Few issues are as polarizing or emotional as illegal immigration. Over 10 million people are estimated to reside in the United States illegally right now with another 500,000 entering the country illegally each year, according to the Center for Immigration Studies.

Over 100 communities of various sizes in America have considered or enacted local ordinances and laws to deal with this issue. Among those communities is Springfield, where City Councilman Doug Burlison has announced his support for a proposal that would, if enacted, would focus on penalties for employers who knowingly hire illegal workers.

The proposal was announced shortly after federal agents raided a poultry plant in southwest Missouri and detained over 100 workers believed to be in the country illegally. Burlison’s proposal has been the subject of some very heated debate in the media.

Let's start with the specifics of the proposed ordinance. What activities does this proposal target and what penalties are suggested in your plan?

Burlison: "I am proposing that we pass an ordinance that requires locally licensed businesses who knowingly employ undocumented workers to: A) Receive a warning, B) Pay a fine of $500 for every undocumented worker in their employ, C) Pay a fine of $1,000 for every undocumented worker still in their employ and D) Forfeit their license to operate in the city for one year if the previous measures have failed to bring about responsible business behavior. I also plan to add language that would also bring subcontractors under the umbrella of this ordinance."

Hiring an illegal immigrant is already against federal law. Why do you feel Springfield needs an ordinance regarding illegal workers?

Burlison: "Because with this issue, the first response by local authorities is to maintain that federal personnel are the only appropriate enforcers of federal laws. The problem with that is they are not enforcing their laws, and when this inaction detrimentally affects our city, then it is time to act locally. What we are seeing is a reduction of business revenue and layoffs by companies that are playing by the rules, while companies that exploit cheap under-the-table labor are enjoying increased profits obtained unethically and illegally. We are mainly seeing this in the construction trades at this point."

Burlison: "We are basically talking about an indirect, unfunded mandate and after 2 months on the City Council, it has become increasingly apparent that state and federal decisions have drastic effects on municipalities; often in ways Jefferson City or Washington D.C. never imagined or never even cared about.

"The degree of special interest influence at these levels is astounding, and seems to be the origin of most negative impacts coming our way. The bottom line is that cities are reacting to these issues because no one else is and we have to do SOMETHING."

Among the reasons being given in opposition to your proposal is the assertion that illegal immigration a matter for the federal government, not local governments. Why should Springfield, or any other municipality, address matters related to illegal immigration at all?

Burlison: "Personally, I feel that the main issue I am addressing with this proposal is not illegal immigration, but rather irresponsible business practices. When someone in the community is causing harm to the honest livelihoods of their neighbors, it then becomes the duty of responsible citizens to do something about it."

Burlison: "It has been said that local law enforcement does not have enough resources to deal with new arenas of enforcement measures. Since these laws were allegedly already on the books, I wonder if we, the people, could be given a list of which laws we already have, but cannot afford to enforce? It has also been alluded to that this is not a widespread problem in Springfield. If that is the case, then the costs of enforcement should be pretty minimal. "

Some opponents of the proposal say that requiring employers to check the legal status of immigrant workers would place an unfair cost on businesses. How do you respond to concerns about the additional financial burden an ordinance like this places on businesses?

Burlison: "While businesses are already used to enforce several areas of law (income taxes, child support, etc.), that in itself does not make enforcement of this issue appropriate. When you knowingly ignore your responsibilities to your neighbors, and they suffer because of you sticking your head in the sand, then it is a just proposition to require these checks; especially AFTER A WARNING. Beyond that, the cost of checking out the status of your employees is pretty minimal . . . your local chamber of commerce should have more information about the actual costs and procedures of initiating inquiries."

Along those same lines of objections, opposition to your proposal (and others like it) has included claims that this type of law forces employers to take on the role of law enforcement. Is this a fair critique? Why or why not?

Burlison: "Sure, that is a fair critique. However, I don't believe that it applies to this proposal. If enacted, this ordinance does not require the detaining of any individual, it simply requires businesses to compete fairly."

From the perspective of someone serving in local office, how do you think the federal government should address illegal immigration on a national scale?

Burlison: "The Bill of Rights talks about the basic freedoms humans are born with, not just Americans, but all humans. I would like to see our border with Mexico as normalized as our border with Canada sometime in my lifetime. In order to do this, however, we must do some house cleaning first: Legal immigration needs to be streamlined and expedited. Welfare needs to be majorly reformed and reduced. Social Security needs to be protected by a transformation to individually owned accounts, rather than collectively squandered political funds. The War on Drugs needs to end. The black market we’ve created finances thousands of passages through our southern border. And don't even get me started on health care. First and foremost (thanks to federal policy failures over the years), we must secure our border. You can't put out a fire if people keep pouring gasoline on it!"