John C. Bersia: Readers share immigration ideas

When I asked readers for solutions to the illegal immigration issue a month ago, just as the debate was heating up in Washington, D.C., I anticipated passionate responses. And I was not disappointed – except with some mean-spirited, anonymous suggestions.

One such writer proposed that the United States “plant mines on the (U.S.-Mexico) border. This is guaranteed to work.” Most of the other 768 comments could be taken seriously.

Some focused on accommodating more legal workers. Gary Randall, of Las Vegas, proposed that the United States give all illegal migrants a year to leave, and offer as an incentive “a computer-generated exit visa number” that they could use to apply for a green card and re-enter.

Another Las Vegas resident, Tim Farkas, suggested thinking outside the box on illegal immigration: “Legalize it. Let 500,000 come across the border. Charge them $200 each, and use the money to secure the border.”

Asserting that Mexican “faults are far fewer than their assets,” C.F. Daniel, of Winter Park, Fla., would close the border for three months, take a “nose count” of all illegal migrants, make that amount the allowed base and let those people remain as guest workers.

Diamon Sforza, of Chicago, wanted Mexico to take up the burden. “Mexico is not a poor country. They make a bundle now with $60/barrel oil. I place the blame on our president for blowing smoke on the migrate issue,” Sforza wrote.

Alice Wagner, of Columbus, Neb., agreed, indicating that “Mexico needs to work out (its) own problems,” including corruption.

Central Florida resident Richard Logue was concerned about the lack of a comprehensive approach in dealing with migration issues, suggesting that “our current immigration system needs a massive overhaul.”

Other readers focused on security and enforcement. Thomas I. Parry Sr., of the Washington area, stated that employers need better tools to determine if an applicant is legal. “To those who will complain that this will amount to a required identity card,” he said, “so what?”

Phil Edmunds, of Boalsburg, Pa., pushed for the sealing of U.S. borders and vigorous enforcement of federal laws “restricting or prohibiting employers from hiring individuals who are in this country illegally.”

Still other readers advocated a border wall. William Taylor, of South Bend, Ind., wrote, “I’m in favor of complete control of our borders. If that means a great high wall or fence, so be it.”

“Yes, the United States should build a wall,” urged John Stephens, of Monticello, Ark., “a literal wall where needed and beefed up border enforcement.”

George Bednekoff, of Plano, Texas, wrote, “I am not opposed to the idea of building a wall, but with the domination of the construction trades by Mexicans, who do we expect to build it?” He would strengthen and enforce existing laws; tax the money sent home by illegal migrants; and push local and state governments to pass laws that encourage illegal immigrants to go elsewhere.

Finally, Nancy Hampton, of Sturgis, Mich., invited me to visit her town of 12,000. Once, she indicated, it offered good education, high quality of life, serenity and jobs. “Today,” she wrote, “our town is experiencing an influx of Hispanics who move three or four families into one dwelling. The whole town is up for sale. It has to stop.”