Quote:
Originally Posted by Ian
I think expanding the idea of prevention to include reevaluating the way we consider paths to legal citizenship should be a part of this solution.
While I’m not suggesting anything with regards to people that are currently here illegally, what I am saying is that I believe we have a serious issue with our immigration system when there are legal immigration paths where large well to do companies can internationally recruit people and pay them through the system but small businesses who can’t afford the same are forced to hire “illegal” help where it’s readily available because those people aren’t afforded the same experience with our system.
I’m not sure you agree with me here, but I consider this part of preventing illegal immigrants.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
|
If there is a way to change the path to legalization which would help to prevent illegal immigration, it certainly sounds like a good idea. My first cautionary reaction is, wait, can we trust bureaucrats to be apolitical in terms of what outcomes they wish to achieve with their crafting of regulations? But, then, that is always a problem with regulatory agencies.
If I understand you correctly, it seems that you are concerned with fairness, and if that can be solved, it will help to lessen illegal immigration. Are you suggesting that small companies should have the same legal ability to import aliens as large companies do? That Joe's hardware should be able to choose Sr. Lopez from Mexico to come work at his store and become a citizen? Or that neither large nor small companies should have a say on who can come here to work and eventually become a citizen?
I suppose that the first of the two options would cut down on the number of those classified as "illegal" since, by law, those chosen by all companies, including small ones, would then be considered legal. So the total number of immigrants who would have previously been considered illegal would then be pared down to those who were not sponsored by a company to come here to work. That's sort of a legal bookkeeping trick of simply moving something from one side of the ledger to the other. And it doesn't fundamentally solve the problem of why other countries can produce workers but the U.S. can't.
If it were purely a matter of fairness, I would prefer the second option. That big companies are reduced to the present status of small companies in their ability to import workers. I would make an exception, as a matter of national interest, that singular genius types, Einstein, bohr, etc., be given a special status.
But, on a more fundamental basis, I prefer the second option because it forces us to deal with the root problem of our current American culture which does not produce the needed workers. Curing that basic problem would better reduce illegal immigration than the first option as well as eliminating the current unfair system.