases) so it can work for us as well.
"Suppose you were a congressman, and suppose you were an idiot. But I repeat myself." - Mark Twain
Allan S.
There is a good deal of meat on Fred Thompson's new plan. I'd
like to mention two things that I've suggested on the FED '08 BLOG:
1. We need to DEPORT about 40% of the illegals now here, or otherwise get them to leave. These would be folks here less than 8 years or repeat petty criminals or worse! A $1000 return to home bounty could be offered to volunteers. People here since the end of the 20th century would qualify for non-citizenship, longterm work visas, an "Amnesty light". They would have to leave the country for 3 years to return on a regular green card, if they wanted full citizenship, eventually. If they stayed without leaving they would never vote, but their U.S. born, children would get birthright citizenship.
2. Homeland Security compounds would line the border 200 yards wide and ten miles average length. A 100 yard gap would be placed every 10 miles. That would not be a jail offence to
pass through,but only bring expulsion, if caught. Anybody going in would be guilty of a 30 day misdemeanor or even a two year or greater felony for smuggling or vandalism/terrorism support, including U.S. nationals. It would be posted for no entry to protect the camera towers, sensor beds, and stadium lighting. At present, there is no special status near the border. Agents could draw guns more readily, if a felony was suspected. With these two ideas, FRED would be on very firm ground in a dabate with HILLARY!
FDT correctly places a great deal of import on enforcing the laws currently on the books. He didn't try to reinvent the wheel.
Hooray for common sense!
“We have forgotten in America that a democracy is the most difficult kind of government to maintain. It is the hardest kind of government under which to live. It is hardest to maintain because of the widespread political corruption to which it so easily lends itself. Our drift today toward complete totalitarian bureaucracy is one that threatens immediately the very freedoms for which our own boys are dying.”
Ernest R. Palen, D.D.
Being from a boarder state, Texas, I can tell you right now I will not vote for a weak immigration candidate. I am glad to see Thompson join Hunter, Paul, and Tancredo in having such a good stance on the issue.
Giuliani's stance on Immigration, Gun Control, Gay Marriage and Pro Choice makes him more of a Liberal Democrat than a Republican. In fact, I can't think of a thing on the top of my head that makes Giuliani a Republican. I mean he did call himself a liberal in the 90's. A true RINO.
"There are some who've forgotten why we have a military. It's not to promote war; it's to be prepared for peace."
-- Ronald Reagan
and that shouldnt' surprise anyone since they spent a good bit of time together a while back talking about issues.
one thing I do not see, which I would like to, in a harsh penalty dealt to anyone who knowingly employs illegal immigrants. My belief is that the surest way to curtail the influx of illegals is to eliminate the incentives they have for crossing the border in the first place. Certainly many, if not most, employers who hire illegals believe they are not doing so, due to the easy availability of false documentation. However, there are many who knowingly hire illegal workers, and I believe those employers are as guilty of exacerbating the problem as the people who cross the border in the first place.
I like the gist of the plan but how will it be paid for?
ICE annual budget is $4.2 billion so doubling the agents and their support (administration, training) essentially doubles that budget to $8.4 billion.
Then there is this part:
'ICE: Tab to remove illegal residents would approach $100 billion'
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/09/12/deportation.cost/index.html
Gee Thanks but I am really serious. Well devised plans require both the right direction or action to take and the means for implementing it. A candidate can make all sorts of recommendations but with no real accountability of how their programs will get funded (Does Thompson expect Congress will unanamously agree with him and fund it all?) then they run the risk of empty promises. That's all the point I am trying to make.
And on just what "serious" topic is there any relevance in your link, on the cost of deporting 12 million illegals?
The article is just a summary from Julie Myers, Assistant Secretary of ICE, about her estimates of the average expenses in deporting illegals. It includes costs of detention and transportation.
Although getting all 12 million illegals may seem like a pipe dream, the estimate gives a dollar amount to reference. Say the stepped up enforcements proposed net 10% of existing illegals, well that's be about $10 billion per year to detain and transport them, that's the relevance.
With stepped up enforcement and no amnesty what happens to an illegal once they are caught? You would expect with all the propossed increases in ICE and enforcement that illegals will be caught, correct? So the percentage of illegals caught should go up with this plan, it might not be anywhere near 10% but what do you think it will be? 1%? .5%? In any case it'll cost money.
I am asking where the money comes from for all these proposed expansions.
Illegals impose a heavy net (of the meagre taxes they pay) fiscal cost on the Federal Treasury. In 2002 this study put that figure at $10 billion and the illegal population has expanded a lot since then.
http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html
If we get rid of the illegals then part of the cost of those expanded programs could be paid from the $10 billion in savings. I could be wrong but I don't think the entire Federal Budget devoted to immigration enforcement adds up to $10 billion annually so those savings might be enough to double everything related to enforcement without any additional cost to taxpayers and an ongoing annual benefit of $10 billion not spent.
On the otherhand, the cost of amnesty is astronomical because suddenly all of these low earning illegals who are made legal become eligible for the full buffet of social welfare services. I don't remember the exact number but I believe Robert Rector of the Heritage foundation pegged that cost in the tens of billions annually. The study I posted above suggested that the incremental cost of amnesty at the Federal level would be about $19 billion in additional cost over and above the $10 billion we are already spending.
Fred's strategy will almost certainly be cheaper for the taxpayers than amnesty.
In your scenerio getting the money back from having all the illegals gone is a little like the chicken and the egg. They have to be gone before you see the money coming back but you have to spent the money to get the gone.
ICE has an annual budget of around $5 billion, Thompson wants to double ICE so that would be about $10 billion annual.
I am not advocating for amnesty at all but 10 million new legalized workers now paying taxes would be an big increase in revenue for the federal government. You would have to assume that a percentage of them would be a net loss for the system but another percentage would be a net gain.
My main criticism of Fred's plan is that I would like to see some more detail and some more budget numbers to see how feasible it all is.
The strategy is mainly about enforcing laws against hiring illegals by concentrating on the employers who hire them. It is not about deporting some x percentage of the illegals.
The idea is that you steadily enforce the law and make it very very painful for employers who hire illegals both monetarily with fines but also with all the much higher costs associated with the disruption of having your workforce suddenly evaporate. This type of enforcement causes the jobs to dry up and when the jobs dry up the illegals have no choice but to self-deport. They leave the same way and for the same reasons they came. They deport themselves of their own volition at their own expense and for the reason that going home (or maybe to Canada) is the path to a better life and the only way they can feed their families. Self deportation imposes zero cost on the taxpayers.
Note that this type of enforcement does not need to involve a single deportation of an illegal employee because it focuses on the employer, not the illegal. No illegals need to be arrested at workplace raids, just the employer. If the fines are high enough, this type of enforcement need not cost the taxpayer much of anything because the costs would be born by employers who were fined.
Julie Myer's rather bogus self-serving numbers about the costs of deportation are irrelevant. That is just more of the false choices game that has gone on too long which pretends our only choices are mass deportations or a mass amnesty.
I see the point of making it painful for employers but thats not outlined in any of the Thompson plan. Pressure on employers through increased fines, ect. is referred to as worksite enforcement and that is not mentioned once. Current penalties are in the range of $200 to $2500 per illegal worker. Calling for an increase in penalties to say be equal to a full year's minimum wage sallery, $20,000 to $35,000, would be an agressive worksite enforcement policy. Thompson does not advocate for that in any of the released outlines of his plan.
He does call for the doubling of ICE and interior enforcement, interior enforcement covers things like chasing down illegals with expired visas and tracking foreign students. He also calls for local governments to enforce immigration laws or be denied federal funds, this of course is obvious and designed to limit illegal safe havens in certian cities, like New York city but if all of a sudden New York city enforces immigration laws, they will end up with a massive amount of illegals that need to go through the system and be deported. With his plan there will be an increase in deportation that will cost taxpayers.
Read this blurb:
"The way Mayor John DeStefano saw it, there were basically two choices: City officials could look the other way, as if the change were not happening, or they could embrace the transformation, doing whatever was possible to welcome the newcomers.
For now, this city is marching steadily toward becoming a safe haven for immigrants — whether they are in the country legally or not.
The Police Department has adopted a sort of “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy regarding citizenship status. City Hall is sponsoring workshops to help illegal immigrants file federal income taxes. And this summer, New Haven plans to allow illegal immigrants to apply for municipal identification cards, in what immigration advocates describe as the first program of its type in the nation."
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/05/nyregion/05haven.html
Under Thompson's plan New Haven would be denied federal funds and the "dont ask dont tell" policy of the Police would be reveresed and so when they find out someone is an illegal, they do what? Ignore them or arrest them? Thats why I believe there will be an increase in deportation.
My overall criticism of his plan is the added expenses which will be there, they just are hidden because the plan isn't going into detail.
proposals put out long ago by Romney. I know you guys don't like to hear it. Perhaps the greatest distinguishment, however, is FDT's emphasis on enforcement via prosecution and incarceration. IF enacted, such enforcement measueres would become a spending boondoggle with littl reward in return.
I am not against extra enforcement, and as I said, many of the other poionts above line up well with Gov. Romney's proposals, but the strong emphasis on judicial system enforcement and incarceration has huge spending on the measures with least probability of real success written all over it.
Bricklavin, you may be right about Fred's plan being indistinguishable from "policy proposals put out long ago by Romney". I do like some of the things that Romney has said about how he would address the problem of illegal immigration.
I would be interested in reading a blog entry by a Romney supporter that addresses in great detail Romney's plans to confront the problem of illegal immigration.
Does Romney support the attrition strategy as Fred does?
"The defense of our nation begins with the defense of our borders." - Rep. Tom Tancredo
Something along the lines of "All cities and states are hereby allowed and encouraged to arrest anyone they feel is breaking federal law regarding section such and such?"
Oz
Read my most recent story, "GOP Race: My 3rd Runner Up -- Rudy Guiliani" on First Cut Politics
Your signature is missng </font></em>
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Let's nominate the Nash Equilibrium for President.
Oz
Read my most recent story, "GOP Race: My 3rd Runner Up -- Rudy Guiliani" on First Cut Politics
Brad G, thanks for posting about Fred's position on illegal immigration.
I'm glad to see that Fred supports the concept of "attrition through enforcement" Rep. Tancredo and Rep. Sensenbrenner have supported the attrition strategy for several years and I'm glad that Fred now supports the attrition strategy as a means of addressing the problem of illegal aliens in this country.
I would like to see Fred definitively say what he will do to address the problem of anchor babies. He has mentioned that anchor babies are a problem, but has not committed to taking any action that would address the problem.
I'm most interested in hearing Fred discuss whether he still believes as he did in 2006 that this nation is going to have to, in some way, work out a deal where illegal aliens can have some aspirations of citizenship. Much has happened in the illegal immigration debate since he made that statement. Maybe his views have changed. Presently, only Rep. Hunter and Rep. Tancredo have stated they would never support giving citizenship or any other form of legal status to illegal aliens.
Does Fred support the use of the military on the border on at least a temporary basis?
The costs of Fred's plan would be money well spent by the federal government.
"The defense of our nation begins with the defense of our borders." - Rep. Tom Tancredo
Ummmm- How are we going to find additional people who want to be border agents when there are cases like Ramos and Campien?
We have to deal with that kind of nonsense first before we can hire the new folks....
It's very confusing to us OLD people. I'll probably be filing an age discrimination suit, if I remember to call my lawyer.
Other than that, I like it.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.