Let Illegal Migrants Choose their Status? A Bad Idea

This article was last updated on April 16, 2022

Canada: Oye! Times readers Get FREE $30 to spend on Amazon, Walmart…
USA: Oye! Times readers Get FREE $30 to spend on Amazon, Walmart…

Among the most basic compromise ideas being discussed to help resolve some of the major outstanding immigration issues is the idea of offering legalization in return for real and effective enforcement. For example, immigration scholar Peter Skerry has suggested “splitting the difference on illegal immigration” by legalization for as many undocumented immigrants as possible, but citizenship for none of them. That is certainly a viable idea, but it fails to distinguish among the two major classes of illegal migrants: those who came here as adults and those who came here as children. Nor does it make any distinction between those who have lived here for decades and those who just arrived.

That potentially very good idea, however, has now spawned another that is much more problematic — the idea that illegal migrants should be given a blanket choice between legalized status and a pathway to citizenship. Of course the first point to note is that the latter assumes the former. You can’t have a pathway to citizenship without legal status.

In an article entitled “Finally, a middle way between amnesty and deportation”, Conn Carroll makes the following suggestion: “Why not give those found illegally in the United States a simple choice? You can stay and become legal by registering with the federal government, but if you do, you forfeit all chance of becoming an American citizen.” He is making reference to the choice that had been on the table in the past of having legal migrants go home and reapply for legal entry.

This was not part of the Senate bill, and in any event the president, by administrative discretion has essentially voided that requirement. So it is unlikely that leaving the country and going home to then register for legal status is in the cards, and if it is proposed it will simply be attacked as adding additional and unnecessary barriers to an already complicated compromise, assuming there is one.

But his idea contains another difficulty. Mr. Carroll writes: “And if this policy was open not just to those in the country today, but also those found illegally in the country tomorrow, it would not be amnesty in any way. It would just be a new legal alternative to deportation.”

But yes it would be an amnesty.

Once you grant legal status to someone who has come into the country illegally, you are granting amnesty. The question is on what basis, and with what penalties would you being willing to do so. You may be willing to do this in a one-time compromise that results in real and effective enforcement. However, the nature of the deal should be direct and transparent and not eluded with euphemisms.

The other major problem with Mr. Carroll’s suggestion is contained in his statement that his idea “would just be a new legal alternative to deportation”. So if an illegal migrant were found in the country “tomorrow” or next week or next month or year, he or she could simply then register with the federal government and get, after background checks, legal status?

Isn’t this a large neon sign that all you have to do is get here and you can get legal status? Yes, it would appear so.

Putting this idea into practice would make illegal migrant an obsolete term simply because everybody who came here could count on becoming legal.

Click HERE to read more