Global Breaking News - Monday, December 23, 2024

Understanding Immigration Reform

The overwhelming support of Latino and immigrant voters for President Obama last month has politicians and pundits talking, once again, about comprehensive immigration reform. The debate has taken greater urgency in Congress with both sides considering plans. But comprehensive immigration reform means different things to different people. What should we look for in attempts to improve what everyone seems to agree is a national problem?
* overwhelming = 압도적인, 너무도 강력한/ pundit = 전문가, 권위자/ urgency = 긴급, 절박, 위기

 모두가 동의하는 것으로 보이는 국가적인 문제를 개선시키는 노력에서 지향해야 하는가?

1. Path to Citizenship Must Be Included
Without it, there would be a permanent underclass alienated from our institutions, with little permanent stake in our society.
 
2. Deal Later With Those Here Illegally
Bills intended to solve everything create new problems, with payoffs for special interests, and measures working at cross purposes.
 
3. One Bill of Compromises Isn’t the Answer
Instead, we need to assemble the votes for a broad earned legalization program for the 11 million now illegally residing in the country.
 
4. We Need an Electronic Verification System
Such a system, coupled with stiff fines for employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants, is essential.
 
5. Stop With the ‘Us vs.Them’ Approach
A roadmap to citizenship for all should be a basic element of any comprehensive legislation on immigration reform.
 
6. ‘Comprehensive’ Means No Stop-Gap Solutions
If your car is out of gas and has a dead battery and a flat tire, it won't help to solve one problem. You need a comprehensive approach.


Sample Essay

One Bill of Compromises Isn’t the Answer

To many, “comprehensive immigration reform” means “fix it and forget it.” But doing it all in one bill reprises what got us in the current mess in the first place. After major reform bills in 1986 and 1990, the failing employment verification scheme and the clogged green card process were allowed to go unattended. The “enforcement only” 1996 law only froze the mess in place.

A huge compromise of all competing immigration fixes larded into one bill will involve compromises that do not serve the nation’s interests. Instead we need to assemble the votes to do the two things that must be done — a broad earned legalization program for the 11 million now illegally resident in the country in conjunction with the assurance that this problem will not happen again. That assurance will come from a universal, electronic, identity-authenticating screening of all workers to ensure that they are authorized to work in the U.S.

Because almost all who make unauthorized entries and overstays do so to seek and accept employment, no other tool will get the result we need to make legalization politically and philosophically justified — that we have fixed the source of the problem. And this also means using the employment relationship to roll-in legalization while rolling out universal verification.

The key point is that prevention of illegal presence is the goal. Save the “punishment” for those that do not comply with a system that works, not those ensnared in the current system that does not.

Our legal immigration system needs lots of fixing, like the increase of STEM green cards passed by the House last week and much more. But these fixes, including all future flows beyond the current one million annual immigrants and the millions who will be legalized, will get much easier to negotiate when the legalization-prevention barrier is removed.