Jette: Illegal Immigration…An Alternative Approach

By Matt Jette

The issue of immigration brings emotions to a boil, which aids and exacerbates the polarization of local, state, and federal politics. Consequently, individuals from both sides of the political aisle are becoming more extreme in their positions and less willing to engage in what the issue requires most; a pragmatic and honest discussion of the issue in all its historical, political, and economic aspects.

The question is not whether we need immigration reform but rather how we align that reform with our core values, principles, and beliefs. The current debate over immigration reform is unique insofar as for many, the debate itself shapes their attitudes on the issue and for others, it reveals their true beliefs. It is important that any policy must be examined with one eye on the context in which the legislation is passed and the other on the intended as well as unintended consequences.

Senate Bill 1070 is not unique in its effort to deter illegal immigration. California’s Proposition 187, a 1994 ballot initiative designed to prohibit illegal immigrants from receiving social services, health care, and public education, raised questions of preemption and justice and ultimately was found to be unconstitutional. The federal government itself has restricted the entry of certain groups, implemented immigration quotas, and targeted certain peoples for removal. On the other hand, policies giving illegal aliens amnesty have been implemented as well. Unfortunately, due to limited space, a detailed discussion regarding federalism, economic impact, legality of SB 1070 (i.e., what is meant by Section E or “reasonable suspicion” or “when practical”), or the notion of justice will not be entertained. Those opposing SB 1070 are merely asking how do you determine who is illegal and who is legal, not whether or not they are illegal. Regardless of whether it is a state or the federal government that moves towards immigration reform, recent discussion tends to be framed in legal and economic narratives.

What is still unclear is why no policy option been proposed that will actually increase revenue rather than deplete it. In fact, any meaningful attempts to address the issue of immigration that do not include building a wall, placing more personal along the border, or providing more authority to sweep and remove illegals from our streets have been completely and without hesitation washed out by elevated frustrations, increased narrowness, or some obscure figure. Thus, I find it appropriate, if not necessary, to at least start the discussion with reason and logic from both sides.

What follows is merely a broadbrush approach to the subject and one I am sure many will ignore, contest, or hate merely because it differs from hard line thinking. Rather than spend millions to prevent, detain, and return illegal immigrants, create a win-win policy option which will allow them to participate and contribute safely in our society, perhaps on their way to citizenship. Moreover, create pilot programs which will create viable and safe cities along the border that will create prosperity within Mexico itself and decrease the need to immigrate to the United States. After all, immigration is as much to do with where people are immigrating from as it is where they are immigrating to. Finally, to strengthen Arizona’s economy, incorporate an “insurance” fund to which illegal immigrants contribute and in which they participate, which  could raise between $300 and $500 million dollars for Arizona.

Such a policy does not address all the characteristics of immigration nor does it necessarily constitute the correct ones. But it provides a compromise and a means to actually help the economy by raising funds, increasing tax revenue and creating jobs, while helping to restore long term programs like Medicare and Social Security.

What we do in terms of immigration says more about us than those the law affects. Immigration policy must first come from a place of understanding, not just the simplistic and overused mantra of many that illegal immigrants are here illegally.  I understand the passion and anger associated with the issue of immigration; what I fail to accept however, is the hatred coming from so many who refuse even to consider ideas different than their own. Are we to accept the substitution of extreme views of one party for the extreme views of the other? In the end, I find it interesting to note those in favor of SB 1070 and who want further legislation are members of a party that is being marginalized and whose candidates are quickly becoming unelectable in a general election against the Democrat nominee.

Matt Jette is a Republican candidate for governor of Arizona. He can be contacted at matt@govjette.com