New York Times Opinion : The Price of Citizenship

I don't often agree with the NYTimes on much, but their Opinion piece on page 15 of Sunday's "Week in Review" section is an exception. The Times opinion summarizes an announcement that the U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Service is going to be raising the fees they charge to legal immigrants by 66%. (For those of you who don't remember, the USCIS is the organization that replaced the USINS after 9/11.They are part of that "uber-organization" called Homeland Security.) The Times disagrees with these increases, and blames Congress for letting the problem get so out of hand, and I agree whole-heartedly!

The CIS head, Emilio Gonzalez says that this is the only way his bureaucracy can cover its costs. He says that if his group is allowed to raise the price of visa's and citizenship papers by the recommended 66%, it will be able to process the applications more quickly, and make other improvements to his organization. Well, I think Mr. Gonzalez has a lot of other organizational problems he should attend to. I just don't think it's right that the United States is welcoming legal immigrants to our country with one hand, and picking their pockets with the other! As a country, we shouldn't be taking the few measly dollars legal immigrants have squirreled away shortly after they arrive.

I guess I really never gave it too much thought as to who paid for the citizenship applications and visa processing legal immigrants needed. I knew that I had authorized a great many fees to various attorney's as a human resources executive in order to secure the required visa's, but I hadn't thought about the legal immigrant whose application fees weren't being picked up by a company.

(As an aside - My only question to the NYTimes and to the CIS concerns the calculations of services shown in the article. If I add 66% to the current citizenship application fee of $330, and similarly add 66% to the current permanent residency fee of $325, the new CIS charges should become $547.80 & $539.50 respectively - not the $595 and $905 indicated in the opinion piece. Did someone make a mistake in the reported calculations?)

Of course Congress is going to say that funding immigration issues is not its job, that it's each legal immigrant's personal responsibility, or that of the prospective employer, or the responsibility of the state where the person will live. "Poppy-cock!" Immigration is a federal issue. Since we are so hesitant to deny anyone entering our country legally or illegally, it is the federal government's responsibility/privilege to absorb these costs and deal with the resultant issues! And I have a very easy and painless way for Congress to fund these additional costs WITHOUT raising any citizen's taxes.

• Have the GAO calculate 20% of every active Congresspersons' annual salary, 20% of every active & retired Congresspersons' retirement fund, and 20% of every active and retired Congresspersons' healthcare benefit plan (including dependant & widows benefit coverage's). This amount will be deducted from each Congresspersons accounts and invested & managed by Alan Greenspan & Steve Forbes, so that the USCIS will be able to upgrade its immigration services immediately.
• Have the GAO calculate an additional 25% on the same active and retired Congressional population and deduct & invest that amount with the Greenspan & Forbes team...while at the same time have Donald Trump, Jack Welch, and Michael Bloomberg decide on the best design and the best company to implement new secure border technology. Technology to include both the Southern & Northern borders, and security must be "tested," "approved," & "operational" by September 11, 2008.

Solving the USCIS problem this way will have 3 distinct benefits. First, it will prove to those legal immigrants who want to become part of this great nation that we truly welcome everybody, and are willing to offer each "a hand up" when they first arrive. Second, it will help solve our border issue by having individuals proven successful at making decisions and implementing them placed in charge of a national issue that clearly Congress and the Executive branch is unable to solve.

Last it will send a clear and lasting message to Congress from each American tax-payer that they had NOT been elected to vote themselves annual increases, or extravagant pension & healthcare benefit plans. They had been elected to serve and represent me, you, and all our families. And it's about dam time they began to understand that!
What do you think? Leave a comment on my blog.

Facta, non verba!