A better idea on immigration

Senator Ted Kennedy and a bipartisan group of his colleagues made a dramatic announcement today that they have crafted a compromise on comprehensive immigration reform. Senator Arlen Specter described the long hours of work and the many sleepless nights put in by staffers to complete the bill. "We're all dragging," he said.

They should have stood in bed.

What an obnoxious proposal.

First, the idea that U.S. lawmakers are holding border security hostage to legalization for illegal immigrants is, frankly, repulsive. The American people have the right to expect their government to enforce the laws and secure the border without side deals, trade-offs, or ransom demands.

Second, the plan to create two temporary worker programs, one for agricultural workers and one for everyone else, sounds like a hideous throwback to the nineteenth century. Are we planning to attach the workers to their employers and prohibit them from leaving to accept a different kind of job? Tell me again, what's everybody's problem with the Confederate flag?

Third, the proposed $5,000 fine that illegal immigrants would be asked to pay is harsh, cruel and pointless. These beleaguered people don't have any money, and we don't want their $5,000. We don't need to take the bread out of the mouths of their children just so politicians can stick out their chests and declare that they're not supporting amnesty.

It is amnesty, no matter what the politicians say, when we retroactively legalize conduct that was criminal and welcome the law-breakers back into the world of the law-abiding.

It was amnesty in 1986 when millions of illegal immigrants were legalized. The law was supposed to prevent more illegal immigrants from coming to the United States and working here. Yet today there are an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants living in the United States.

How will the new law prevent the next 12 million from coming? Employer sanctions? Tamper-proof ID cards? Border security?

Oh, really. How about a good-faith demonstration? Let's see the U.S. government enforce the border for one year. Or one month. Or one week.

Here's a better idea.

Let's put a tax on remittances. A substantial tax. Let's have the federal and state governments take a large chunk of the money that is sent out of the United States in the under-the-radar world of small money transfers.

It's probably half drug profits anyway.

A tax on remittances would reduce the incentive to come to the United States and work illegally in order to support people in other countries. It would offset some of the costs of providing education and emergency medical care to illegal immigrants and their children, as well as the costs of enforcing the border and incarcerating criminal aliens.

The New York Times reports today that Mexico received $23 billion in remittances coming from foreign countries in 2006, with most of that money coming from the United States. After oil exports, remittances are Mexico's second-largest source of revenue.

It seems perfectly reasonable to tax that money in order to pay for services that taxpayers in the United States are providing to the citizens of Mexico.

It's certainly more civilized than grabbing a farm worker by the shirt and demanding $5,000.

Senator Kennedy noted today that ninety U.S. cities have passed some kind of ordinance attempting to deal with the problem of illegal immigration. He said this was anarchy and further evidence that a comprehensive federal law is needed.

In the unlikely event that the bill proposed by Senator Kennedy today ever becomes law, the sleep-deprived denizens of Capitol Hill may be in for a surprise.

The U.S. Constitution can be amended by the people of the United States without the permission or approval of the House, the Senate, the president, the Supreme Court, or any of the fifty state governors.

On the request of two-thirds of the state legislatures, a constitutional convention may be called to propose amendments to the United States Constitution. In this way, it would be possible to undo the Supreme Court's ruling requiring states to provide education to illegal immigrants, and even to change the birthright citizenship law so children born to women who are in the country illegally do not automatically become U.S. citizens.

A constitutional amendment has the same force of law as the rest of the Constitution once it is ratified by three-quarters of the state legislatures.

No presidential signature is required. No House or Senate vote is needed. No federal court has the power to strike down a constitutional amendment.

Did you know that?

Read more about it in "How to Get Congress to Foot the Bill for Illegal Immigration, and Fast" at www.SusanShelley.com.


Copyright 2007

.