New Concept for Illegal Alien Problem -- Alternative to a Sanctuary City

You may have recently heard that the city of Hartford, CT USA has just passed legislation to make Hartford a "sanctuary city". What that means is that city officials are no longer able to ask if someone is a legal US citizen. The city basically turns a blind eye to illegal aliens. If an illegal alien comes to the Hartford town hall seeking some type of aid (welfare, etc), they will get it regardless of the fact that they are illegally in the United States. Apparently officials that have sworn to uphold the law believe they only have to uphold the laws they like. As ridiculous as the idea of a "sanctuary city" seems to any logically thinking individual, that's not the main point of this post. The recent legislative activities in Hartford made me spend some time contemplating the issue of illegal immigration.

What should be done with an illegal immigrant? In Hartford the answer is nothing, but that certainly does not seem like the right approach. It's so wrong on so many levels that I don't believe I should even go into further discussion here. I could write pages on why the "sanctuary city" concept is wrong. Some say illegal immigrants should summarily be pursued and deported. The argument is that they are law breakers, and the sovereignty of the US boarders needs to be honored. However, this iron fist approach does not seem right either. It's easy to say, but it shows no nuance. Proclamations like "round 'em up and ship 'em out" fuel the liberal fire of portraying conservatives as heartless, mean spirited, and uncompassionate. Besides, such approaches demonstrate no real thought on the issue. There are many hard working illegal immigrants that have achieved in this country. The US wrestler, son of an illegal immigrant from Mexico, that just won a gold medal in the Beijing Olympics comes to mind. For most people their families, specifically their children, are the most important thing in their lives. I can't say that I would not come to the US to try to give my family a better life if I were poverty stricken in Mexico.

So the solution lies somewhere in between 100% deportation and 100% amnesty.

I'm here to propose a new concept. I'm not here to say it's the greatest concept, but it is at least a unique concept to try to address the issue. I have not worked out every detail, but the concept would be called socio-economic asylum. It's not a totally new concept. It's based off of political asylum that most western countries already offer. Political asylum is typically granted to people that are displaced or can not return to their native country due to issues such as civil war, or an oppressive government. The United States could grant socio-economic asylum to people that are not able to engage in the pursuit of happiness (or life or liberty) due to hopeless economic conditions in their native country. Here's how it would work: Once someone comes to this country (illegally), they would not have access to social services (welfare, permission to work, unemployment, food stamps, housing assistance, etc.) unless they apply for socio-economic asylum. In fact, they would not be guaranteed access to anything, including constitutional rights since the US Constitution applies only to US citizens. The requirement of applying for socio-economic asylum would need to be strictly enforced. No sanctuary. If you want services, you need to at least apply. This would do a couple of things. First, the government would have documentation on the illegal immigrants. No more guessing who is illegal, and how many are out there. Secondly, by agreeing to be a part of this asylum program, the government would have the opportunity to make special demands on the individual. Remember, this person has come to the United States illegally. In order to be granted amnesty for their crime it is not outrageous for the United States to put some demands on these individuals.
There would also be a process for people to seek socio-political asylum before coming to the US. If granted asylum, the follow-up demands from the government would be much less on these people because they do not have to work to achieve amnesty for the crime of coming to the US illegally.
First, the socio-economic asylum-seeker would need to prove that his situation was hopeless in his former country. You can not come to US simply because you want more stuff. Socio-economic asylum can only be granted if, through little fault of your own, you would not be able to improve your lot in life if you stayed in your former country. Second, you need to also prove how this would change by coming to the US. If you were living on welfare in some other country, you can't just plan to come to the United States because the welfare pay is better. You need to have a skill or some plan of how your circumstances could be improved by relocating to the United States. If you have a skill, you can not just come to the US to pursue your craft simply because the pay is better. For example, if you are a chef and your plan is to come to the United States and use your savings to start a restaurant, you would have to prove that a similar plan could not be implemented just as easily and effectively in your former country. You would need to give reasons. If the United States is going to take you in and provide this asylum, the government should have assurance that the aslyum-seeker is going to try in good faith to be a productive member of the United States. The idea is that the United States becomes a better, not a worst place for letting the person in. If the asylum-seeker's plan is solid, the government could possibly even provide some assistance in getting started, but that's open for debate.
Once the asylum seeker has proved all this, his socio-economic asylum application would be preliminarily approved pending further commitments. Within a certain time frame, these further commitments would include:

• Need to demonstrate progress towards getting off of social services.
• Need to stay "clean". That means, no illegal activity of any sort.
• Need to take English classes or demonstrate a proficiency in English. If you are able to teach yourself, that's fine, but you would eventually need to pass a basic exam.
• After getting established, need to commit to volunteer some minimal amount of hours to council other socio-economic asylum seekers through the process. Something like 2 to 4 hours per week seems fair.
• Need to be working towards eventual full citizenship.
  

If these stipulations are not met by a certain amount of time, the individual receives sanctions, and faces possible deportation. There would be a zero tolerance policy for the bullet regarding not engaging in illegal activity. That would lead to immediate deportation. However, if the illegal immigrant could make it though this process, they would first be granted asylum, then eventually possibly full citizenship.

A program such as this would produce a citizen that is ready to contribute and improve the United States, rather than drain it.

The flip side is that deportation would have to be strictly enforced for anyone that does not participate in the program, or refuses to meet the stipulations.

I'm not typically one for suggesting new government bureaucracy to address an issue. However, even the most fiscally conservative person has to agree that there are some problems that government is necessary to handle. Mostly, these illegal immigrants are trying to do the best they can to provide a life for their families. The United States provides political asylum, so why would socio-economic asylum be so outrageous to at least consider?
There are special circumstances that could fast-track a person in the asylum process. For example, a wife or child that came to the US to escape an abusive husband. Someone in need of life saving medical care that would not be available in their former country. People that are denied education. People that are victims of discrimination so severe that they can't work. These people move to the front of the asylum line, but be wary because the asylum-seeker would eventually need to produce proof other than just their word.

There are other actions that would need to go hand-in-hand with the implementation of such a program. Employers would be severely fined for hiring non-documented illegal aliens. Authorities would need to proactively go after suspected employers of non-documented illegal aliens. Secondly, US boarder patrol would need to be improved. Third, a 100% deportation policy would need to be instituted for any illegal alien that did not at least apply for socio-economic asylum.
Once the potential illegal immigrants still in their home country know that the US is serious, they would not attempt to come to the US on a whim.

I'm not arguing that this is the best idea ever. It still would have a lot of details to be figured out. However, it's a much more compassionate approach to the 100% deportation crowd, and a much more practical approach to the 100% automatic amnesty crowd.

What are your thoughts and ideas?

Note: I just came up with this idea today, so feel free to let me have it.