So some of us are totally behind enforcing strict(er) border laws (why have them if you don’t enforce them.) while recognizing the value of immigrants in our work force and population. We do indeed need to bolster our present work force. And our birth rate is in decline. But why shouldn’t we be selective in the admittance selection process? Frankly I’d like to see a stronger tie between the various work visa programs and present job openings. I’d submit right now work visas are somewhat hijacked by a couple of pretty shrewd countries.
Asylum and actual oppression is a completely different matter. Where there is a genuine case of danger we should respond and I expect our leaders to do so. I also expect them to have checks and balances to prevent asylum claims from being abused. Not saying ignore the claim. I’m saying provide temporary safe haven and validate the claim. And I believe that is the current general intent.
I was hoping this would have gotten a liberal response before I responded to see if anybody pushed back on it.
My idea is different but I think your points are good and probably more realistic.
Basically, why don’t we just do an initial vetting process at the border (I.e. are you likely to fly a plane into a building?) and grant probationary visas that have to be renewed periodically, for a fee, a brief interview about what you’re doing, and possibly a home visit. Like being on criminal probation. While they have an active probationary visa, they can work and live like a resident. Meanwhile, everyone is sorted into different queues based on manner, purpose, and preparedness at entry with priority given to those who are more prepared and meet a need and additional payment options available to move to a priority queue. When the full vetting process is complete, their number is called and they report to their local office for an interview and they receive a green card or are put on a path to citizenship, or whatever their intent is.
Anybody caught without a probationary visa or with an expired visa (with few exceptions) gets evaluated and if they’ve been law abiding residents they’re given a visa and put to the back of the longest, slowest line. If not, they’re deported, disqualified from receiving a probationary visa, and/or denied re-entry.
Essentially, right now, anybody showing up at our border can wait in a tent town or try to cross illegally. This process would remove the incentive to cross illegally for most people by going ahead and basically giving them the benefits. By associating fingerprints with each probationary visa we can create a database that will keep them from illegally obtaining welfare benefits and know when they commit crimes. The only risk people would be taking at that point is that they may be ultimately denied, which is a different criteria that I don’t have an answer for.
Basically, treat various queues like Disney World with merit based, need based, and discretionary “fast passes” available for people that come prepared, find work, etc.
I think you and
@Matt2496 bring up a good secondary point, which is that a lot of people (myself included) question the intentions of this administration, based on their messaging and lack of credibility. I think that’s being conflated with disagreement over the end goals of immigration reform.
