Here is a radical idea. Let's not keep anyone out who wants to be here. Okay, now wait. Don't panic. Breath. Breath again. Okay, go on...
Now, before I go on... Yes, I do understand that homeland security is important. But I believe this would actually help homeland security, rather than hinder it. How? Oh good, I have your attention.
Here is the way I would set it up (in all my wondrous wisdom)...
- Anyone who wanted to join the US would be allowed in on a temporary residency.
- Anyone who remained crime-free and gainfully employed for a specified amount of time would be allowed to apply for citizenship.
- A citizenship class would be mandatory. But passing a test would not be a requirement. Let's face it. How many people who were born here really understands how the government works? (Quick quiz. How many branches are there in the US government? Can you name them? More important, can you explain them)?
How does this solve anything? Let's take a look...
- "Anyone who wanted to join would be allowed". Okay, this alone solves illegal immigration, because it would no longer be illegal. No restriction on how many could come and apply for temporary residency. If people have a choice of coming in illegally or coming legally, most will choose legally. But only if there is no hindrance to coming legally.
- "Anyone who remained crime free". Let's face it. Most people are law abiding. Most people born here are law abiding. Most people who come from other countries and enter here are law abiding. "But isn't being here illegally illegal in and of itself and therefore they are not law abiding?" Okay, that's an interesting point. Let's look at that for a moment...
Most laws have a general moral background. Killing people is wrong. Therefore it is illegal to murder. Stealing from people is wrong, therefore it is illegal to steal. These are criminal acts. There is nothing generally immoral about being here. What do I mean. Take a look...
Murder is immoral. Stealing is immoral. Being here is not immoral. Therefore it is in a different category.
Think about a homeowners association for a condo. They choose to make it against the rules to paint your door blue. There is nothing immoral about having a blue door, although it is against the rules. I put illegal immigration into this category. There is nothing immoral about being here, it is just against the rules. It is a crime only because we have chosen to make it a crime. There isn't a moral code to back it up. Therefore, I don't count it when talking about crime free immigration.
So back to what this would solve.
"gainfully employed for a specific amount of time". Most people who come try and get a job. If there are no restrictions, then there's nothing to stop them. Think about it. Illegal immigrants have trouble getting a job mostly because it is illegal to hire them. If it wasn't illegal, they wouldn't have as much trouble. Staying gainfully employed would be just as easy as for those who were born here. They also wouldn't be limited in the industries they could join. No legal restrictions to keep them from better jobs.
But wouldn't this give more competition for jobs for those who are already here? Yes. So? If people come from Nebraska and get a job in California, the Nebraskans are taking jobs from the Californians. The Nebraskans have not contributed to the tax base in California. The Nebraskans have not contributed to any of the benefits for California, so why should they benefit from it? Why not? There's nothing wrong with a Nebraskan taking a job that a California resident could have had. Competition is good.
I also stated that this would help homeland security. Let's take a look at how...
It is easy for terrorists to hide among those who are here illegally, because those who are here illegally are trying to hide as well. But if you remove the stigma of being here illegally, it becomes more difficult for those who are truly evil to hide among good people. Therefore, it becomes easier to find those who are terrorists (or at least removes a hindrance that exists now).
But isn't it unfair to let off those who have been living here illegally? No. Why? Okay, try this example.
There is a busy street that is really long. So some people chose to jaywalk instead of walking to the corner. Eventually the city realizes that a crosswalk is needed there. Now it is legal to cross there. Is adding the crosswalk letting those who used to jaywalk off? Yes. Who cares? The crosswalk should have been there to start with. And fair, unhindered immigration should have been there to start with.
What about the economy? Wouldn't the extra people using the schools and infrastructure cause a problem on those things? No. Theoretically, unhindered immigration would let in more people, but you would have more people paying taxes. Besides, many of those who would want to be here already are, and those services are already being used. This would simply add an easier way to get tax money for those services.
But wouldn't this put a lot of immigration officers out of a job. No, it would just shift their job. They could start watching for real criminals and actual dangerous individuals, and not guarding against average people who just want to improve their lives.
Okay, go ahead and hate me for my thoughts (but don't hate me because I'm beautiful). (For those of you old enough, that last part was a line from a commercial in the 70s. Not a particularly good one).
