Cost of security at points of entry
Access to our markets should be limited to the companies and organizations who pay their fair share of the cost of maintaining those markets. Corporations going overseas to tax havens for the purpose of avoiding taxes here have demonstrated their lack of citizenship and have therefore forfeited their right to unfettered access. Some means must be found to impose a tax that removes any competitive advantage for moving offshore. Moreover, companies (regardless of ownership) wishing to export to the United States products made in any other country should, as a minimum, pay the costs of security at the ports of entry and other gateways for their products. Farming out production overseas is an economic decision, and part of that decision needs to be the cost of crossing our borders. It is economic suicide to insist the American taxpayer bear the economic burden of allowing alien corporations to operate freely in this country or to require taxpayers to support the costs of security against the consequences of such simple greed. I don't want my country to descend to Third World status in order to improve the profit margins of a few citizens (or aliens).

7-6-06 Immigration and Social Security Reason Magazine, Aug/Sep 06, has a series of essays on immigration. The position of the magazine is apparently that it is not such a big deal, since all essays echo that. But I am reminded that:
1) Employers in this country represent the key to success since survival in a competitive market requires they hire illegals if their competitors are allowed to do so. And enforcement is the key with employers. (Employers have been ingenious in finding ways to skirt the laws that have been passed and we can realistically expect that to continue. Moreover, we can expect that some people feel a moral obligation to devise means to thwart any system that is put into place. We do the best we can and accept the risk of violations we can't detect.)
2) The comment that the illegals do the work that citizens don't want to do is a reflection on the failure of our welfare system rather than a statement of the distaste of citizens to perform certain tasks.
3) Unintended consequences have tended to dominate the results of the various laws to control immigration in the past.

A number of interesting statistics may be gleaned from the essays. For instance, only some 60% of illegals in this country entered without proper papers; the other 40% overstayed tourist or student visas.
Or: Before the 1986 immigration reform over half of the illegals entering the country returned home, but, because of the difficulty posed by again infiltrating, the rate of return has dropped to less than 25%.
Or: A high percentage of small businesses are created by immigrants -- legal or illegal.
Or: the unemployment rate among illegals is less than that of certain groups of adult citizens.

I am suggesting an extension of our Social Security system to both make that serve us better and provide a device that may be used to enforce immigration laws. It would be voluntary for all citizens, required of all persons entering the country, and would ultimately become universal. Implementation for hiring practices would be stretched over a period of time, say 4-6 years. (I was in the screen printing business as OSHA gradually, industry by industry, extended its influence over work safety requirements. I did not agree with all rules, many of which were obviously promulgated by uninformed pencil pushers, but OSHA gradually extended its reach to all businesses they felt might include employee risks. The same sort of gradualism is needed in immigration control.)

I am impressed that I can, at the local grocery, swipe a card and have my bank account drafted for the amount of my purchase in a very few seconds. The technology is here; it is part of our routine existence; I see no reason not to extend it to hiring situations.

I have never heard anyone object to the requirement to register with the Social Security system since that promises future benefits. Moreover, we are more and more asked for photo IDs in the pursuit of our every-day activities, and it would ease the burden of securing a photo ID were that offered routinely and became widely available. Photo IDs need to be updated from time to time because we do change in appearance as we grow and age.

I suggest that our Social Security card be an extension of "plastic," to include a photo as well as some other form of identification that is difficult to confuse, such as thumb print. (If there is any reality to detective TV, finger prints are reducible to a series of digital readings; that could be encoded magnetically in the Social Security card.) My original SS card had only name, SS number and signature; to that should be added a photograph. On the back should be magnetically encoded the SS number and digital thumb print. (Ultimately, states would be allowed to ask that such information as child predation or prisoner status be included on a separate line accessible only to police or others with equipment to read it.) More on the card below.

If it is true that the illegals come here to work, then control becomes a matter of limiting illicit work opportunities. I foresee, in the matter of hiring workers, use of "plastic" to screen those eligible from ineligibles. Initially a card reader on the employment desk would serve; later a hand-held reader connected through cell telephones would be needed for day laborer recruitment. I suspect that most employers know their employees, so reading of the "plastic" would be only for certain needs such as hiring. The telephone connection would be to a central computer, preferably in Washington, and the employer would receive, in return for swiping the "plastic" of a prospective hire, information on status, such as green card holder or temporary permit, to indicate eligibility to be hired.

It should be self-evident that, with difficulty finding work in this country, illegals (if they truly came here to work) will find it wise to scurry home and then try to make conditions there more amenable to the good life. (As opposed to that government using emigration as a policy tool to deal with population pressure, as seems the case now with Mexico.)

Today a citizen seeking a job has only to say "I am a citizen" and that ends the discussion; it is not surprising that there are holes in our systems. Some form of identification is necessary to correct this flaw. I am mindful that Florida and California have both tried to devise "tamper proof" ID cards. I am suggesting a system that obviates some of their problems. It involves, in the hiring situation, connection to a central computer and its response to the query, which can be in a matter of seconds, and the prospective employer has the information needed to fulfill his commitment to the law. Penalties for an employer violating the system should be so extreme that compliance is voluntary. Of course, there must be inspectors visiting job sites to inspect worker cards.

The photo on the Social Security card would not be necessary for an infant, but it should be revised at certain events or times during the life span. Such as age 5 (or entering school), age 18 (or graduation from high school or entering the work force), age 40 (--somewhere in mid-life), age 67 (or eligibility to retire). Updating would not be mandatory but would confer advantages that would encourage most card holders to cooperate. Such as (after the program is fully implemented) getting work. Or as certain identification. Or passport information.

Security of the system is paramount. Each time there is an update, as a condition to issuing a new card, the identifying information of the person accepting the changes should be verified by the central computer and incorporated on the new card, along with addition of a notation on the old card that it is in process of update. I feel this verification process would obviate many potential breaches in security.

There is no rational alternative to some form of identification.