Mike Scruggs
Most politicians who favor amnesty are reluctant
to call it amnesty. Some definitions are needed to help see through
the political hogwash. Here is a definition of U.S. immigration
law amnesty:
A pardon for illegal immigrant entry or visa violations and/or willful
false or misleading representations or willful concealment of a material
fact regarding immigration entry and visas.
Forgoing the penalty for illegal entry is amnesty; granting a path
to citizenship is not necessary for amnesty to be amnesty.
You cannot separate, however,
this definition of amnesty from the normal penalty for illegal entry.
I have tried to summarize the penalties described in USC Title 8 Paragraph
1325 below:
Deportation, with a 3-10 year bar against reentry, up to six
months in prison (first offense), and fines (complex elaboration in
Title 18) Penalties can be increased for identity theft or fraud (false
or stolen social security numbers), and tax evasion or fraud.
Meanwhile let me ask those
who believe illegal immigrant workers have only violated border entry
or visa laws a very relevant question. What percentage of illegal immigrant
workers have not committed identity theft, identity fraud (including
using a bogus or stolen social security number) or tax evasion? An American citizen
would probably face prison and heavy fines for committing such felonies. The Federal penalty
for identity theft is 3-7 years in prison. Most states have $50,000
to $100,000 fines as well.
So nominal fines of a few
hundred or even several thousand dollars and paying some back-taxes,
or learning English, or taking some driving lessons or courses are not
sufficient to change amnesty from being amnesty, no matter, whether
you call it earned legalization, or some other evasive euphemism. Trying
to fool the public into thinking amnesty is not really amnesty is not
exemplary ethical politics.
A short and easy summary is that if unlawful
immigrants are not deported and prohibited from reentry for at
least three years, amnesty remains amnesty.
Another extremely
important fact is that amnesties and lax law enforcement encourage more
illegal immigration. Judging from the 1986 amnesty, you can expect two
to three more illegal immigrants over a 10-20 year period for every
amnesty given. Now if you make it even more inviting, safer, and more
comfortable to live in the U.S. as an illegal immigrant—what I call
Red Carpet treatment for illegal immigrants—then you are asking for
a tidal wave of new illegal immigration and all the problems and costs
that go with it.
Yet there is a bill in the North Carolina
House of Representatives, H786, the Reclaim NC Act, that is supposed to be an enforcement bill, yet it has a provision
(Section 9) to give “drivers’ permits” to illegal immigrants. This seems
to me to be a pretty transparent special interest bill to attract more
cheap foreign labor. Unfortunately, this always comes at a high price
to American workers, taxpayers, and communities. It is essentially an
indirect stealth subsidy to employers of low-paid illegal immigrant
workers.
The sponsors of the bill claim that providing
drivers’ permits to unlawful immigrants will increase public safety
by knowing the identity of the illegals and giving them driver training.
This is a serious logical error. First of all, it makes U.S and
North Carolina laws a farce, when illegal immigrants are not prosecuted
but given driving permits to allow them to be more comfortable. Degrading
respect for law is never a cultural or economic advance. Since illegal
immigrants have a DWI accident rate more than twice the general North
Carolina population, it is unlikely that any improvement from the driving
training is going to offset the higher overall DWI rate resulting from
attracting more illegal immigrants to North Carolina. If you were an
illegal immigrant, would you come to North Carolina, which would give
you a drivers’ permit and make you safer from deportation or would
you go to South Carolina or Georgia where no such red carpet welcome
wagon treatment was available to you. It is only common sense; the driver’s
permit provision will be a magnet attracting more illegal immigrants.
Illegal immigrants may be cheap labor for
their users, but the cost of Federal, State, and local government services
and benefits to taxpayers is enormous. A May 2013 study by the Heritage
Foundation put this cost burden at $14, 387 per unlawful immigrant household
per year after taxes contributed. This figure will rise to $28,000 per
year when granted permanent residence (Green Card) status and full benefit
eligibility. As economist Milton Friedman observed; “You can’t
have a welfare state and high immigration levels.” Importing poverty
leads to big taxes and more poverty. Cheap foreign labor competition
is also depressing the wages of American workers approximately $2,800
per year.
As far as knowing
who is here, Section 8 of the bill completely contradicts this bogus
excuse for Section 9. Section 8 weakens the E-Verify identity check.
Both Sections 8 and 9 of the bill are blatant
favors to special interest users of cheap illegal immigrant labor that
will hurt North Carolina workers, families, taxpayers, and communities.
They should be scrapped or the whole bill should be killed.
This Republican sponsored bill is particularly
embarrassing to me as a former Republican County Chairman. Most grassroots
Republicans want good government. Good government is not serving big
business cheap labor lobbies at the expense of most North Carolina workers
and taxpayers in the name of free enterprise. Grassroots Republicans
are not going to work their hearts out to help special interest owned
politicians. Neither are Republicans going to hold on to their General
Assembly majorities if they do not act in behalf of all North Carolinians.
Free enterprise and free economy, yes, but for ordinary working people,
too. Big business special interest legislation will not build a better
North Carolina.
“Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality
to the poor or favoritism to the great, but judge your neighbor fairly.”—Leviticus
19: 15
No comments:
Post a Comment