Welcoming New Americans

Conventional wisdom holds that politics makes for strange bedfellows. Immigration policy certainly demonstrates the accuracy of that observation.

Pity the poor liberal Democrats, forced to confront this issue, which pits their identity-politics allies – one’s race, sex, ethnicity, and bedroom antics are more important than one’s qualifications or philosophy – against their staunch, labor union allies. Indeed, it creates substantial rifts within the ethnic-bean-counter ranks as well, as blacks often consider immigration problematic, as it creates more competitors for (relatively) scarce jobs.

Conservatives, on the other hand, face no such conflict, as – devotees, first and foremost, to the rule of law – they find it impossible to get beyond the word "illegal" in the phrase "illegal immigrant". Simply put, conservatives aver that however beneficial immigration might be (and, obviously, folks disagree), lawbreaking cannot be tolerated, let alone rewarded. Liberals never display much patience for rules and process, if same stand in the way of achieving a "good" result. Hence, they rarely even employ the word "illegal", preferring to lump all immigrants together, whether they arrived here through the appropriate channels or snuck in.

With the death of the amnesty-by-another-name proposal, serious advocates of immigration reform need to discuss how to address the subject for the future.

Wall building resonates mightily with the "secure the border" crowd, but – in the opinion of this fiscal conservative – it represents an unwarranted expenditure of scarce public resources, a mere physical manifestation of a political gesture. Walls will cost a bloody fortune and will probably do little to stem the tide of illegals, as they do precisely zip about the incentives to come here in the first instance.

Which is to say: money.

In 1986, the last time we ventured down the amnesty road, Congress promised that employer sanctions would obviate the possibility of future illegals flouting the law for precisely the same reasons motivating their newly pardoned cousins. But those sanctions proved wholly illusory; very few businesses ever face prosecution, and when was the last time you read of a local prosecution for hiring an illegal as a nanny or a housekeeper?

Save the money on barriers; hit the folks who employ illegals. HARD. $10,000 for each offense, no exceptions. Offer a bounty to anyone who squeals – one half of the fine money. Make it illegal for any municipality or state to offer ANY services to illegals, (except, of course, humanitarian medical care). Depending upon how one interprets the relevant provision of the 14th Amendment, pass legislation or amend the constitution to eliminate birthright citizenship for the children of illegals.

In other words, get SERIOUS and start treating this massive trespass as the expensive crime it is. Harsh? Perhaps. But the solution to a crime needs to be sufficiently harsh to deter folks from committing it.

Likely, the result would be that we need not actually deport more than a few folks. People here illegally, faced with unemployment, would voluntarily leave.

And, when they do, we should IMMEDIATELY invite them to apply to return.

Consider: what would it take for you to pick up and leave your home, your family, your friends – everything you’ve ever known and loved – and sally forth to a distant land, full of strange customs, an incomprehensible language, and – perhaps – the risk of criminal sanction simply for working?

The sort of person willing to take that risk for the opportunity to work for a living represents PRECISELY the sort of person we should welcome into this country with open arms. They’re natural Republicans (even if they don’t – yet – know it), as they essentially reject the Leftist notion of getting something for nothing.

America should happily welcome many immigrants, but with one proviso: you’re (officially) on your own.

America is a land or opportunity, not guarantees (a philosophy not a few citizens could better take to heart). Those of us already here are more than happy to welcome new arrivals, provided they don’t ask us to subsidize the trip. No freebies; to the extent that we choose to have government fund such programs at all, we reserve them for citizens. No welfare. No public education. Nada.

If, after seven years or so, you wish to remain, have learned the language, some history, and understand that the only requirement for being an American is devotion to freedom – and a willingness to fight for it if necessary – then, in that case, you’re as good an American as the descendants of those who came over on the Mayflower. Pull up a chair.

And of your ethnic heritage, be as proud as you want. March in parades. Open ethnic restaurants. Celebrate World Cup Soccer victories for your erstwhile homeland.

But, remember, you’re an AMERICAN now; no hyphen. Expect no ballots or official governmental publications in your native tongue. Expect no special treatment on account of your heritage – nor any official recognition. Here, we are one people, not many peoples. A multiethnic nation, not a multicultural land.

Put another way, immigration policy ought to be centered around creating new Americans. We should welcome – and we can use – these new people, provided that they understand that, in America, while we’re all in this experiment together, you’re on your own and have absolutely no right to demand anything from anyone else, beyond simple respect of your right to be left alone.

It’s not too much for present Americans to ask that those who wish to join us play by certain basic rules, and to deal harshly with those who refuse, however admirable their pluck. We should welcome new -- legal -- immigrants, but should not be expected to underwrite their arrival.