OLDER WHITE PEOPLE: INCREASINGLY YOUR SOCIAL SECURITY CHECK WILL BE DEPENDENT ON MINORITIES OF WORKING AGE!

 Now that I have your attention, can we talk about — IMMIGRATION REFORM

 Introduction

On any given day, there are millions of people moving around in the United States who are not residents or citizens. Some have unexpired tourist visas, some are here only to work and have the necessary permits, some are under very specific visas aimed at particular needs (e.g., H-1B), and some have special temporary visas (e.g., athletes, performers, students).

Then there are some whose tourist visas have expired and who stayed here anyway. And some who came here without any of the necessary documents.

It should be possible to categorize these last two categories, collectively referred to as “illegal immigrants,” as constituting two primary groups: those who want to achieve legal residency in the USA and those who simply want to work for a stipulated period of time and then return to their home country. It is equally logical to assert that this country should have no obligation to any illegal immigrant who wants neither to be a resident nor to work under the terms available. In other words, those who decline either designation should be deported.

Excluded from the terminology of the above paragraph are those seeking asylum and refugees. In addition, it is not to be construed by use of the term “residency” that the individual in question necessarily intends to live in the USA 365 days.

[The logic in this extended essay is applicable regardless of the pending Supreme Court decision regarding DAPA. From a practical and emotional standpoint, however, if President Obama’s executive order is upheld, it would support the underlying rationale for this plan.]

I am not a politician, nor am I a lawyer. Perhaps the label of “idealist” fits, or even “dreamer.” Simply put, I have interacted with countless members of the immigrant community over the past twenty-five years and would love to see reform accomplished.

The United States is in a unique position with respect to immigration, and I am not referring to the “give me your poor, you hungry” verbiage. The country is both large, which means there is physical room for newcomers, and it is not enamored with establishing a skill/education point system with respect to deciding which immigrants can enter legally. Nor, whatever the bluster, will it ever build an abortive “mother of all walls” or commit the financial and human resources that would be necessary to apprehend every single person who is here “out of status.”

Whether one considers the immigration actions of the USA as fitting its self-description as being “welcoming” is more of a debate, undoubtedly requiring referees and a limit to alcohol consumption. What is indisputable is that people from other countries consistently want to come here — because their home country does not have enough jobs or has a political/cultural system which limits certain freedoms or is less safe — just as people from elsewhere quite often prefer American dollars to their own currencies.

The result is a set of immigration laws, executive orders, and implementation procedures that would make Kafka proud, so I thought I would attempt a resolution.

The immigration plan outlined below revolves around policies that pertain to money, taxes, and language. Adherence to the requirements would bring certainty of legal status to those who are currently classified as illegal immigrants yet want to demonstrate their commitment to the USA.

I believe that those who are out-of-status would react positively to a system of specificity and clarity, within a reasonable timeframe, that simultaneously requires individuals to make decisions about their future place in America. They would welcome an accompanying end to the current situation of seemingly random enforcement regarding deportation.

With the country demographically evolving within the next quarter-century to one of multiple minorities, it is important to put a bow on a package of sensible immigration reforms and move on to the numerous more substantive issues on the nation’s to-do list.  

The Plan

There are undoubtedly different attitudes among illegal/undocumented/out-of-status immigrants about becoming American citizens, although the current political environment is prompting more green card-holders to seek naturalization. At the same time, there is no disputing the observation that every person carrying a pejorative label would like to end the uncertainty and fear, particularly concerning deportation, associated with the shadow life they are typically leading. Becoming a resident would suffice; citizenship is secondary.

While I have not conducted a professional poll of the 11 million immigrants caught in the web they and we have created, I still have confidence in this conclusion: if each head of a defined household filing unit had the opportunity, as the saying goes, to beg, borrow or steal (just kidding on the latter) $10,000 in order to receive green cards, in a completely predictable fashion, for himself and up to 6 additional members of that household, they would do the deal.

Putting aside concerns over their perception of the trustworthiness of our government apparatus, illegal immigrants would come forward under this plan and be eager to resolve their situation. They would self-declare: “we want to be residents” or “we are only here to work.”

Let’s call the document that would be created to bridge the gap between the current predicament and becoming a green card-holder an Extended Year Visa (EYV). If the work route is chosen, the permit is a separate document not connected at all to the EYV. It is here labeled “WP.”

These would be the requirements:

1. A household is defined as a filing unit, with a singular head of the household. Besides himself, the head has a maximum of 6 additional slots for other individuals, who do not need to be connected biologically to him. He pays the $10,000 referenced above. The slots can be filled either immediately or in the future; in all cases, however, the names of the individuals must be filled in at the time of filing for an EYV. If within the filing unit, there are individuals 18 or older, they are subject to the same income tax return and English language requirements, to be spelled out below, as the head of household.

If only a total of 3 slots are taken, the fee is reduced to $5,000, but there cannot be any additions to that household filing unit in the future.

If a head of household filing unit seeks additional slots, he cannot. There must be a second head of household designated. That individual pays the fee, either $5,000 or $10,000, dependent on the number of slots. He is subject to the same head of household rules as the initial head of household.

2. Children could be those here already or those expected to come, keeping in mind that the names must be filled in at the time of filing for an EYV. Any individual at least 18 years old can designate himself as a head of a household filing unit, at which time he receives the 6 additional slots. He must fill in those slots with specific names and he must abide by the rules of an EYV.

3. The holder of an EYV will have three years to apply for a green card.

4. Each person in the household who earned money from a job must file an income tax return for 2015 and must commit to filing that return on an annual basis. Three years of tax return filings are required for the EYV holder to apply for a green card. Filing an income tax return is a sign that the individual wants to “invest” in being in the United States. Failure to file means the person would be deported.

5. When the EYV is submitted for conversion to a green card, the applicant must pass a test of rudimentary Transactional English. Failure on this test means an automatic re-test three months later. Failure on a third try three months later means deportation.  Learning a minimal amount of English is an indication that an immigrant wants to “invest” in being in the United States. The test would include three questions each pertaining to driving, government, police, store, taxes, and school, a total of 18. Passing would be 13. Note that the citizenship test at present is a mixture of verbal (correct answers for 6 of 10) and reading/writing (satisfactory response to one of three questions each).

6. Beginning in 2022, there would be no family reunification provisions in immigration law as there would have been sufficient time to comply with the rules of the EYV and its implications for households. Transition time is needed because it is quite common for families to come to the United States in stages, e.g., the father comes and finds work, then sends for his wife. The children, if any, may also come at different times, depending on financial factors and the existence of an adult who is performing the function of in locos parentis. Note that under the EYV, there is a one-time election with respect to a person aged 18 or higher; that individual must either be considered a head of household or be on the list for a different head of household. (Or they could elect the WP route.)
7. Beginning in 2022, a mother would have to be physically in the United States for at least three years for her newborn child to be an American citizen at birth. Relative to the benefits accruing to being a citizen, the three-year commitment (from entry into the country to the date of birth) is rather modest. Births to illegal immigrants in 2013 were 295,000, a rate which is the same as that of 2001 and which compares with a peak of 370,000 in 2006 and 2007 (Pew Research). There are an estimated 4.5 million American children who have benefitted from the current constitutional protection.

8. Holders of an EYV must purchase auto insurance if they have a driver’s license. Driving without a license would make a person subject to deportation. EVY-holders would receive a dated EYV work permit for three years.

9. Effective 1/1/22, there would be an EYV-WP for new adult immigrants, a phenomenon that cannot and should not be discouraged. The American economic engine remains  alluring to people from countries with unemployment rates that are a multiple of those here. The EYV would be available after three years of income tax filings and a passing score on the Transactional English test. Note: current illegal immigrants receive an EYV immediately and have three years to get their green card. New immigrants have an EYV-WP for three years to prove their commitment, which then triggers a three-year EYV period to actually receive a green card.

During this period, from the moment they enter the country, they must have a dated work permit. They must get a driver’s license if they intend to drive at any time. They must purchase auto insurance. If they do not do these things any time during their six-year period between entry to the country and receipt of a green card, they are subject to immediate deportation. The cost of an EYV for new arrivals is the same as that pertaining to current EYV holders.

10. For the immigrant who is only interested in working here, not in getting a green card, the requirement is a dated WP, renewable annually (akin to the H-2B Guest Worker visa). If they seek to drive, they must get a driver’s license, which they are eligible for, and auto insurance, if they have a car. A person overstaying his WP, or otherwise violating its requirements, is immediately subject to deportation.

It is in the country’s self-interest to have individuals in the WP category; at the same time, it would be advantageous if many of them converted to resident status. Such a move would make current laws mandating K-12 education and access to public services more in synch with the intentions of said individuals and their families. It is awkward for all concerned, excepting those who are unattached males or females (admittedly an important percentage of WP-holders), to go through the annual WP process, which requires a return for a stipulated period of time to the individual’s home country. Many, perhaps half, of all immigrants initially come with a working mentality, i.e. make and remit some meaningful money and return to the home country. In time, many of these same people get accustomed to the American life and switch to a desire for residency.

11. Existing visa programs like the H-1B and EB-5 (discussed later) would be folded into the EYV system. With respect to student visas, on expiration, the student could only remain in the country under either an EYV (either directly as a head of household or as a member of an EYV household) or a WP. In addition, it will not be necessary for schools to end-run the H-1B visa rules when they set up on-campus entrepreneurial endeavors; CUNY recently announced that it is taking advantage of an exemption on the H-1B cap for non-profit institutions to attract immigrant entrepreneurs.

The cap for H-1B visas is 65,000 annually plus 20,000 reserved for those with advanced degrees. The application window opened on April 1 and was closed within  week one.

12. In place of the current immigration limits by country, the future limitations will be labeled: Asia, Central and South America (inclusive of Cuba, whose special immigration privilege – residency is automatic after one year on American soil– should be ended with the opening up of that country that is taking place), Europe, Africa, and other.

There will be a maximum of 1.7 million (equal to the fiscal 2015 immigrant total) new EYV-WP documents issued yearly beginning in 2022; the above regions will have the same percentage of that number as they have had during the cumulative period of 2006-2015. Included therein are those in the asylum or refugee category (note that the murder rate in Honduras is a dozen times that of the USA).

Beginning in 2016-17, the limit on those electing the WP designation is two million annually. Keep in mind that the USA has 320 million people; i.e., the above numbers are not large relatively.

These absolute numbers are in the context of the USA needing to get its house in order, i.e., to have a defined, cohesive approach to immigration and how newcomers are melded (or not) into the fabric of their new “home country.”

13. It should go without saying, but any illegal immigrant (which is to be defined as a person who declines both the EYV and a WP) who has been convicted of a felony is subject to immediate deportation; any felon attempting to enter the United States in the future will be sent back immediately, as will anybody harboring the fugitive.

14. Within the EYV or WP period, the holder is allowed to change his mind – once. Note that a person changing from an EYV may create adverse ripple effects on those on his or her original covered list of an additional 6 people. Presumably he would only make that change if a different individual were able to be the head of household. For the person changing his mind, there is no return of monies previously paid to the government. The new head of household is not required to put up $10,000, but he also cannot change any of the names on the list, nor can he add a replacement name.

15. It is recognized that as EYV and WP are unrolled, over time, there will be a need for adjustments – such an expectation is not a substantive reason for not moving ahead on the EYV and WP approach.  Better to have a good approach to 80% of a situation than to wait on that magical day when somebody has an answer to 100% of the challenges.

16. There are a projected three million heads of households, admittedly a large number for the bureaucracy to process, but under the EYV/WP plan, efficiency and effectiveness would both be increased. Staffers would be doing the right things instead of, at present, “simply” doing things right (in their view anyway). Regardless of temporary incremental staffing costs, over time, the net cost (total costs minus revenues from the plan) would not be any greater than it is at present.  Actually, on a ten-year average calculation, I think it would be much less.

Supporting Information: Some History

• President Obama has instructed ICE prosecutors to use discretion in their handling of undocumented individuals, first through DACA (begun in 2012, it is functioning smoothly apparently) and then through an executive order (labeled DAPA) which is being reviewed by the Supreme Court. DACA-protected individuals, on the record, have obtained better jobs, driver’s licenses, credit cards – some of the key characteristics of a person committing to this country. Over 500,000 young people have DACA protection.

DAPA would make 3.9 million individuals eligible for protection from deportation; some 1.5 million are currently eligible under DACA or Temporary Protected Status. This leaves 5.8 million ineligible, according to Pew Research. The skew therein is toward single men, 2.1 million; presumably many of these would be attracted to the WP route.

As a further wrinkle, international students (a classification that some colleges apply to undocumented students living in the USA) who are pursuing degrees in the STEM disciplines are now permitted to stay in the USA for three years of on-the-job training after they have received their college diploma. This provision, another Obama initiative, is basically to create a window for the affected individuals to pursue some type of visa, assisted by the Silicon Valley tech companies.

The EYV/WP plan supersedes DACA and DAPA and all immigration-related executive orders, both in fairness and clarity of outcome. As stated at the outset, if the Supreme Court upholds DAPA, the real world significance is consistent with the logic of this plan.

• It is not analytically useful to pull out the assimilation patterns of prior waves of immigration, which is something anti-reformers attempt under the lament of “why can’t they do it the right way, like prior generations did.” With economical jet travel, e-mail, smartphones, and multiple television channels bringing in programming from the “home country,” immigrants are able to stay connected in ways that were never feasible before.

Perhaps a generation or two hence, the response will become more clear, but at present, one does not know the meaning of “home country” without further elaboration.

 While it would be nice to reach back and show how many illegal immigrants already have made commitments to being in the USA, it is not practical. They were taking their actions based on a set of laws different from what is outlined herein. Think of this plan as a clearing of the decks, a starting over, with much reduced bureaucratic agita.

 There is a precedent for selling visas and green cards. Under the EB-5 visa program, a foreign investor gets a green card if he puts at least $500,000 into a project in the USA that creates ten jobs in an area where unemployment is 150% or more of the average. In 2015, there were 17,000+ applications for the 10,000 annual slots. Reflecting the anxiety felt by many affluent people about the sustainability of their fortunes in the face of local political turmoil, more foreign investors (80% are Chinese) have been taking advantage of EB-5, helped by American officials willing to draw maps to create the necessary unemployment number. Similarly, aggressive real estate developers have used the EB-5 program in their financial planning.

Why should affluent people have still another advantage; they have enough already. The EYV-WP plan would be hugely more inclusive, to the benefit of all.

Supporting Information:  A Few Data Points

• Of the 11 million illegals, an estimated 3 million are due to receive their green cards within three years and another 3 million after that – often the “after” is many, many years. Coincidentally, these applicants will have paid $10,000 in cumulative fees while continuously being in an uncertain state of limbo. The low level of visibility and certainty (non-existent actually) associated with the current process does nothing to negate the perpetual fear of deportation, which affects approximately 400,000 people per year.

• There are fewer illegal immigrants today than in 2007, when the number peaked at 12 million, after it had jumped from 3.5 million in 1990. One reason is the improvement in the Mexican economy; Mexicans represent about half of all illegals (who, in turn, are about 28% of the 41 million foreign-born residents of the USA) and there is no longer any net inflow from that country (the gross number is down as well, and the majority of the inflow to the USA is for family reunification purposes).

In 2015, there were fewer than 200,000 Mexicans apprehended at the border, far off the peak of 1.6 million in 2000. If one traces the economic cycle of the USA, particularly that of housing construction, the Mexican numbers become understandable.

In a different way, Mexico is key to illegal immigration as it is the route for those coming from El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala. According to the Pew Research Center, deportations by Mexico have more than doubled in the past four years.

• Over half of current illegal immigrants reportedly have overstayed conventional tourist visas. This is an important source of the uproar over “not playing by the rules,” which then leads to the “amnesty” bogeyman. Under the plan outlined here, not playing by the EYV and WP rules means automatic subjection to deportation: no ifs, ands, or buts.

• In the government year ended September 30, 2015, of the 45 million arrivals to the United States who came by air or sea, less than 1% overstayed their visas. This does not contradict the estimate that 40% of illegal immigrants have overstayed visas as this number is cumulative from decades of travelers. Note that in 2015, there were another 110 million land arrivals requiring no visas.

• There are 8.8 million legal residents eligible to naturalize. Of these, 2.7 million are Mexican. According to Pew Research, only one-third of eligible Mexicans historically have opted to become citizens, half the rate of all immigrants. For the record, Mexican immigration is now a net zero; it is China and India which are the leaders in sending people to the land of opportunity.

• As a reminder, sheer practicality is an issue when it comes to the question of how to deal with illegal immigrants; there is no way to back up the 747s and fill them with “illegals.” Nor is there any way to construct a foolproof border barrier/staffed 24/7 without draining economic resources from uses which are more pressing for unemployed Americans. An independent analysis, clearly by somebody with a great deal of time on his hands, pegged the cost of evicting the country of 11 million people at $400 billion (more agents, more planes, more detention facilities), with a $1 trillion impact on the economy.

• For all the trash talking about “America is not the way it used to be,” those renouncing their citizenship number less than 4,000 annually, in stark contrast to the number becoming citizens, over 650,000.

Supporting Information: Education Impact

• It is no secret that the absence of documentation is a major inhibitor of educational aspiration. Over the years, this question has been posed to students affected by the dilemma of not having the resident status which would enable them to receive federal financial aid, thus increasing their access to college.

“If a freshman in high school learns for the first time that he or she is undocumented,       with all that means with respect to making the commitment to higher education, out of    ten students, how many (1) continue to work hard nonetheless, (2) give up completely,      or (3) continue to have the same attitude as       that of many documented friends: exert     themselves in classes they care about and blow off the others.

The clustered results of this informal survey are as follows: two young people will stay    positive and proactive in pursuing further education, three will lose any hope and give up,             and five are in the “whatever” classification.

Looking at the demographic changes taking place in the USA, specifically the evolution to multiple minorities, America must institute changes in immigration laws which would             shift these survey responses toward the pursuit of higher education.

• By law, K-12 schools cannot ask students about their documentation status. The inadvertent outcome is that the subject of documentation as it relates to the pursuit of higher education becomes a combination of ignorance by teachers/counselors/staff and hush-hush conversations with those who are sympathetic to the affected students and in a position to somehow help. With a known road to resident status, the above legal restriction should be lifted, facilitating an improved, more open conversation.  In turn, this will mean a more educated, productive citizenry, as is already being demonstrated by those with the DACA designation.

Supporting Information: Societal Aspects

• The word “amnesty” has no real meaning — and there is wider agreement on this assertion than might be thought. For example, a poll of Iowa caucus voters said government spending was the number one issue at 32%, with the economy second at 27%, terrorism third at 25%, and immigration a lowly fourth at 13%.

• California has over 25% of all illegal immigrants. With over half of its total population either immigrants or children of immigrants, it has the most student friendly higher education policies (access, rate, and aid) in the USA, has opened the door to undocumented individuals obtaining professional credentials, and has led the way in access to driver’s licenses. Counterintuitively, Texas has been more open to undocumented students than many states which carry the “liberal” label.

It is likely that an important percentage of illegal Mexican immigrants in California will elect the WP designation.  One indication of where their hearts lie is the $25 billion remitted to Mexico in 2015 (2% of that country’s GDP), most of which came from those working in the USA.

Relevant to the illegal immigrant/crime accusation, in California, foreign-born adults        represent one-third of the population, but only one-sixth of the prison population.

• By clearing the decks of nebulous, uncertain change-of-status cases now on the books, immigration personnel could focus more clearly on the separate category of requests for asylum from political and sexual abuse. Asylum and refugee-seekers would receive an EYV and would count against the overall immigration limitation. At present, there is a 10,000 annual visa limit on cases involving domestic violence against undocumented persons; the backlog of cases to be adjudicated is many years.

• With immigrants no longer in legal limbo, but with a clear path to a specific, legal designation, undocumented women who are currently the subject of abuse by their partners, but understandably reluctant to seek help, would be less likely to stay quiet.

• At present, in the undocumented world, there is an expensive, awkward, rife-with- potential-for-misunderstandings situation called “business marriages.” This plan would put a large dent in the logic for these liasons.

• The role of “coyotes” used by those crossing into the USA without documentation would be severely reduced, which is all to the good – they are equally expensive and much more directly dangerous.

• Recent studies have show that bilingual students have better social skills, which can enhance their ability to think critically in their careers. The latter will most likely evolve in a fashion that prizes those who are bilingual and bicultural.

Supporting Information: Macroeconomic Issues

• To return to the tease presented at the top of this essay, older white people in the USA increasingly will need younger non-white people economically. In 1980, the overall population over 65 years of age was one-fifth of those ages 20-64. It is projected to be two-fifths by 2035. Putting it another way, the future working person will be financially responsible for twice the number of retirees of a generation ago.

By the year 2023, below the age of 30, whites will represent less than half of the population; from now until 2030, there will be an estimated decline of 12 million whites of working age.  (Western Europe and Japan are in even more difficult shape from the standpoint of pension obligations and numbers of people in the working age category.) These numbers underscore the absolute need for pumping the economic engine, which in turn requires immigration reform.

• The broader picture on demographics is quite interesting, and relevant to the issue of immigration. Some 25% of the world’s population (20% in the USA) is 10-24 years of age, but they mostly live in developing countries. For example, Nigeria has a median age of 18 and India’s is 27; in contrast, that of the USA is 37 and that of Germany is 46. To make the economics work in the latter countries and their peers, they require more of what the former nations have in excess supply, young people. Hence the need for logical policies on immigration.

• The expectation in the USA is that the labor participation rate (civilians, over 16 years of age, working or looking for work), which is now 63% versus 66% twenty years ago, will continue to decline, reflecting the aging population and the disposition of young people to work less. Still another argument for immigration reform.

• In many companies, especially those in the industrial sector, there is an important age gap between older, close to retirement employees and much younger colleagues. If the prior group expects their social security checks to be unaffected, they need more of the “youngsters” working. Given the demographic changes taking place, this means more educated minorities are required, which in turn means the access to government financial aid that can only come with legal status. As things stand now with respect to demographics and educational attainment, by the year 2020, college enrollments will be trending downward, which is not a favorable outlook for the economy overall.

• If you are thinking that white employment levels will recover, think about these data from prize-winning author Charles Murray. His data set was white men in their 30s and 40s with working class jobs or no occupation and no more than a high school diploma or GED. In 1970, 95% were in the labor force and 85% were married. In 2010, the comparative figures had declined to 79% and 52%.

• In 1990, there were 17-18 million manufacturing jobs in the USA, paying a median real gross wage of approximately $800 per week. Now there are 12-13 million such jobs, and the pay has not changed. These jobs disappeared in part because of globalization in general and the incremental impact of trade agreements; illegal immigrants cannot be blamed for the loss of jobs per se.

• The fact that there are more job openings in this country than there are unemployed people is partly a function of large numbers of immigrants not being allowed to work up to their capabilities because of status problems.  It is not a stretch to say that without more sensible immigration policies, economic growth in this country will be so low that all government financial commitments will be up for question.  The incremental funding that is already required at the K-12 level, where education must be delivered without any reference to documentation, requires higher education or the development of a marketable skill for society to recoup its K-12 education investment.

 Supporting Information: Microeconomic Inputs

• Dueling research studies have failed to identify any significant impact on existing wages from the availability of illegal immigrants. The real issues are different. Having said this, there is an exception. When Arizona (2008) mandated employers use the Federal E-Verify system to see if an employee had a bona fide social security number and (2010) implemented other anti-illegal immigrant measures, it saw a 40% drop in the number of said immigrants and wages did rise for resident workers. Admittedly, one of the unintended consequences of mandated higher minimum wages could be an economic opening for undercutting by those seeking only to work in the USA. Tougher penalties for non-abiding employers should alleviate this possibility.

• Unemployed white middle managers whose jobs are never coming back are not going to schlep to the Workforce Training building to learn how to pick apples or pluck chickens. Those jobs almost automatically go to others, who happen to be immigrants in many cases. Without them, inflation in food prices would increase significantly

• William Frey of the Brookings Institute has devoted considerable attention to the generation/ethnic gap. Among many other data points, he notes that states which are experiencing sharp increases in minority young people, in the context of a senior citizen component which skews white, are often laggards in child well-being measures, which is certainly grist for the racial theorist mill. He cites Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and Tennessee in this regard.

• The unfairness of the present social security situation, wherein illegal immigrants experience paycheck deductions with little hope of eventually collecting the benefits, would be rectified going forward. According to Henry Cisneros and Sol Trujillo, one million new immigrants equals $500 billion more paid into social security over a 25-year period than the amount received. Note that social security is neither insurance nor a contract; the percentages paid in and the amounts paid out are a function of legislation, which means multiple (and changing) economic and political variables are involved.

• An independent study, clearly pro-immigration in motivation, has found that immigrants have started over half of start-up companies in the USA recently valued at $1 billion or more. Unfortunately the study does not distinguish among residents, H-lB visa holders, or undocumented individuals. Nonetheless, the point – the relationship of immigrants to new business endeavors, large or small, is clearly valid.

• According to Pew Research, the median household income of legal immigrants is $52,000, compared with $36,000 for households of illegal immigrants. The overall economy would be lifted if/when the latter household income number rises with greater education and employment opportunities. And there would be less necessity for access to anti-poverty programs.

• In the 2000-2014 period, Latinos reportedly represented half of the increase in home ownership in the USA, which is doubly remarkable considering the extremely large hit to their net worth in the 2007-08 financial debacle.

• Under the EYV/WP plan, immigrants would save money on legal bills, a significant portion of which are from charlatans or incompetents.

• Employers who have abused illegal immigrants, sometimes simply refusing to pay them, would lose their leverage with reform.

Supporting Information: Political Factors

• In addition to the political aspects relevant to every aspect of immigration reform, Republicans have a specific fear. At present, Latinos represent only 12% of eligible voters (same as that of African-Americans). However, millennials—who are likely to become increasingly active on the political front– represent 44% of Latino voters, compared with only 27% of white voters. Most importantly, this is a coming-of-age phenomenon, i.e. is not dependent on immigration reform or future immigration trends. One million Hispanics reach voting age annually.

• According to Pew Hispanic Research, in 1994, only 31% thought that immigrants strengthened the economy, whereas 63% regarded them as burdens. Today, the numbers have flipped: 59% say “strengthen” and only 33% say “burden.”

• Ignoring big differences between Republican and Democrat respondents, overall 75% of those surveyed want to figure out a way to allow undocumented immigrants to remain in the USA; 62% are against an enhanced border wall.

• In 1995, white public high school graduates were 73% of the total; the 2012 number was 57%, and the projection for 2025 is 51%. Minority babies now exceed white; by 2039, minorities will be more than half of the working age population. Anti-immigration spokespeople are right to be fearful – if their true issue is the spectre of an inevitable erosion in white power.

• The border with Mexico extends for 2,000 miles. A survey of those physically closest to the wall indicated they wanted more customs, not border, agents. Interestingly, maybe even counterintuitively, private investors put up $120 million to build the CrossBorderXpress, a land bridge connecting San Diego and the Tijuana International Airport.  They charge $12 per flier, have high tech screening, and apparently a customer-friendly attitude, judging from the reviews thus far.

• The late, lamented Senate approach to immigration reform in 2013 included a ten-year trip to a green card, then three more years for citizenship. It involved fines, fees, and payment of back taxes (not sure how they would have been calculated) in order to gain “probationary legal status.” All reform is destined to be complicated; that criticism was immediately applied to the 2007 bipartisan Kennedy-McCain bill, and then, as always seems to be the case, squabbling broke out along political party lines.

Supporting Information: Anticipated Criticisms

• Some will ask, “what about the issue of rewarding illegal behavior?” What exactly is this reward? Is it that a family is allowed to remain intact, ostensibly a social policy in which Americans believe? Is it that our economy benefits? Is it that future illegal immigrants will be immediately/automatically deported?

Remember too that many illegal immigrants are here because of our contribution to their country’s travails, the most prominent historical examples being the American consumption of drugs imported from Colombia and the fact that the United States long ago simply took a big chunk of Mexico without anything resembling a democratic process. P.S. Overall, if more immigrants are brought into and stimulate incremental growth of the economy, it is existing citizens who are rewarded.

• It goes without saying, but to cross the t’s and dot the i’s, criminals (felony level) would be deported, and the head of household re-defined. Equally true is that a head of household (who could be a solo adult) and anybody else who refuses both the EYV and WP routes should be deported. Those who advocate completely open borders should acknowledge the impracticality of their position. The EYV and WP plan is open enough.

• How to address the issue of implementation of eligibility for the Affordable Care Act (Healthcare.gov) is an important topic, made moreso by the long list of rules and regulations pertinent to that program. There is no question that legal immigrants have benefited from Obamacare.

At present, illegal immigrants represent about 25% of the 30 million people who are uninsured. To the extent that immigration reform means more people in better-paying jobs that provide health insurance, there is a positive impact on a micro basis. Illegal immigrants are currently heavy users of Emergency Rooms as their primary doctors, financially relying on various Charity Care provisions of existing state and local laws.

This adverse situation could be alleviated when legal status enhances the chances of somebody in the family having comprehensive health insurance. How the aggregate of all the changes that would ensue from immigration reform affects the total health bill is impossible to estimate, but it is healthcare that is the issue, not illegal immigrants.

• Because numerous welfare programs require a green card, many illegal immigrants cannot access them. An expected initial increase in use of the system as a result of the EYV-WP plan is a manageable negative, all things considered.

• People who have been caught in the labyrinth of immigration regulations for many years will undoubtedly resent relative newcomers who had nothing going legally but who suddenly have a clear path to legitimacy. It’s true but not a meaningful criticism of the plan; one should not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

• Perhaps the opponents of today’s immigration dilemma being resolved in this fashion think the recipients would pass on the opportunity to end their status uncertainty and instead, with $10,000 briefly gathered together in their hands, would use the money for other purposes. For example, they might:  buy gifts for their extended family here and elsewhere … make a big down payment on a retirement residence in their “home country” … pay off debts … purchase additional lottery tickets.

Under the proposed plan, given an unprecedented opportunity to achieve legal status for himself and 6 others, if an illegal immigrant head of household did not apply for an EYV  or elect the WP route,  he would be deported. His action would go completely against the objective of keeping a household together. (Presumably, in said household filing unit, there would definitionally be another head of household who would do the right thing!)

Summation

Those who are anti-immigration undoubtedly will find much that is objectionable under the EYV-WP plan. They would also find it quite troublesome to see their grocery and other bills rise materially if 11 million people were shipped out.

Simultaneously, immigration advocates will find certain of the above thoughts unappealing.  I would ask them to cite their recent legislative successes at the federal level—I believe the number is zero. All the action has been through Executive Orders, the life of which is not guaranteed. And when a state has moved ahead on immigration issues, it has been accused of usurping a federal function. In truth, it would be interesting if states did have the right to experiment with different approaches to immigration reform. Maybe this would be a way to get past our all-or-almost-nothing situation when it comes to Congressional legislation.

Immigration law, as always, is an ad hoc mixture of provisions having no basis in a particular set of cultural values or moral precepts. Therefore, the above multi-page set of suggestions should not be attacked because they might seem to some to be crass or calculating or some other non-operative adjective divorced from the reality of documentation challenges.

Collectively, they might even be a practical idea, rooted in a set of specifics that establish clarity on how one achieves legal status –a clarity that removes the threat of deportation, the single most important concern within the immigrant community.

Basically, the plan says to current illegal immigrants: “We want you. We need you. We are not sending you back. Choose one of the designations we are offering. Show us commitment. Think through your family situation. You give us a response; we give you a response. Only those who decline to provide a response are deported. It’s a good deal for everybody.”

Deep thinkers, who presumably are represented within the ranks of both pro and anti-immigration representatives, might regard this essay as akin to reading the typically large and complex menu of a New Jersey diner. However, there is a big caveat: one cannot select a variety of desserts and call it a meal. The set of suggestions, and revisions thereof, must be balanced in order to be palatable to all concerned. 

Food for thought!

Written in the Spring of 2016 (an admission: some of the numbers above might be considered placeholders; my staff is limited you know)