A Long Term Workable Plan

In August 2019 there was an I.C.E. raid on food processing plants in Mississippi, and many illegal immigrants were taken into custody. Unfortunately many of these raids occurred on the first day of school. Consequently, some in the press pointed out the dichotomy of happy children in the morning, going off for their first day of school, and sad children in the afternoon, going back to their now fatherless or motherless home because a parent had been taken into custody. It was sad to see the tearful and often confused children who could not understand why daddy or mommy was not home.
Although most of those taken into custody were in this country illegally, I cannot begrudge them because if I were in their situation, I would have probably done the same thing. Their motives were good, and in this circumstance, the end may well have justified the means. In this case those that were taken into custody were, for the most part, not “bad hombres,” but rather good hard working folk whose only sin was that they came to the U.S. looking for a better life for themselves and their children. Despite what some of the “know-it-all” politicians on both sides say, all illegal immigrants are not the same. There are those who are “good folk,” struggling to earn an honest living like most of those arrested at the food processing plants. Similarly there are those who are “bad hombres,” either criminals before they got here, or who have been caught doing nefarious or criminal things since they have been here. All in these two groups are illegals . . . but they are far from being the same. I do not want the “bad hombres” here in my country, but as far as the “good folks” are concerned . . . “live and let live,” or as Patti Paige sang many years ago, “Que sera, que sera.”

However, these “good folks” did cut the line. They snuck into the U.S. ahead of many of those who had been waiting in line for years to legally immigrate into this country. Many, myself included, do not think that these “good folks” should be treated the same as those who have been obeying the rules, and are still waiting in line to legally immigrate to this country. A dilemma? Perhaps not. My consternation with these “good folks” is twofold. Since they are here illegally, they should never become legal citizens, nor should they ever have same benefits and privileges as legal citizens. (Likewise their D.A.C.A. children would be treated the same as their “good folk” parents.)They should never have the privilege of voting, nor should not be eligible for the same social benefits as legal citizens, including food stamps, unemployment, or disability. However, if they pay into Social Security through their employment, they would be eligible to receive the Social Security and the Medicare benefits at age 65. 

To me this compromise is fair, but how in the world would these “good folk” be identified. Modern technology could actually make this quite easy. First of all within a specified period of time, let’s arbitrarily say within one year, all illegal immigrants and their families need to identify themselves and be fingerprinted (index fingerprints only). Once they have identified themselves their fingerprint would be put into nationwide data base. Then when another food processing plant was raided by I.C.E., it would be relatively simple to fingerprint each possible illegal, and transmit the fingerprint to the national registry. If the illegal’s fingerprint matched his/her “good folk” fingerprint in the system, then he/she would be immediately released, to be home when his/her young child returned from school. However, if the individual involved had not identified him/herself, then he/she would be a possible “bad hombre,” and immediately begin the process for deportation. Likewise if the individual was identified as an actual “bad hombre,” he/she would immediately be deported.
I realize that there are those that would object to the mass fingerprinting of illegals. However, to me, if the alternative is the deporting of hard working “good folk,” I would say that the fingerprinting would be of immense benefit to all of these “good folk,” as they would not be at risk for deportation, if and when they were identified randomly as being illegal. In fact, I would go further and say, put this system into effect and let the “good folk” decide for him/herself!
There is one fly-in-the-ointment with this system. What to do with those illegal immigrants who are neither “good folk” or “bad hombres?” Here I am referring to those who are on the dole. They are not “good folk,” as they are not contributing . . . they are not hard working as they are not working, however neither are they “bad hombres.” If they do not identify themselves and are not fingerprinted, then they are at significant risk for deportation, if they are later identified as being illegal. When this group identifies themselves, they should be labeled as “not presently good folk.” They would then have some previously determined period of time to get off the dole – perhaps one year. Then at the end of one year, they would be taken permanently off of the dole, e.g. no longer eligible for food stamps and simultaneously be reclassified as “good folk.” Because I do not think it would be right to immediately remove someone from food stamps, I would allow a grace period of one year, which I think is enough time to be a productive citizen . . . a true “good folk.” At the same time because they are illegal, they should not be eligible for those benefits after a one year grace period, because these should be limited to real citizens.
Also inherent in this system, if a “good folk” cheats, then he/she should be deported immediately. If the “good folk” votes or attempts to vote, then immediately deportation. The same rule and the same punishment would apply, if a “good folk” were to apply for a social benefit down the road.
Think of all the political squabbles that could be solved and prevented by implementing this system. The situation of the unfortunate “good folk” illegal who is processed for deportation, because he/she just happens to be at the wrong place at the wrong time . . . this situation would be avoided. A lot of the controversy over sanctuary cities or states would be potentially avoided because there would no longer be any benefit to protecting “good folk” from being identified, and the only benefit would be to protect the “bad hombres.” The D.A.C.A. dilemma would immediately be resolved. Yes, there would probably be an increase in illegals trying to make it into the U.S. before the end of the one year sign-up deadline, but at least a long term resolution would be tenable. Any illegal that crossed illegally into the U.S. after the one year identification deadline would automatically be classified a “bad hombre” forever. Although any resolution to the illegal immigration problem will inevitably not be perfect, this is a workable plan!