What is the Reverse of Extraordinary Rendition?

On June 15, 1992, the Supreme Court ruled in the case of United States v. Álvarez-Machaín that it is permissible for the United States to forcibly extradite suspects in foreign countries and bring them to the United States for trial, without approval from those other countries. This practice is known in the legal world as "extraordinary rendition." In real-people language, it's known as "kidnapping." One hopes that the Supreme Courts in other countries don't decide that they can legally do the same within the U.S.

Extraordinary Rendition has become a key element of U.S. government campaigns against drug trafficking and terrorism, and its most notable recent application came in January of this year, when U.S. forces attacked Venezuela, kidnapped President Maduro and his wife, and returned them to the United States for trial on drug trafficking charges. But, as useful as it's been for going after criminals and terrorists, its reverse action has become a part of Der Furor's war on immigrants.

"Third-Country Deportation" is the latest tool in the administration's anti-immigration toolbox. It refers to a section of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA)* that allows the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to deport migrants from the United States to countries other than their country of origin, or where they have other family or economic ties. According to the Council on Foreign Relations, third countries accepting such migrants (as of September 2025) were: Mexico, Panama, Costa Rica, El Salvador**,  South Sudan, Uganda, Rwanda, and Eswatini (formerly known as Swaziland). It should be noted that these countries are being paid by your government to accept these forcibly deported persons.

Think of Third-Country Deportation as the reverse of Extraordinary Rendition ... instead of snatching people out of their home countries and bringing them to the United States, we snatch people out of the United States and send them to countries where they have no ties of family, language, or culture. 

While I have no sympathy for those who enter the country illegally, neither do I respect the sadistic behavior of a government that refuses - for crass political advantage - to fix a broken immigration system that makes the problem worse.

Have a good day. Keep your head down so you don't have to worry about third-country deportation. You've got enough problems affording gas and groceries.

More thoughts coming.

Bilbo 

* The specific citations are 8 U.S. Code § 1231(b)(1)(C)(iv) and 8 U.S. Code § 1231(b)(2)(E)(vii).

** Location of the dreaded CECOT megaprison.

Time to Revisit Immigration Policy ... Yet Again

Those of you who have been with me for any length of time will remember that, unlike anyone in Congress, I have actually proposed what I believe is a perfectly legal and workable plan to reform our long-broken immigration system. This is because I have no political axe to grind and, consequently, no need to use immigration reform as a cudgel with which to beat my political opponents. I won't bore you again up front with my detailed plan, but if you haven't seen it before or if you're interested in reviewing it again or sending a copy to your elected reprehensives, you can find the latest version (dating to February, 2017) at the end of this post.

Now, before those of you with a more conservative political outlook start raging at me for being an open-borders, America-hating, commie pinko ratbastard, you should know a few things:

(1) America does not have "open borders." What we have are a set of antiquated laws which no longer are appropriate to the economic and political situation that drives millions of people to seek a better life in America ... even as other countries warn their citizens that America can be a dangerous place to visit.

(2) No one in any elected position of responsibility advocates "open borders." What they do advocate is better control over our borders and a thorough review and update of our immigration and asylum policies, although they strongly disagree on how to accomplish those things. 

(3) If you advocate building a giant wall along the Mexican border as the best way to keep undesirable people out, you ought to take note of how well other attempts to keep people out with walls worked out: the Great Wall of China, Hadrian's Wall between England and Scotland, and the Berlin Wall (with which I have personal experience), did not succeed in eliminating invasions. Money wasted on walls would be better spent on expanding immigration and asylum courts and improving the integration of legal immigrants into American society.

Discussing immigration reform is a lot like discussing gun control ... it's pretty much useless since both sides see no room for or desire to compromise. Nevertheless, I'll keep trying. As a retiree, I have lots of time to waste when I'm not gardening, baking, or sitting on the deck with a glass of wine, reading a good book.

Have a good day. See below for my proposed immigration reform plan, and leave comments if you think you can improve on it. More thoughts coming. 

Bilbo

Proposed Comprehensive Compromise Immigration Reform Plan

February, 2017

First, Congress enacts legislation to create a new category of immigration status – the “Provisional Resident Alien (PRA)” – and designate the status with a new form of ID card – let’s call it a “Blue Card.” Anyone who is in the United States illegally as of the date of enactment will have a grace period of six months to register for PRA status and obtain a Blue Card without fear of arrest, imprisonment, or deportation on any immigration violation charge.  They would, of course, be subject to arrest for outstanding criminal violations unrelated to their immigration status.

A person registering as a PRA must pay a fee of $100 per person or $500 per family (whichever is less) for the privilege of obtaining that status. This fee does two things: it levies a fine for having broken the law in the first place, and it partially funds the cost of the new program.  It provides something for those who oppose blanket amnesty, because it imposes a penalty, albeit a modest one, for the willful violation of the law. Many churches and immigrant rights organizations will object to the fine because they think it’s either unfair or too much for poor immigrants to pay; in this case, individuals or organizations who object to making the illegals pay the fine could be offered the opportunity to pay it on behalf those who, for whatever reason, can’t or won’t pay it themselves.

Once a person has been granted PRA status, they will be required to obtain a valid social security number, and will be entitled to the same rights, privileges, and social services as other legal immigrants; in exchange, they will be required to obey all laws, pay all taxes, enroll in basic English classes, and otherwise act as responsible members of American society.  They will have the protection of labor laws which require payment of the minimum wage, and with a legal status, will no longer be subject to exploitation by shady employers.

Initial PRA status would be valid for five years.  At the end of this period, the individual must report to the immigration authorities with proof of employment, proof of a clean police record (no felonies), and proof that taxes have been paid.  If these conditions are met, the individual may either extend the PRA status for another five years, or apply for citizenship.  Citizenship is not automatic – it will still have to be earned through the same naturalization process completed by many millions of legal immigrants throughout our history, with the clock for all associated requirements starting at the end of the PRA period, regardless of how long the individual has already been in the country.  This protects the interests of those who have weathered the legal immigration process by preventing previously-illegal immigrants in PRA status from “jumping the line” for quick citizenship.

On the date the grace period for PRA status applications ends, anyone still present illegally in the country will become liable for arrest and deportation.  Because the great majority of previously-illegal immigrants will have taken advantage of the opportunity to legalize their status by becoming PRAs, those remaining in an illegal status will probably be those with criminal records.  Immigration authorities can then proceed to concentrate on this much smaller number of more dangerous criminals.

On the date the law is enacted, most immigration enforcement agents would immediately transfer to border security duty to crack down on new illegal immigration. Border security will be severely stiffened and those caught attempting illegal entry to the country will be summarily deported after being photographed and fingerprinted. Facilitation of illegal immigration (whether by “coyotes” who help smuggle illegals across the border or by those who knowingly employ illegals) will be made a felony, as will a second illegal immigration attempt.

On the date the grace period for PRA registration ends, a set of very steep fines and jail sentences goes into effect for businesses and individuals hiring persons who are in the country illegally (without a Green or Blue Card).  This will help to remove the economic incentive for businesses to support illegal immigration.

Employers would be responsible for reporting to the immigration authorities any change in the employment status of a PRA. If a person in PRA status is fired from a job or becomes unemployed and has not acquired a new job within 30 days, his or her status is revoked and he or she must leave the country until otherwise eligible to apply for legal immigration in the future.

The 14th Amendment to the Constitution states that "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." This means that children born within the United States - even to those who are here illegally - are US citizens, even though their parents may not be. If we as a nation wish to change the birthright citizenship status of children born in the future to illegal immigrant parents, the relevant part of the Fourteenth Amendment would have to be amended, perhaps to read,

"All persons born in the territory of the United States to parents who are citizens thereof, or to those who have attained citizenship through lawful naturalization, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

This would, of course, require passage of an appropriate Constitutional amendment, but it would remove a legal issue that complicates immigration and citizenship questions.

Regardless, although children born in the US to illegal immigrant parents are citizens under the Constitution, the parents of those children would be required to obtain PRA status just like any other illegal immigrant.

This takes care of those who are in the country illegally today. But comprehensive immigration reform must also address the need for a responsive program to allow unskilled, low-wage workers to enter the country to take jobs that might otherwise go unfilled. PRA status can be used for these persons, too. Businesses would project their labor requirements, and the State Department would make an appropriate number of specialized visas available to meet the need.  Immigrants would then apply at the US embassy or consulate in their home country for PRA status covering any period of time from six months to five years, and need only maintain a job and pay taxes in order to maintain their status.  At the end of five years, they would also have the opportunity to apply for citizenship under the same rules as any other person in PRA status.

This plan won’t please everyone, but that’s the nature of a compromise, and the ability to compromise is what has been missing from political discourse in this country for too long.  The advantages of this plan are:

1. It offers a way to legitimize the persons already here illegally (who, after all, are too numerous and well-protected to be rounded up and deported), but imposes a fine on them as a condition of legalizing their status (i.e., no reward for having broken the law in the first place).

2. It funds itself, in part, through the fines collected from those applying for PRA status.

3. It provides resources for increased border security by freeing up immigration agents who otherwise spend their days fruitlessly hunting down illegals.

4. It provides a pathway for low-wage workers to legally enter the country and take advantage of economic opportunities not available to them at home, while contributing to the US economy in taxes.

5. It removes the incentive for businesses to hire and exploit illegal immigrants who cannot seek their rights for fear of exposure and deportation.

6. It does not, of itself, provide the “path to citizenship” that is a red line for hard core opponents of immigration reform.

7. It recognizes the reality that there are children of illegal immigrants who are, by virtue of being born in the United States, citizens, and requires the parents of those children to legitimize their status.

The downside of this plan is, of course, that prices on some goods will rise as a result of the improved status of low-wage, formerly illegal immigrants.  We’ll pay more for the produce picked by immigrants who are finally being paid a decent wage, and the services provided by those who no longer live in the shadows and earn meager wages.  But I believe that in the long run, this plan represents a good start toward a stronger America and a better life for those who would share in its dream.

The Immigration "Debate"

The thudding sound you hear in the background is me once again beating the dead horse of immigration reform.

The Senate this week is engaged in "open debate" on this critical issue. I'm reminded of this passage from the Bible (Ecclesiastes 10: 12-14):

The words of a wise man’s mouth are gracious; but the lips of a fool will swallow up himself. The beginning of the words of his mouth is foolishness: and the end of his talk is mischievous madness. A fool also is full of words: a man cannot tell what shall be; and what shall be after him, who can tell him?

The senators are not voting on a piece of legislation, they are simply fulminating and putting forward many plans, some worthy of serious discussion and some useless except as pandering to one or another political constituency. And all are probably a waste of time, because none will fully meet Donald Trump's "four pillars" of immigration reform as spelled out in his State of the Union speech:

A path to citizenship for the "dreamers;"

A fully secure border, including "a great wall on the Southern border;"

An end to the visa lottery program; and,

An end to "chain migration."

Of course, one of the biggest roadblocks in the way of immigration reform is Donald Trump himself, because of his insistence on a useless border wall and a constant shifting of the goalposts of what he'll actually support.

As you know - because I have reminded you ad nauseam - I have proposed what I believe is a fair, rational, and workable plan for immigration reform, which I have provided to my Senators and my Representative. I also sent an earlier version to then-President Obama, although I haven't bothered to send it to Mr Trump, because there's not much point. All have thanked me for my interest in this vital topic, then evidently folded my plan into a tight square and used it to level the table on which they are piling other approaches.

Sadly, I believe the rational discussion train sailed long ago. A reasonable debate on the issue is hardly possible when both sides are busy pandering to their noisiest and most unreasonable extremes.

I agree that we need secure borders, but believe a wall is a useless waste of resources. I believe we should place reasonable restrictions on immigration numbers and reasonable requirements (for instance, a security check, a minimum education level, and possession of useful skills) for those who wish to come here. I also believe that one of America's great strengths is the diversity of its population and its welcoming of those who want to embrace American ideals.

And I hope all of that is reflected in the Congressional debate ... but I'm not holding my breath.

Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

Why Are We Still Arguing About Immigration Policy?

I can't believe we are still arguing about immigration enforcement and reform after all these years. No, wait ... yes, I can ... because every discussion ends up with people on all sides shouting past each other, and immigrants - both legal and illegal - caught in the middle. The election of Donald Trump and the legitimization (by his ignorant rhetoric) of anti-immigrant feelings has led to a fresh round of anti-immigrant sentiment and a new tidal wave of raids designed to arrest and deport illegal immigrants.

I am, as are all Americans (including those we call Native Americans), the descendent of immigrants*. My paternal ancestors came to the US (legally) from Hungary, and my maternal line goes back to ancestors who immigrated (legally) from Germany. I am married to a fully-legal, green-card holding German who has worked and paid taxes in the United States since 1983. I have no problem whatsoever with legal immigration, because our country was built on it. I do, however, have a problem with those who - for whatever reason - choose to ignore the law and come here illegally. While their intentions may be good, their willingness to ignore the law is not.

I know from experience that navigating the legal immigration system is a pain in the neck. When I married my wife, it took months to maneuver through the system, with numerous trips to the American consulate for round after round of interviews and various hospitals for various tests. I had to arrange for the translation of hundreds of pages of documents written in convoluted legal German**, and at one point I commented - only half-jokingly - that the rule seemed to be that when the weight of the paperwork exceeded the weight of the bride, we'd get the visa. This is why I have no sympathy for those who choose to ignore the established process and enter the country illegally.

But while I have no sympathy for those who ignore the law, I have even greater disdain for those who rant and thunder about the horrors of illegal immigration, but offer no suggestions for solving the problem beyond such stupid placebos as "build a wall" or "deport them all." Those of you who have been long-time readers of this blog know that I have already floated (several times, with incremental adjustments) my recommended plan for immigration reform. I won't repeat it again ... if you're new to this blog, you can go back and read the most current version of my plan here. I'll be the first to admit that there may be some weak spots or difficult legal issues to overcome, but I think it's one of the first - and perhaps the only - serious, comprehensive, and realistic plans to fix our broken immigration system.

Many complain that illegal immigrants come here to steal jobs from decent, hard-working, taxpaying American citizens. This is patently stupid. Large numbers of immigrants do, in fact, come to America in search of work, but the jobs they take are largely those that Americans don't want to do for the wages and conditions offered. I haven't seen long lines of jobless Americans signing up to pick crops in the hot sun, or to do the miserable and bloody scut work needed by our industrial meat industry. Nor are they lining up to be maids, janitors, dishwashers, busboys, taxi drivers, trash collectors, and landscape workers. If they were, there wouldn't be a market for immigrants - legal and illegal - willing to take those jobs.

And consider this: the price you pay for your produce is kept relatively low because the people who pick it - largely illegal immigrants - are paid extremely low wages. Deport all those migrant farm workers, replace them with American citizens (if you can find any willing to work that hard), and watch your grocery prices skyrocket as they receive the pay and benefits legal American workers demand. If you're willing to pay more for your food in order to get rid of the people who keep your prices down, good for you.

At the upper end of the immigrant spectrum, the law allows firms who need the skills they aren't finding in American workers to sponsor visas for appropriately-skilled immigrants. Perhaps if we encouraged more Americans to become scientists, engineers, and doctors, there would be less demand for qualified immigrants. Hmmm ...

Bottom line: let's enforce our immigration laws, but smartly. Let's get serious about understanding the scope of the problem and coming up with real, workable solutions that are both legal and representative of our character as a nation that welcomes legal immigrants and the skills and cultural gifts they bring.

Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

* Yes, even the people we call "Native Americans" came here originally from someplace else ... many across the land bridge that used to connect Siberia with Alaska. Of course, you can still see Siberia from Sarah Palin's porch.

** Think American legalese is bad? You have NO idea ...

When Walls Don't Work

One of the major points of the GOP platform for the coming election, as insisted on by their standard-bearer, Donald Trump, is the construction of a mighty wall across the length of the border between the US and Mexico. This wall will supposedly secure our southern border and keep out all sorts of undesirable people.

The building of walls to keep out undesirables has a long history. It was tried by the Chinese (The Great Wall of China), the Romans (Hadrian's Wall between Roman Britain and Scotland), the French (the Maginot Line facing Germany) and the government of the former German Democratic Republic (The Berlin Wall or, as they preferred to call it, the "Anti-Fascist Protective Rampart"), among others. History shows that none of them worked particularly well.

Mr Trump's wall notwithstanding, illegal immigration is indeed a problem we need to face. Unfortunately, we don't approach it realistically. Building huge walls and rounding up and deporting millions of illegal immigrants are not realistic solutions: they are too expensive, morally questionable, and unconstitutional ... not to mention that we can't maintain the public infrastructure we have already, much less a twenty-foot high-tech wall thousands of miles long. We need a comprehensive, detailed, realistic approach for immigration reform.

And as it happens, I have it.

Those of you who have been reading this blog for a long time have seen this several times before. It's slightly tweaked from previous versions, but all the essentials are the same (I have added a section dealing with the impact of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution on questions of birthright citizenship). I have sent copies of this plan to all my elected officials and to Presidents Bush and Obama, all of whom have responded with thanks-for-your-interest-in-this-serious-issue-blah-blah-blah letters, and the dumbassery has gone on.

If you've seen this before and don't want to read it again, come back tomorrow for something else. If you like it, feel free to copy it and send it to your elected reprehensives ... it's not copyrighted or anything. Perhaps it will fall on fertile ground, although in the current atmosphere, I doubt it.

Bilbo’s Comprehensive Compromise Immigration Reform Plan

First, Congress enacts legislation to create a new category of immigration status – the “Provisional Resident Alien (PRA)” – and designate the status with a new form of ID card – let’s call it a “Blue Card.” Anyone who is in the United States illegally as of the date of enactment will have a grace period of six months to register for PRA status and obtain a Blue Card without fear of arrest, imprisonment, or deportation on any immigration violation charge.  They would, of course, be subject to arrest for outstanding criminal violations unrelated to their immigration status.

A person registering as a PRA must pay a fee of $100 per person or $500 per family (whichever is less) for the privilege of obtaining that status. This fee does two things: it levies a fine for having broken the law in the first place, and it partially funds the cost of the new program.  It provides something for those who oppose blanket amnesty, because it imposes a penalty, albeit a modest one, for the willful violation of the law. Many churches and immigrant rights organizations will object to the fine because they think it’s either unfair or too much for poor immigrants to pay; in this case, individuals or organizations who object to making the illegals pay the fine could be offered the opportunity to pay it on behalf those who, for whatever reason, can’t or won’t pay it themselves.

Once a person has been granted PRA status, they will be required to obtain a valid social security number, and will be entitled to the same rights, privileges, and social services as other legal immigrants; in exchange, they will be required to obey all laws, pay all taxes, enroll in basic English classes, and otherwise act as responsible members of American society.  They will have the protection of labor laws which require payment of the minimum wage, and with a legal status, will no longer be subject to exploitation by shady employers.

Initial PRA status would be valid for five years.  At the end of this period, the individual must report to the immigration authorities with proof of employment, proof of a clean police record (no felonies), and proof that taxes have been paid.  If these conditions are met, the individual may either extend the PRA status for another five years, or apply for citizenship.  Citizenship is not automatic – it will still have to be earned through the same naturalization process completed by many millions of legal immigrants throughout our history, with the clock for all associated requirements starting at the end of the PRA period, regardless of how long the individual has already been in the country.  This protects the interests of those who have weathered the legal immigration process by preventing previously-illegal immigrants in PRA status from “jumping the line” for quick citizenship.

On the date the grace period for PRA status applications ends, anyone still present illegally in the country will become liable for arrest and deportation.  Because the great majority of previously-illegal immigrants will have taken advantage of the opportunity to legalize their status by becoming PRAs, those remaining in an illegal status will probably those with criminal records.  Immigration authorities can then proceed to concentrate on this much smaller number of more dangerous criminals.

On the date the law is enacted, most immigration enforcement agents would immediately transfer to border security duty to crack down on  new illegal immigration. Border security will be severely stiffened and those caught attempting illegal entry to the country will be summarily deported after being photographed and fingerprinted. Facilitation of illegal immigration (whether by “coyotes” who help smuggle illegals across the border or by those who knowingly employ illegals) will be made a felony, as will a second illegal immigration attempt.

On the date the grace period for PRA registration ends, a set of very steep fines and jail sentences goes into effect for businesses and individuals hiring persons who are in the country illegally (without a Green or Blue Card).  This will help to remove the economic incentive for businesses to support illegal immigration.

Employers would be responsible for reporting to the immigration authorities any change in the employment status of a PRA. If a person in PRA status is fired from a job or becomes unemployed, his status is revoked and he must leave the country until otherwise eligible to apply for legal immigration in the future.

Several people who have reviewed my plan over the years have reminded me that the 14th Amendment to the Constitution states that "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." This means that children born within the United States - even to those illegally here - are US citizens*, even though their parents may not be. If we as a nation wish to change the birthright citizenship status of children born in the future to illegal immigrant parents, the relevant part of the Fourteenth Amendment would have to be amended, perhaps to read,

"All persons born in the territory of the United States to parents who are citizens thereof, and those who have attained citizenship through lawful naturalization, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

Regardless, although children born in the US to illegal immigrant parents are citizens under the Constitution, the parents of those children would be required to obtain PRA status just like any other illegal immigrant.

This takes care of those who are in the country illegally today. But comprehensive immigration reform must also address the need for a responsive program to allow unskilled, low-wage workers to enter the country to take jobs that might otherwise go unfilled. PRA status can be used for these persons, too. Businesses would project their labor requirements, and the State Department would make an appropriate number of PRA visas available to meet the need.  Immigrants would then apply at the US embassy or consulate in their home country for PRA status covering any period of time from six months to five years, and need only maintain a job and pay taxes in order to maintain their status.  At the end of five years, they would also have the opportunity to apply for citizenship under the same rules as any other person in PRA status.

This plan won’t please everyone, but that’s the nature of a compromise, and the ability to compromise is what has been missing from political discourse in this country for too long.  The advantages of the PRA plan are:

1. It offers a way to legitimize the persons already here illegally (who, after all, are too numerous and well-protected to be rounded up and deported), but imposes a fine on them as a condition of legalizing their status (i.e., no reward for having broken the law in the first place).

2. It funds itself, in part, through the fines collected from those applying for PRA status.

3. It provides resources for increased border security by freeing up immigration agents who otherwise spend their days fruitlessly hunting down illegals.

4. It provides a pathway for low-wage workers to legally enter the country and take advantage of economic opportunities not available to them at home, while contributing to the US economy in taxes.

5. It removes the incentive for businesses to hire and exploit illegal immigrants who cannot seek their rights for fear of exposure and deportation.

6. It does not, of itself, provide the “path to citizenship” that is a red line for hard core opponents of immigration reform.

7. It recognizes the reality that there are children of illegal immigrants who are, by virtue of being born in the United States, citizens, and requires the parents to legitimize their status.

The downside of my plan is, of course, that prices on some goods will rise.  We’ll pay more for the produce picked by immigrants who are finally being paid a decent wage, and the services provided by those who no longer live in the shadows and earn meager wages.  But I believe that in the long run, this plan represents a good start toward a stronger America and a better life for those who would share in its dream.

There you go. Sorry for the repetition of the topic over the years, but it doesn't seem like anyone in a position of authority and leadership has a plan even half as good. What do you think? Where does my plan fall short? How can it be improved? Leave a comment. Send it to your elected representatives if you like.

Have a good day. More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo

* The 14th Amendment was intended to establish the citizenship status of freed slaves in the aftermath of the Civil War. In 1898, in the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court interpreted the 14th Amendment to clarify that children born on American soil are U.S. citizens without regard to their parents’ status. The Court held that a baby born in San Francisco to Chinese parents -- Chinese subjects (they had an emperor back then) were prohibited by law at the time from becoming U.S. citizens -- was a citizen at birth under the 14th Amendment.