A different kind of immigration reform

This isn’t a fairytale. Magical sugar plums aren’t falling from the trees and soft, cuddly animals aren’t prancing through the woods reciting aged nursery rhymes with Goldie Lox.

Rather, this is reality, and no matter how enticing the gleefully arranged sugar-coated gum drops of Edward Kennedy and Dianne Feinstein appear, keep in mind that they are merely disillusioned ploys to garner the Hispanic demographic in the upcoming midterm election. The fact of the matter is that the immigration debate is an unsightly one, digging its insidious thorns into all reaches of social life, inciting passionate emotions and stretching the malleable moral fiber of this country—and Congressmen don’t like making unsightly legislation—especially during an election year—even if it may be the proper legislation. So, since I’m not running for public office in 2006, I’ll take the hard stance that many politicians are too afraid to take. I’ll propose the unsightly legislation.

As the deafening emotions encasing the immigration debate dwindle, but still linger as an ever-persistent sputter, and Congressional lawmakers in the House and Senate tidy up their respective versions of the fallout of those tightly guarded emotions, America is inching closer to a great debate between the House and Senate over immigration, with the most tantalizing, white-hot issue being: amnesty, or more amnesty?

And there seems to be no alternative. The choice is almost exclusively between a recently passed House bill that takes a relatively tough stance on illegal immigrants, with some provisions forcing illegal aliens to transfer back to their home country before reapplying for citizenship, and a pending Senate bill that reflects a more quasi-liberal, tolerant approach to handling the country’s current illegal aliens—a more forgive and forget ideal.

There are overt fundamental flaws in both bills. The House bill, a stringent and unforgiving piece of legislation, is laudable in theory, but infeasible in practice because it provides no incentive for illegal immigrants to turn themselves in to authorities. What motivation do illegal aliens have to rise from their undetectable state of tax evasion and government fraud when they can simply slip by undetected, living a sheltered, serene life, free of governmental quagmires and complexities?

Conversely, the Senate bill, a more lenient bill, is too magnanimous, considering these illegal aliens broke the law. But, perhaps more importantly, the bill encourages future illegal immigration by offering a relatively painless path to citizenship—as oppose to the House bill, which promises a droning paperwork process and a painful sting to the wallet.

Furthermore, both bills require a degree of trust, and the broken rhetoric of illegal immigrants is usually not the most reliable source. Both the House and Senate bills would require illegal aliens to submit information proving how many years they’ve resided in America, soaking up the government’s resources and conniving their way out of taxes and social accountability, so the government can determine if the illegal needs to be temporarily deported. The fatal flaw: since illegal immigrants can acquire phony social security numbers, and with identity theft running rampant, forging dates on paperwork is child’s play in today’s technological era—and the government is always a step behind technology.

With both tattered pieces of legislation wallowing in their frayed pool of infeasibility, and while Congress seems content with their lethargically jaded fruition, the fundamental question of immigration reform remains unscathed by Congress’ meek efforts.

The following is my attempt to dig past the layers of ineptness and divulge a valid, plausible solution to the immigration problem.

As much as I would love to detain every illegal alien, stick them on a bus, and ship them back to their motherland, I understand that the situation is much more complex and that deporting the illegal transgressors will only complicate this already exasperating quandary. However, the afore mentioned sugar-coated rhetoric of Kennedy and the rest of the Democratic party, along with much of the Republican party—this ploy of “earned citizenship”—is a gross injustice to all the law-abiding immigrants waiting patiently in line, and an unequivocal disregard for America’s legal system.

So, without forcibly deporting the illegal aliens, but also without granting amnesty, my plan is to abolish all minimum wage and labor laws regarding undocumented/illegal workers.

The plan, which attacks the cause of the problem, rather than the effect, would work threefold: first, it encourages current illegal aliens to reconsider their state of affairs—forcing them to endure inhumane working conditions and even more repugnantly inferior wages—enticing at least some to leave, but hopefully in sporadic amounts so the economy will maintain its buoyancy and won’t recede. Secondly, for the same reason it encourages current illegal immigrants to leave, the plan acts as a disincentive, discouraging future criminals from crossing the border, acting as a figurative wall of apprehension and malevolence, looming dauntingly over the heads of the demoralized transgressor, instilling a disheartening sense of trepidation and anxiety. Lastly, the plan would bolster the bottom line of the floundering small business and farming industries that depend on illegal labor to break even, especially in light of the recent billion dollar conglomerate boom.

Now, realistically speaking, a Congressman would see his party gasp in horror if this type of legislation was ever proposed, not because it isn’t cost effective and logical, but because of sinister partisan passions that often blur reality and hinder practical legislation, culminating in an improbable monstrosity that is neither effective nor logical. Especially during election years, as afore mentioned, national parties tend to be as hands off and laissez-faire as possible, for fear of upsetting a potential demographic.

In this case, the potential demographic is Hispanic, both legal and illegal. And with approximately twelve million illegal Hispanics and countless more legal Hispanics currently in America, the party that tends to their needs and butters them up the most will inevitably win their cherished vote, while the other party will be left at a distinct and possibly insurmountable disadvantage.

It’s sad, but it’s reality.

The second prong of the immigration debate, border security, is slightly less complicated. Most Americans agree that stringent border security is a necessary measure and a significant amount support the construction of a wall, both material and virtual, to hamper and mitigate the flow of illegal immigration.

President Bush has been advocating his plan for illegal immigration more aggressively recently, essentially copyrighting the phrase “comprehensive” immigration reform. His plan involves a guest worker program, a middle ground between House and Senate bills regarding amnesty, and plans for a prodigious wall and the expansion of America’s border patrol division. Bush believes that all three components, in the same bill, are needed to adequately address the immigration issue.

However, history dictates that the more “comprehensive” a bill becomes, the less likely it is to pass as law. If Bush did his research, he’d find that Henry “The Great Compromiser” Clay’s Compromise of 1850 failed in Congress as a “comprehensive” piece of legislation. But, when Clay separated each component into separate bills, most of the original pieces passed into law.

What Bush needs to understand is that, first and foremost, defending America’s porous borders is paramount, and dealing with the current illegal aliens is a less dire problem. Thus, Bush should exclusively champion border security, enacting the proper measures to carry out that plan, and then worry about the illegal immigrants here today.

No matter what Congressional leaders advocate, there’s no instantaneous solution to the immigration problem. There’s no glorious explanation hiding serenely for the government to uncover, and there’s no fairytale ending in the foreseeable future.

Some believe my immigration reform plan is too harsh—a callous, compassionless plan that would culminate in the needless torment of millions of people. But keep in mind: there’s no pretty solution to this issue, no magic switch that will make it all go away.

Remember, this is real life, not fairytale.