Common Sense Approach to Immigration
- Jim Mosquera
- Jan 23, 2019
- 10 min read
Government Shutdown Source
The partial government shutdown is focused primarily around the issue of financing for a barrier along the southern U.S. border. Irrespective of your position on the border issue, it’s difficult to argue that our political and legislative process is at a historical nadir. The hotly contested immigration debate is a product of years of Congressional can kicking down a very long road. Existing immigration law has been ignored, legally challenged or altered by executive fiat. Thus, we arrive at an impasse, freezing wage disbursements for hundreds of thousands of government workers, over a haggle that’s roughly one tenth of one percent of the budget (1).
My Story
I’ve watched the immigration debate unfold for many years with a unique perspective. You see, I am an immigrant and naturalized citizen. Many years ago, my father decided to emigrate from our native home, Panama, to come to the United States for better economic opportunities. Were we indigent? No. Were we harassed by gangs? No. Did we live under a military dictatorship? Yes, and the country served at the pleasure of Generals Torrijos and Noriega. My father was a physician who realized that, even for a professional with many years of formal education, better economic opportunities resided outside of the cronyism existing in Panama at that time (1970s).
We didn’t furtively attempt to breach the United States’ borders via a beach landing or by scaling a wall. We didn’t pay anyone to ferry us across a border under cover of the night. The only coyotes we knew were from Road Runner reruns on Panamanian national TV. Our journey was by plane, landing in Miami before eventually reaching St. Louis.
Entry into this great land was done legally —my father obtained permanent residency status. This status allowed our family to live and work permanently in the U.S. It did not confer citizenship status. Perhaps the process of entry and obtaining permanent residency is different today (2) than when my family arrived. I do recall my father suggesting that he had to demonstrate self-sufficiency. Our application for permanent residency occurred at a U.S. consulate or embassy in Panama; we did not arrive at a U.S. border crossing undocumented.
While there were continual efforts by my parents to maintain our culture and language in our home, there was no question that we had to assimilate into the melting pot that is the United States. Part of that integration was to learn English. Other assimilation aspects involved holiday celebrations. I can’t describe the joy during our first Halloween; strangers gave me candy! Not long after, we ate a big bird near the end of November. It was also hard being completely isolated, away from all our family, and on an island of sorts without a large Hispanic community around us. When kids talked about visiting their grandparents, I could only imagine their joy. Oh, and I should also mention that the weather’s much warmer and sunnier in Panama City, Panama compared to St. Louis. Though we may have originated from diverse lands and culture, it’s the commonality of being American, adopting its customs, rules, and laws that binds a heterogeneous nation.
After five years of permanent residency, we were eligible to apply for citizenship. There were requirements imposed within those five years, one of which related to the time residing outside the United States. Simply living here for five years, though, was not enough — there were other requirements (3). Once we met the requirements, only then were we allowed to take to oath of citizenship.
I detail my story for the reader to demonstrate a legal path for entering the country and eventually acquiring citizenship. What you see on TV at the southern border was not my experience nor was it ever contemplated by my parents or others from Panama. Recall what I said about Panama’s government at the time; it was a military dictatorship. While it was more benign than other dictatorships, it was well understood that freedom of speech was in theory. No sane person dared speak out against the military. While the U.S. had a heavy presence associated with defense and operation of the Canal, I don’t recall them weighing in on Panamanian political matters.
Visiting My Place of Birth
Want to visit Panama? You’ll need a valid passport, a return ticket, cash, and hopefully no criminal record (4). The maximum stay is 180 days. If you’re asked by police to produce identification (it happened to me in 2015), one of two things must happen. First you need to produce a Panamanian national identification card or a stamped passport. If you have neither, you have a problem.
Panama has its own requirements for obtaining permanent residence and citizenship. If you’re fortunate enough to obtain a pensioned tourist visa, you can live in the country indefinitely without obtaining permanent residence or citizenship status (5), though you’d better be able to prove your pension benefit. Outside of these situations, the applicant must show they can financially support themselves and their family or be willing to invest in the country.
Note that Panama is quickly becoming a destination for tourists and retirees alike. It’s a very welcoming country, now with a democratically elected government. It’s also a racial melting pot that’s a product of its native population, colonization by Spanish speaking peoples, and workers imported during Canal construction over one hundred years ago. The country’s very open to immigration, so long as it’s lawful.
Immigration Debate & Root Causes
With this as a backdrop about my immigration journey and the process in my birthplace, I’d like to address the U.S. immigration debate. I’m an engineer by academic training and anyone that knows me would suggest that I’m analytical and logical. Engineers are trained to solve problems. I solved problems in my managerial career in the telecom and tech field and have written extensively on our economic and financial problems and the root causes. I also like to apply root cause analysis to our immigration debate.
We can talk about walls, barriers and border security until the next millennium, though if we don’t address root causes, our feet will get sore kicking that concrete can down the road.
To frame this debate, I want to walk the reader through a scenario. An immigrant crosses the U.S. border illegally. Presuming they’re not independently wealthy and not going to be sequestered and taken care of by someone else, they’ll seek employment. To my knowledge, any individual hired for employment in the U.S. is required to complete an I-9 (6). This is an employee eligibility verification. I remember having to certify the validity of any prospective employee I hired with my HR department. In order to complete an I-9, the applicant needs to have a form of identification. There are a number of such identifying documents (7). There’s also an E-Verify program, once again to confirm employment eligibility (8). E-Verify uses records available from Social Security and Homeland Security. E-Verify, however, is a voluntary program outside certain federal or state mandates.
One immediately identifiable root cause is how we treat and enforce conditions of employment. If an undocumented immigrant has no concern regarding these matters, there’s a reduced barrier to entry, pun intended, for violating U.S. borders. Even with a falsified Social Security card, an undocumented immigrant would have a difficult time escaping E-Verify scrutiny. In Panama, it’s difficult to get certain things done without a national identification card or a valid passport.
If the U.S. enforced I-9 or E-Verify more consistently, how would that change an immigrant’s calculus for crossing the border illegally?
Imagine if the immigrant in the hypothetical scenario has children. Can they simply show up at a school and register without identification? I’ve asked a couple of teachers, one in Missouri, and one in Illinois this very question. I recall having to produce vaccination records for my son when he enrolled in his K-8 school. One of the teachers I asked noted that they’re not allowed to inquire about the child’s immigration status. Requirements for school registration may well be quite diverse across our states.
Consistent education enrollment is another root cause. If an immigrant cannot enroll their child(ren) in school, does it make the illegal border crossing less palatable?
There will still be those seeking asylum for political reasons. I believe there are U.S. embassies for all the Central American nations in question where someone could apply for asylum. There’s also an application form if the immigrant is physically on U.S. soil (9). Allowing someone on U.S. soil during an asylum process creates its own moral hazard — they potentially vanish. That said, if employment and education enforcement were in effect, there would be every incentive for the asylum seeker to appear before the immigration court judge who’d determine the validity of their application.
What about facilitating asylum through the U.S. embassies in the immigrant’s country? We’re placing enormous medical care and housing burdens on Customs and Border Protection (and taxpayers) to handle the flow of real and fictitious asylum seekers. For the asylum seeker, it’s cheaper than paying a smuggler or coyote and potentially safer if they can handle the transaction on their home soil.
The Elephant in the Room
Let’s poke the elephant in the room. By this I mean the undocumented immigrants living in the shadows, in plain sight or DACA recipients. If we’re honest, this problem’s been foisted upon us by previous Congresses of both parties and previous administrations of both parties. The problem’s scope is logistically impossible to “fix” as either party might suggest. A compromise is needed.
I don’t know how many people are undocumented. I suspect no one knows given how many figures I’ve heard from government and politicians. Evidently, the one mechanism we have to count the domestic population cannot ascertain citizenship either, which by itself is another root cause.
Demographically, we know that many developed economies, including the U.S., are experiencing declining birth rates (10). This foreshadows problems in employment and social programs. Japan is dealing with an aging population, a monolithic society, and restrictive immigration. Now they’re determining how to import workers. Anecdotally we witness, what are likely undocumented workers, performing jobs that U.S. citizens evidently do not want. Candidly, the country would struggle economically without a consistent immigration flow. Fear is a predictable response to this flow particularly by those most impacted by the economic competition.
For those who believe all undocumented people should be deported, imagine the logistical nightmare executing that mission. Even if the federal government could carry out such an operation, and I’m not convinced, the ensuing disruption in cities and states would create economic disruption even for legal residents. Imagine, beyond what we see today, the confrontation between Homeland Security and a city or state offering sanctuary to the undocumented. Additionally, the nation’s existing polarization would exacerbate, placing everyone in either the North or South Pole with no one in between. The state would have to become more Orwellian to carry out this mission. Raise your hand if you’re in favor of more surveillance.
Those crossing illegally into the United States did not follow the rules by which my own family had to abide. My father, who passed away in 2010, never talked about illegal immigration, though the issue was not the hot, irrational political potato it is now. I don’t discuss the issue much and am annoyed to mildly angered that millions in this country didn’t follow the same rules that I had to. I realize that not all immigrant circumstances were similar to mine. Without enforceable laws, however, we can’t be that city upon a hill. Civil and criminal laws are the cornerstone of what made America a historical success, economically and socially.
With the aforementioned considered, I also realize that further politicizing this issue will solve nothing. As a naturalized citizen, it does me no good to be mad about the undocumented. I’m someone who was trained to solve problems. Sometimes the solution to a problem is messy and not everyone, maybe even most, will agree on its resolution.
A Plan
I’ve noted three root cause issues and their solutions. Those solutions address future immigrants. In order to address the existing undocumented immigrant issue, I offer the following:
Give the undocumented a period of time to declare their illegal status. The period could be one year or two.
Assign an existing federal agency to handle the declarations.
Collect information that would be required for permanent residency application.
Grant immunity from deportation for anyone declaring within the time period.
Establish rules for accepting these applications. Existing rules for permanent residency may require amendment to absorb these newly declared applicants.
Applicants agree that they broke the law by violating the border and are subject to a penalty. The penalty phase should not be punitive (no incarceration) and could include one or all of the following: fine, community service, national service. This is an important step since even our most innocuous legal violations require a penalty.
If accepted for permanent residency, the immigrant can apply for citizenship after the required amount of time, subject to no felonies or associated crimes. There can be other good behavior rules instituted as well.
Anyone not declaring during the period is subject to immediate deportation including all chained family members.
Place DACA recipients on the same track as those declaring their illegal status. Grant them a path to residency.
Clearly, there will be those on both sides of the political aisle who will take exception to all or part of this plan. Understand this is a fairly rough sketch though we have the mechanisms to implement it. Remember what I said earlier, we won’t “solve” this problem by acting like it’s not there and deporting all the undocumented will buckle the country economically and socially. Many will suggest this is an amnesty program. I outline a path for permanent residency and under existing law, there would be a path towards citizenship. I’ve yet to hear another plan that could be successfully implemented without causing significant collateral damage — it’s not easy moving an elephant out of a small room.
Customs and Border Protection should suggest methods to protect the border via barriers, electronic surveillance or other — border security is not a political issue. If we don’t reduce or eliminate the incentives for illegal border crossings, necessity will be the mother of invention and there’ll be other creative ways to breach border security. Addressing root cause issues will enhance border security.
In conjunction with the suggested plan, allow temporary workers to fill positions U.S. employers say require foreign participation. This plan exists now though I believe it is most evident in the positions requiring higher levels of education. Expand this plan so the lesser skilled enter the U.S. on daily or seasonal work permits. These permits would confer limited stays. In this fashion, someone outside of the U.S. could seek employment opportunities without having permanent residency status.
Goal
I’ve contemplated the immigration conundrum and realize there’s never going to be a “solution” with which everyone’s happy. I also understand, and I’m sure the reader does as well, that our political dysfunction could keep the world’s therapists engaged for the remainder of the century. Our biggest economic and financial challenges lie ahead. Those challenges will be complex and will impact the social order. We must have immigration in the rear view mirror if we’re to solve these future challenges.
This is an immigration approach presented by an independent voter, with no political affiliation, who’s an immigrant and naturalized citizen, whose life was greatly enhanced by emigrating to the United States and integrating into its culture. Immigration is not an act of altruism — it has been and will continue to be an economic necessity. I coined an economic law that says, “Markets allow people to satisfy themselves by satisfying others.” Immigration is a two-way street.
The nation cannot continue to hope this problem gets resolved by partisan bickering. Hope is not a strategy. Embracing bold, practical initiatives should be our goal. The United States risks falling into the abyss of irrelevancy if we can’t bring this matter to a close.
We can do this.
References
Comments