On Border Security
Statement
On Border Security
Since I have been endorsed by Americans for Better Immigration, this may be a good time to elaborate my position on border security.
Ending amnesty for illegal immigrants Amnesty creates a strong incentive for illegal immigration. If people can get through the border to find not only better wages, but also free benefits from the government, the risk of crossing the border illegally becomes more acceptable. The penalty for legal citizens is a tougher job market due to the higher supply of labor, and more taxes must be collected to pay for the cost of civil services for illegal immigrants. But people would not be inclined to come here in the first place and take advantages of these benefits if they didn't know that, with a little effort, they would be forgiven for illegally entering the country in the first place. Removing amnesty prevents legal citizens from subsidizing illegal residents, and is one of the most cost-effective ways to curb illegal immigration. This is a very basic, uncomplicated issue that indicates whether or not a candidate is serious about enforcing the law.
Funding the Secure America with Verification and Enforcement Act The SAVE Act is a smart way to prevent companies from hiring illegal immigrants. Instead of heavy-handed tactics such as mass deportation, the SAVE Act puts the responsibility on the employer. Here's how Numbers USA sums it up:
NumbersUSA has always maintained that very few businesses actually want to hire illegal aliens. And we believe that of the minority of businesses that do hire illegal aliens, most do so without knowing it or do so because they feel forced to do it to keep up with competitors who ARE hiring illegal aliens. Universal mandatory use of E-Verify will protect legitimate businesses, protect U.S. workers and remove the financial ability for most illegal workers to remain in the United States.
Generally speaking, I don't support bigger government, and I don't support putting requirements on companies to do business. But the weight of the bureaucracy needed to support the SAVE Act's program is lighter than the weight of the bureaucracy needed to pay for government benefits to illegal aliens and the loss of American jobs.
Requiring federal pickup of locally detained illegal aliens This is nothing more than requiring police to enforce the law. If an illegal immigrant is detained by local police, and the local police are aware that the person is an illegal immigrant, the proper thing to do is alert federal authorities that they have an illegal alien in custody. This should not be controversial at all.
Cutting funds for sanctuary cities The federal government is not authorized by the Constitution to subsidize cities in the first place, and the federal government is broke, and only able subsidize anything through taxes and inflation. So I support cutting funds to cities wherever possible. Targeting cities that contribute to border security problems, at the expense of taxpayers everywhere, seems like a great place to start.
Funding the entry/exit system This issue was a little difficult for me, since screening measures, if taken too far, can infringe on the rights of law-abiding citizens, and can be a hassle. There is, however, an important difference between spying on people in their homes and at their jobs, versus screening as they enter and leave the countrynamely, a difference of national security. Being asked to prove who you are at the border is not a very tall order, and indeed, using advanced methods of identification may make it easier, not more difficult, to prove your identity (in case, for instance, you lose your passport abroad). It also help prevent identity fraud.
Funding better security at the border itself It may not be the most cost-effective method of curbing illegal immigration, but it does help, and our border security today is sparse. We won't have an illegal immigration problem if they can't get in!
Ending "birthright citizenship" Recognizing that this would require a Constitutional amendment, this legislation will be the most difficult to enact, but I would support this effort. "Birthright citizenship" means that when illegal immigrants have children, the child automatically becomes a U.S. citizen, thereby making it impossible to deport the parent or parents without destroying the family. What this encourages, of course, is for illegal immigrants to have children immediately after arriving, thus allowing the parents to stay and now costing the American taxpayer for all of the hand-outs the government gives to children and the needy. The last thing we need is for the government to provide this incentive.
Ending "chain migration" The principle here is the same as with birthright citizenship, so I will simply quote Americans for Better Immigration for those unfamiliar with what chain migration is.
Chain Migration refers to the endless and often-snowballing chains of foreign nationals who are allowed to immigrate because previous immigrants can send for ADULT relatives.
It is the primary mechanism that has caused legal immigration in this country to quadruple from the 1960s. As such, it is one of the chief culprits in America's current record-breaking population boom and all the attendant sprawl, congestion, environmental habitant losses, school overcrowding and failure to meet pollution goals.
Chain Migration is about *family reunification* beyond the nuclear family. Until the late 1950s, America's immigration tradition of family unity had only included spouses and minor children.
But since then, immigrants can also send for their sibling, parents and adult children. Because each of those can then bring in their own adult relatives and nuclear family, a single immigrant can eventually be responsible for the arrival in the United States of his/her aunts, uncles, nephews, nieces, first cousins, second cousins once-removed, in a spiraling chain that eventually could reach most of the world's 6 billion-plus residents.
Ending the "visa lottery" The Diversity Lottery, in essence, gives out 50,000 visas a year, totally at random. Yes, random. This isn't even logical, let alone practical. It is, however, consistent with the liberal practice of turning questions of equality into questions of diversity.
Limiting importation of foreign workers Another no-brainer, few things make less sense than simply handing American jobs to foreign nationals.
Reducing immigration levels Unlike the other issues which are questions of law and principle, this issue is simply a goal based upon present circumstances. When and if we get our economy back on track, and when and if we solve the problem of illegal immigration, there will be more jobs available and we will be able to welcome more legal immigrants and still have numbers far lower than we do now, with illegal immigration comprising most of the problem. But we aren't there now, and we aren't close.
Source