9 votes

The Probable Path to Amnesty

The first step is already well under way, it is the offical/formal policy of non enforcement. As with Pres. Obama's recent executive order, this policy will become more open and formal as time goes on, despite Republican rhetoric to the contrary. Whether the GOP adopts genuine restrictionist policies rather that mere rhetoric remains to be seen, but it is a possibility.

GOP candidates have acknowledged they won't be going around rounding up elderly or children for deportation, and the recent executive order from Obama took note of this by focusing on non enforcement for young adults, since we already have consensus that we wont deport elderly or children

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/16/us/us-to-stop-deporting-so...

This is a sea change in policy, at least in its formal capacity, and has gotten barely any attention from Romney or the GOP.

The second condition that will lead to amnesty is the indirect/implicit benefits of being illegal; no income tax, free healthcare with no penalty, free public school, access to social welfare, no public records, no jury duty, no selective service, etc. I'll explain why this will lead to amnesty.

By adding more and more unofficial or indirect benefits, without costs, citizens and taxpayers will be led to feel that there's a certain unfairness in illegals NOT being citizens subject to payroll taxes, income taxes, healthcare penalty, etc., as we move away from talk about actually enforcing the immigration laws, as is happening now.

Coupled with the acknowledged policy of non enforcement, this will create pressure to legalize (amnesty).

The third condition that will lead to amnesty is very important, and will probably begin soon. The presence of millions of illegal aliens in different states, who don't have representation, will create a set of conditions analogous to the lack of representation of slaves in slave states. It will create a powerful interest in those locales, counties, districts, and states to fight or representation for the uncounted undocumented residents. Not voting rights at first, but just representation of their collective numbers.

The lack of right to vote will be the main sticking point for those opposed to amnesty. Despite all the unfair exemptions and benefits given to illegals by default, despite official non enforcement, the majority will still oppose granting the right to vote to illegals, for reasons of fairness, and to prevent their obtaining voting power contrary to the interests of many, both in political office and among voters in general.

The states with large illegal alien populations will at first take an indirect approach to representation, claiming that they should get more representation in congress, more federal funds, etc., because of their large undocumented populations not being counted in the census, not being counted in determining congressional districts and numbers of Reps, etc.

This is similar to the set of interests that caused southern states to argue for congressional representation for slave residents, which resulted in the 3/5ths count compromise. I imagine we'll skip over any such compromises and representation will be given for illegal residents.

This will, in effect, give illegal aliens a substantial amount of representation congressionally and in the electoral college, despite not having the actual vote yet. I think in practice, in many places, illegal aliens will vote, will not be stopped from voting, and attempts to prevent them from voting will be fought with existing civil rights statutes. The democrats will probably lead the way in blocking voter ID laws and creating a de facto right to vote for illegals before pressing for a formal right to vote (thus completing the Amnesty.)

Once this set of conditions prevail, it is a very short step to full amnesty. Illegals will a) be garnering substantial benefits and exemptions from taxes, etc., while b) getting substantial representation via their states and districts. The country will eventually just be inclined to grant amnesty (full rights and full taxes/penalties/records), as a matter of fairness to not the illegals, but to themselves. Once the benefits of being illegal clearly outweigh the lack of full citizenship, as the aforementioned conditions would, amnesty will simply be the de jure formalization of the de facto realiy.

Present policy is heading in this direction, and this is the likely path amnesty will take.

In any case, the present day population of undocumented aliens will presumably have 2-3 children per household who are birthright citizens of the USA and will constitute a large voting bloc, so the issue of amnesty might fade into irrelevance within a generation even if the above actions aren't taken. This voting bloc will favor amnesty, but it might become less important since the majority will be legal children of illegal residents.

The real immigration fight will be over an end to birth right citizenship, as Ron Paul supports, and future enforcement of the border, future limits on legal immigration, and other possible changes.

Whether this voting bloc will fling the doors open even more to unlimited immigration, advocate for self interested ethnic benefits, affirmative action, work and school quotas, more social welfare, radical changes in school curricula; for opening the presidency to foreign born, for allowing dual citizenship, allowing regional de facto political relationships with their countries of origin, de facto "self rule," police no go zones as exist now in the Islamic sections of France, for official non English language sections of the country, or for many other conceivable policies, remains to be seen.

There is also the razor thin possibility of a smoother process of assimilation, as embraced by the Left and the neocons, but that is extremely doubtful, as preset trends continue; open avowal of ethnic identity politics, ingrained victim mentality, fight for special privileges, radicalizing of school curriculum, legally enrhsined language barriers, and very rapid and accelrating demographic change -- concentrated in a regional subsection of the country sharing a border with the home country, (in the case of Mexico).

Just some thoughts!

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Work permits/visas

If we aren't deporting undocumented people, their options are to:
1) exist off charity/government programs (collect payments for American-born children and scavenge)
2) work in the fields while INS looks the other way
3) work under the table for cash for employers who are willing to give them jobs for pennies on the dollar of usual wages
4) get a fake social security card (less than $500), work the system, get a good job at slightly lower wages than Americans would demand (employers generally willing to go along), and yes pay taxes under a fake social security number, believe it or not. Plenty of evidence to support that.

According to some sources, there are between 11 and 12 million undocumented people in this country (I'll bet that doesn't count those using fake ss numbers.) Let's say that 50% are children, or older than 70 (not of working age). That still leaves over 5 million undocumented people who will be applying for the work permits.

My understanding is that immigration lawyers are already telling those who call to gather what documents they can (evidence of high school graduation, school enrollment dates, etc.) and get ready to file.

In about 2 months, we are going to see such an increase in the workforce numbers that you are going to wonder, what happened?

Will these new workers find service jobs at lower wages than American counterparts? Of course they will. China/India got our manufacturing jobs, now in our own country undocumented workers will get a larger percentage of service jobs at lower wages.

metalhed19's picture

yep, exactly right.

yep, exactly right.

*Wisconsin Constitution* Article I, Section 25 "The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security,defense,hunting,recreation or any other law-abiding purpose"

metalhed19's picture

This is a great post, one of

This is a great post, one of the best i've seen in months...and no discussion?!?!

*Wisconsin Constitution* Article I, Section 25 "The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security,defense,hunting,recreation or any other law-abiding purpose"

I find it interesting that

I find it interesting that when this subject is raised it generates almost no discussion or votes. There's not even an immigration sub-forum on DailyPaul.

Someone should make a political cartoon of an Ostrich called "Liberty movement" with its head in the sand, as a demographic freight train bears down on it.

Its a travesty that in the past two elections, Ron has been perceived as weaker on immigration than McAmnesty and Obamnesty. Why such avoidance of the issue? Why is the paleo-libertarian movement so toothless on this crucial matter?

metalhed19's picture

Bill's right. I argue this

Bill's right. I argue this almost daily on here. So many people here want open borders, but 90%+ of the people coming here are not going to support any candidate for any office that is for a limited, Constiutionally defined gov, with low taxes and low spending. They are going to support the candidate on the Left that is for big programs and big spending and a central bank. In other words Socialists. It's just how it is. Major immigration/Blanket amnesty will clobber the Liberty movement. McClanahan and the Liberty Classroom people are saying the same thing. I urge you to think about the possibilities of trying to over come the sleepwalkers and huge wave of Socialists in the near future.

*Wisconsin Constitution* Article I, Section 25 "The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security,defense,hunting,recreation or any other law-abiding purpose"

Exactly right... even a

Exactly right... even a moderate Republican like Romney will not be electable when the electorate is made up of propertyless, uneducated people without the slightest inkling of a political tradition of individual rights and limited govt.

Look at China. Its a fully modern country, with a rich history behind it of thousands of years of civilization and culture. It is technologically advanced. But there is zero cultural tradition of individualism or political liberty.

Dismal situation but probable

Thank you for your thoughts on this question. You got to to the heart of the matter.

As long as the Republican Party shirks away from addressing the real issue of birthright citizenship and continues to pander out of fear of being perceived as racist, there will be little political representation for the large constituency of Americans who seek to remedy this crisis.

Unfortunately, younger and college-educated white voters are unwilling to see the crisis for what it is, as social prestige is demonstrated among whites by proving oneself better than other whites along several indices. This is largely why liberals are strangely allied to poor minority groups whose interests they largely do not share; it is a demonstration of superiority over the ignorant, unwashed masses of white voters who are (it is assumed) motivated by racist backwardness.

How long do we have to address the problem before the demographic structure renders it fundamentally intractable, before the political constituency of Americans who would end birthright citizenship evaporates due to the influx of new voters seeking either their ethnic interests or to demonstrate their tolerance and wisdom over other whites (an important dynamic that helped put Obama into office)?

I'm gad that RP cuts through

I'm gad that RP cuts through the BS and focuses on the key things, birthright citizenship and the magnets that draw the illegals. Too bad so many in the Liberty movement have an ideological blindspot, and cognitive dissonance on this subject.

Nice thoughts. True... Thanks

Nice thoughts. True...
Thanks for sharing =)

thanks

thanks