Illegal Immigration and Adverse Possession

I've heard this argument before, by people who are discussing the problems inherent in illegal immigration and amnesty. "It's as if they just walk into your house and say, 'I live here now; feed me!'" I'm not sure how it happened, but that argument developed in my brain until it became a possible solution for the problem we are currently facing: what do we do with the illegal immigrants who are already here?

Most of us can definitely agree that illegal immigration should be stopped, and we need to secure our borders. We face a plethora of problems, as simple as workers sneaking over the border to send money back home and as compelling as terrorists and human traffickers plying their trade in our cities. Right now, we are being given two main options in dealing with this problem: Amnesty and Deportation. Just yesterday, Eric Cantor was ousted in his primary by a candidate who ran on the Republican platform and only disagreed with Cantor on one issue: he favored deportation over amnesty.

This is the problem: Not all illegal immigrants are alike.

On one end of the spectrum, you have Jose (I'm making up names as examples here), a fellow in his fifties whose mother brought him in when he was three years old. Unaware for all of this time that he entered the country illegally, he has gone through the school system, apprenticed with a plumber, earned an associate's degree in business, and now works as a residential plumber as well. He owns his own home and pays both income and property tax. He knows retirement is drawing near, and he has been contributing to Social Security all his working years. He has just celebrated his twenty-fifth wedding anniversary with his lovely wife, and he has two grandchildren.

On the other end of the spectrum, you have Luis. He slipped into the country five years ago, because he saw an opportunity by which to earn a lot of money. Now he funnels teenaged girls from one station to another. They have been lied to; they believe that they will be married to rich American men, but they are about to learn that these men are going to shackle them to a wall in the basement and threaten them with deportation if they try to escape. As for himself, Luis is on Medicaid and receives food stamps in a state that does not check citizenship status for either. He's living off the fat of the land, and figures that he can become a secret millionaire by the end of the year.

Most people on the side of amnesty will agree that Luis is a problem. They are willing to sacrifice having Luis here if it means not deporting Jose. Most people on the side of deportation will agree that Jose is not a problem. They are willing to sacrifice deporting Jose if it means deporting Luis. I would like to offer a third way forward, and to do so, I would like to look at the old common laws regarding Adverse Possession, or squatter's law.

According to squatter's law, it is possible, but not easy, to gain ownership of a property that belonged to someone else. Squatting is not as simple as living secretly in the structure. To gain ownership, you have to live on the property openly, act as if you are the owner, and improve the property for your own use. You must maintain this 'ownership' for a number of years without being so much as challenged by the actual owner, and you must not conceal your possession from the owner. One good way to do this is to move into a vacant home and have the electricity turned back on in your name. If you have spent several years (the exact number depends on the state) paying the electrical and telephone bills, paying the property taxes to the town, and repairing the home, then you can go to the town hall and file for the title. If you are evicted from the land, or even if the owner tries to evict you from the land, your counter is reset to zero.

I would argue that our failure to oust Jose (in my example) is our problem, not his. I would like to offer guidelines for a sort of "amnesty" based on squatter's laws. We should unquestionably secure our borders and do a better job of preventing illegals from sneaking in. My solution is meant for the ones who are already here.

I propose that, if an illegal immigrant has lived openly in the United States for a period of years (I am flexible as to the specific number, but I recommend at least ten), has not committed any serious crime (I wouldn't count traffic violations, for instance), and has paid taxes and FICA, and the U.S. government has not at any time required him to so much as attend a court hearing on his immigration status. he should be granted legal immigration status. Note that this is not the same as offering full citizenship. He is now 'in the system', and can work towards citizenship if he so chooses, or face the general paperwork and cost involved in extending his stay.

As much as I hate the way the liberals twist and misuse the term "fairness", I find myself using the term in this instance. I do believe that it is honestly fair to consider squatter's law in cases like Jose's. The greatest benefit I can see with this system is that it will give illegal immigrants a disincentive to engaging in crime and an incentive to paying taxes. Right now, since they are 'already criminals' who might be deported (or ignored), there is little to prevent them from dealing drugs or engaging in other profitable crime. Under a 'squatter's law' system, the aspiring illegal immigrant may say, "There's no way I am going to deal drugs now. I'm two years away from filing for legal status, and if I'm caught selling, that goes right out the window." In addition, this proposal would better allow immigration officials to concentrate on the Luis's, because when Luis and Jose are considered utterly equal, going after Jose is much easier and better for their numbers. Depending on the way the law is written, it may also pave the way for diminishing or removing the hold that slavers have over their prey, which in turn will give law enforcement officers a powerful tool in cornering the actual criminals hiding easily in the illegal immigrant population.

I would love to see Republicans pushing this solution. The population that make up the majority of our illegal immigrants are, in matters of social issues and (among the Joses') work ethic, are the Republicans' natural allies.

The Law that Must Not Be Named

I noticed an interesting trend today. I've been hearing it for several months now, without really thinking about it. Today, however, it happened twice in a row, within less than a half hour, from two different people, and I found it rather disturbing. Note: I live in a state full of Independents, but most of them vote Democrat most of the time. Technically I live in a "blue state", though that doesn't quite describe the situation.

In both cases, we were talking about health insurance, because the first person was trying to help me sort out my paperwork. He was neither family nor friend; he had come specifically to "help me sign up for Medicaid", only to discover that I had already received my children's confirmation letter, and was still waiting for their cards. He nodded as I told him how our employer's PPO had more than doubled in price.

"Yes," he said. "I know, the same thing happened to me. Ever since," he began, paused, and said delicately, "the thing a few years ago, you know..."
"Yes, I know," I replied, and the conversation continued on from there.

My sister's boyfriend's mother drove in as the first fellow was leaving, and we got to talking about why he was here and the bureaucracy we were dealing with. "Oh, I know!" she said. "We lost our insurance! Right around the time that, you know..."

What is this? The Law that Must Not Be Named? Are people afraid? I talked to my House Representative staff yesterday, calling to complain about the problems with the ACA/Obamacare and the way it was affecting us. The staff member proceeded to tell me that people mistakenly thought that the ACA was involved in these problems, when in fact it was not. "Oh," I could not help saying, though I was trying to be nice, "See, I was under the impression that a law mandating a significant expansion of Medicaid had something to do with delays caused by significantly expanding Medicaid."

She deferred.

Yes, my House Representative is a Democrat and one that has remained in favor of the ACA.

A lot of people are angry about the changes. A lot of people are suffering. There are tons of stories like mine. I'm actually very lucky, in that we have not yet been turned down for treatment of serious health problems. Don't we have the right to speak up, speak out, speak amongst ourselves, and discuss this clearly? Are people afraid to criticize the ACA openly? Why are we suddenly saying "You know" and "That thing"?

This is the United States!

What's going on here?