Proud to Be (Almost) American (TCS Daily, 11 Apr 2006):
It's been a few months since the last Fourth of July, and I was itching to get my patriotism fix. So when I read that a pro-immigration protest was going to march a few blocks away from my office, I decided to go and take in the atmosphere.
Have you ever watched the fireworks against the night sky, and you feel stirring inside you, unbidden, a love for your country so childlike that you wonder if, as an adult, you're allowed to feel it? A love that, no matter how good your reasons for loving America may be, has nothing to do with reasons: it's blubbering sentimentality, and at the same time, you feel you are standing on holy ground? Watching a sea of banners and American flags advancing down 16th Street towards Lafayette Park, it was just like that...
We're used to seeing swarthy, foreign-speaking young men burning American flags to vent their rage. It doesn't affect us anymore. But to see swarthy, foreign-speaking young men -- and women, and children, by the thousands -- waving the American flag, proudly, to see them draping it over their shoulders, and wearing it on T-shirts -- are you ready for that? I wasn't. It almost brought me to tears.
That protest was one of the most exciting, proud, patriotic moments of my life. I can still remember the feeling of solidarity as we walked down 16th St., through Lafayette Park, to the Washington Mall. Never was a cause more just.
Will it pay off? The Democratic victory in the Congressional elections last November was an excellent sign (see "Walls Are for Losers"). Now Bush is pushing the issue again:
President Bush outlined the latest version of his plan to overhaul the nation's immigration laws Monday, renewing his support for a guest-worker program for those with low skills and issuing a vague call for a resolution of the legal status of the estimated 12 million undocumented workers now in the country.
Speaking at the dedication of a state-of-the-art Border Patrol station here just a few miles from the U.S.-Mexican border, Bush called on Congress to pass the type of comprehensive immigration legislation that he has been pushing with little success since his earliest days as president. Bush said the overhaul should couple increased border security and added pressure on employers who hire illegal immigrants with a plan to create a legal avenue for large numbers of guest workers to come into the country, while resolving the status of the undocumented workers already here.
"Congress can pass a comprehensive bill and I can sign it into law this year," Bush said...
That would be great. It's also a good sign that the idea of charging people to immigrate is gaining ground:
Under the proposal, crafted with GOP senators, undocumented workers could apply for three-year work visas, renewable at a cost of $3,500 each time. To become legal permanent residents, they would have to return to their home countries, apply for reentry at a U.S. embassy or consulate, and pay a $10,000 fine.
The "return to their home countries" clause is stupid. U.S. embassies and consulates are public-sector entities with an inappropriate degree of discretion about whom to let in. Few immigrants will be foolish enough to entrust their fate to these agencies. They'll be afraid, and rightly so, that once they're off US soil, they won't be let back in. But the fine is, well, fine, though it would be better if it were docked from wages on a progressive basis rather than imposed as a flat fee. Citizenship, or permanent residence, are valuable assets, and we can charge for them. But it is wrong to shut people out of America permanently just because of their place of birth.
That's a huge fine and a huge temporary worker fee. How about "10K *or* you have to go back and reapply". Then, if they've been upstanding citizens as are most immigrants, documented or otherwise, they'll be able to either pay the fine or borrow for it. And as for the $3500 worker visa - one shouldn't have to "apply" for that, except in the sense that it can be revoked if the concurrent investigation for which the fee pays reveals that you're a very bad person. I don't see a reason for subsequent worker visas to cost nearly so much.
I don't like the employer-sponsored version, since it's really good for no one except recruiter middle-men who make money mitigating the scheme's inefficiency. The company has to go through more to find foreign employees (and tends to be screwed if they make a mistake), the employee becomes a semi-captive worker, and the other employees have to compete with lower-wage semi-captive workers. In the visa goes with the worker, the work comes to the company, the worker can get a fair price and the other employees only have to compete with the fair price.
Posted by: Nato | April 11, 2007 at 01:39 PM