Immigration Reform Plans: Three Tier Vs. Meese and Spalding

In today's conference call with Ed Meese and Matthew Spalding regarding Meese's op-ed in the NYT, they laid out a different plan for immigration reform:

• Illegal immigrants must return to their countries of origin.
  
  • They will be dealt no penalties for having been in the United States illegally.
    
  • They will be given no advantage over other people trying to immigrate into the United States.
• Illegal immigrants who have returned to their home countries may apply for legal status.
  
• The process of legal immigration must be accelerated, made more efficient, and excised of its red tape.
  
• Illegal immigrants who choose to stay in the United States illegally, instead of taking the opportunity to return home and submit a legal immigration application, will remain of illegal status and be subject to deportation.
  
• Better identification utilizing biometric data must be employed to ensure that employers can accurately distinguish between legal and illegal applicants.
  
• Authorities must crack down on employers who knowingly hire illegals.
  
• Explore the possibility of a pilot program for temporary workers, utilizing contractors in the private sector to handle background checks and job matching. Implementation of a pilot program would first require the achievement of measurable benchmarks in border security improvement.

The aim of this plan is to produce a combination of incentives and disincentives to discourage illegal immigration and encourage legal processing.

By contrast, the three tier plan currently under debate in the Senate, provides for three levels of status for illegal immigrants based on work history and residency.

The Meese-Spalding plan would be more effective than the three tier plan because:

• Under the three tier plan, incidents of document fraud would undoubtedly soar as illegal immigrants scrambled to establish the best status possible using false affidavits. When the amnesty plan of 1986 went into effect, some estimate that as many as 70% of applicants utilized fraudulent documents to obtain legal status.
  
• Implementation of the three tier plan with its varying levels of status would require a massive bureaucracy to administrate. The cost and difficulties inherent in this level of central planning are enormous.
  
• The Meese-Spalding plan is more just and does not provide immigration preference to illegal immigrants over legal immigration applicants.
  
• The Meese-Spalding plan utilizes skills already available in the private sector.
  
• The Meese-Spalding plan does not reward illegal acts.
  
• Through its combination of incentives and disincentives, the Meese-Spalding plan appeals to the natural process of cost-benefit analysis that all people undertake in making decisions. It makes returning to one's home country to legally apply for residency an attractive option with opportunity rather than an unwanted last resort.
  
• The Meese-Spalding plan emphasizes expanding the adoption of technologies to make border security less costly and more effective.

I think Meese and Spalding have it right. They clearly outline the principles that they believe must guide immigration reform here.

There is a great deal of additional information available from the Heritage Foundation. Helen Krieble makes the case for "let[ting] the free market work." Tim Kane underscores the possible impact of the Senate legislation's central planning on free markets.

Also mentioned in the conference call: Thomas Sowell's Bordering on Fraud columns, Part One and Part Two.

--------
Other bloggers who participated in the conference call:

Michelle Malkin
Kim Priestap onWizbang
Captain's Quarters
Right Wing News
Mary Katharine Ham on Hugh Hewitt
John Henke
Mark Coffey
Rich Lowry
Tim Chapman has a roundup with excerpts.