Tuesday, June 19, 2007

Rock'n'Roll Immigration Law

Ted Nugent thought about it, and has an eminently simple proposal.

Must be why he has more fans than all of Congress combined.

It would start with fingerprints and an IIC.

That's an immigrant identification card.

The I.D. would be for foreigners who seek to live in, work in or become citizens of the United States. That's if I were writing the immigration laws.

It would include the reciting and signing of the Pledge of Allegiance to the United States of America and denouncing any and all allegiances to other countries. But first:

If you are not a legal U.S. citizen or documented alien, you would have to complete the following actions:

* Upon passage of this legislation, you would return to your country of origin within six months at your expense. You then would register at the nearest U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service office or designated border station.

* Prior to your re-entry, a security background check would be completed that would require a passport or other legal document positively identifying you. You'd be fingerprinted, photographed and would submit to a DNA sample.

* Within 30 days of entry you would register with the U.S. Immigration authorities or be subject to immediate deportation with no opportunity to return.

* If you have been convicted of one felony or of three or more misdemeanor offenses by any court, forget it. You would be barred from entry, as would individuals who have documented ties to criminal elements or terrorist organizations.

* Employers would have to ensure that persons they hire for any level of pay have a valid IIC.An employer who hired a person without a valid IIC would be fined $100,000 per non-documented worker and would face two years in jail for each undocumented worker he or she employed.

* Developing, manufacturing, procuring or otherwise possessing invalid or fake IICs would be a felony with a fine of $100,000 for each false IIC and two years in prison for each fraudulent IIC.

* Persons wishing to work or otherwise reside in the U.S. would be highly encouraged to become proficient in English. States would offer driving license exams only in English. All persons would comply with states laws pertaining to owning and operating motor vehicles, motorcycles or other conveyances.

* IIC holders who wished to become citizens of the United States could do so. However, their applications would go to the back of the queue from those already in the system. Becoming a naturalized U.S. citizen takes a considerable amount of time.

* To remain as only temporary workers or reside here would have to have a valid IIC. It would have to be renewed every three years. Such persons would pay $25 a month to the U.S. Treasury. Any such person earning pay in the U.S. would be subject to all applicable tax laws.

* Persons who resided in the United States who are not U.S. citizens or did not possess a valid IIC — or other legal document (e.g. student visa) — would be deported to their countries of origin, with costs of incarceration and deportation to be paid by the guilty party. They would forever be banned from entering the United States.

* Though federal law enforcement agencies would be charged with carrying out these requirements, states would be required to fully cooperate in identification, apprehension and temporary incarceration. States failing to comply would be subject to the withholding of federal funds.

* Federal funds would be barred from legal aid and/or legal support to persons who had previously entered without proper authorization.

* Holders of IIC would not be eligible for any Social Security or other federal assistance programs until that person becomes a naturalized U.S. citizen.

The American dream comes with individual responsibilities to be an asset to this unique experiment in self-government. Bloodsuckers need not apply.

Personally, I have only a couple of quibbles--for example, a "guest worker" who has no intention of becoming a US citizen would not have to renounce allegiance to foreign Gummints--and I would look at maximizing the efficiency of the "touch-home" requirement to prevent all kinds of disruptions.

HT: Kevin

1 comment:

diana said...

Makes too much sense...they'll never go for it!