Illegal Immigration
May 1st, 2006 by Michael ClarkA Comprehensive, Humane Plan is Our Only Alternative
Here’s a suggestion for participants in recent “pro-immigration” rallies, especially those who identified themselves as being in the U.S. illegally: take a deep breath and consider the effects of your actions. Rather than garnering support, your protests have put a tangible face to the insecurity of the U.S./Mexico border, causing many Americans to view our country as being “under siege” by the force of illegal immigration.
These protests were meant to inspire fear, not of violent reprisals or riots, but of economic hardships and a political backlash in November’s midterm elections. While the “Hispanic Vote” is worthy electoral capital, Americans overwhelmingly oppose illegal immigration. I will not discredit the power of the Hispanic vote–or the hard work or patriotism of its constituents–but legislators ignore sentiment against illegal immigration at their political peril next November.
According to a March NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, 59 percent of those surveyed say they “oppose allowing illegal immigrants to apply for legal, temporary-worker status.” A January Quinnipiac University poll found that 62 percent of those polled oppose making it easier for illegal immigrants to become citizens. Nine in ten people surveyed in the QU poll consider immigration a serious problem. A recent Times poll notes that 75 percent of say the U.S. is “not doing enough along its borders to keep illegal immigrants out.”
A March Gallup poll–taking before the protests began–noted that 6 percent of respondents identified immigration as the “most important” issue facing the U.S. This figure more than tripled to 19 percent following recent marches. The hundreds of thousands of protestors who took to the streets have galvanized opposition to their position. An economic protest planned for May 1st–during which illegal immigrants will boycott work and refuse to purchase goods and services–will further reinforce negative public opinion.
While most illegals entered the U.S. to work hard and don’t pose a security risk, serious criminals do exist among their numbers. The porous border that offers a better life to undocumented workers also signals an “Open” sign to those wishing to do us harm.
In a June 2004 article assessing this situation, Ms. Heather Mac Donald–a John M. Olin fellow at the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research–notes that “In Los Angeles, 95 percent of all outstanding warrants for homicide (which total 1,200 to 1,500) target illegal aliens. Up to two-thirds of all fugitive felony warrants (17,000) are for illegal aliens.” Ms. Mac Donald also notes that illegals comprise a significant percentage of Latino gang membership, many of which use violence and murder to protect drug territory and other criminal enterprises.
The security question is only exacerbated by a post-9/11 reality. It only took nineteen men to bring the U.S. to its knees on September 11, 2001. Rampant illegal immigration illustrates the disastrous state of the U.S. southern border with Mexico. If a country is only as secure as its most insecure border, the U.S. languishes in a state of utter insecurity. We’re bombarded with nightmarish scenarios of suitcase nukes and dirty bombs secreted into U.S. ports or smuggled through international airways. In March, U.S. Senators–from both sides of the aisle–denounced the purchase of six U.S. ports by Dubai, a Middle-Eastern country and member of the United Arab Emirates, as a “risk to national security.” The 2004 Presidential election saw demands for 100 percent inspection of incoming naval cargo.
While the above arguments may be credible, smugglers or terrorists won’t bother to fake cargo manifests or obtain false passports when they can walk across the southern border. In recent months, authorities in Texas have discovered underground tunnels they claim were used to smuggle drugs and/or immigrants into the U.S. from Mexico. Did these passages also serve as an entry point for members of Al-Qaeda, dirty bombs, vials of anthrax spores, or a family of Sasquatch returning from a vacation in Tijuana?
Hyperbole? Possibly so, especially since Big Foot prefers an arctic climate, but the frightening truth isn’t that we don’t know. It’s that we have no way of knowing. If we’re going to scare ourselves with doomsday scenarios, we should understand the human tendency to take the path of least resistance. There is a strong possibility that the next terrorist attack in the U.S.–seen as a “when” not “if” scenario by all members of the intelligence community–will be traced to security lapses on the southern border.
This is not a new problem. In 1986, the U.S. Congress passed the Simpson-Mazzoli immigration reform, which gave permanent residency status to 3 million illegal aliens. Today, if estimates are correct, 11-12 million people are living in the U.S illegally. The Simpson-Mazzoli reform slapped a bandage on a continuing problem, without addressing the need for border security.
Twenty years later, we’re revisiting the same problem. Current legislation in the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate is equally myopic. The so-called “Senate Compromise” promises a “road to citizenship”–an 11-year process involving the payment of fines, back taxes, U.S. citizenship classes, etc.–but does nothing to address security at the southern border. The House bill calls for a 700-mile wall on the U.S./Mexico border, makes it a crime to assist illegal immigrants, but contains no provisions for amnesty or a guest worker program.
We’re not faced with an “either or” proposition. The best solution is a practical approach that takes U.S. national security and the human face of immigration into account. Securing the border is the first step. The larger issue is a fair and sweeping resolution of the status of illegal workers.
Efforts should begin with a lockdown of the 2,000 mile length of the U.S./Mexican border, with the United States employing all security means at its disposal. This initiative should include a multifaceted security force comprised of manpower–in the form of U.S. Border Security agents, National Guard and/or U.S. Army troops–and technology–be it video surveillance, aerial reconnaissance or fences.
Critics argue that this sends the wrong message to the world. Too bad. We’re not talking about pre-emptive war, international sanctions or nuclear attacks. Other nations–most of which have their own border security initiatives–don’t have an interest, or a voice, in matters of U.S. border security. It’s rather disingenuous for Mexican President Vicente Fox to chastise the U.S. for getting tough on immigration. Mexico classifies illegal immigrants within its borders as felons and deports them immediately. The Mexican economy is bolstered by the $20 billion illegal immigrants working in the U.S send across the border annually. It’s easy to see dollar signs as the source of President Fox’s duplicity.
Many opponents of tougher immigration and border policies argue that United States was founded on the hard work of immigrants. This is true. It’s common knowledge that–aside from Native Americans–the U.S. population is descendent from men and women who emigrated from other countries. While most entered the country legally–as portrayed by photos of immigrants at Ellis Island–a friend recently pointed out that illegal entry was prevalent during most of the 1800s.
Prior to 1819, when a “Reporting Rule” mandated documentation of immigration data, naval ships offloaded goods and people indiscriminately. Illegal immigration continued, even after a series of “exclusionary acts”–the first passed in 1875–were enacted to prevent convicts, prostitutes, Chinese contract laborers and “lunatics and idiots” from entering the United States.
Modern critics of massive legalizing efforts claim this “amnesty” rewards lawbreakers. In many ways, it does. However, we’re in the current situation because American businesses and U.S. politicians–realizing the need for cheap labor–have turned a blind eye to the status of illegal workers for decades. Illegal immigrants wanted to come, and companies were more than willing to accept them.
We’ve all heard the mantra that immigrants “do the jobs that Americans won’t.” A more truthful version of this statement might read “immigrants do the jobs that Americans won’t do for so little pay with no benefits.” Predominately, migrant workers toil in low-wage agricultural, construction, manufacturing and service jobs. In fact, they are 60 percent more likely to work in low-skilled, low-wage jobs than native born Americans.
While it is a mistake to classify immigration reform as a civil rights issue, it’s difficult–if not impossible–to ensure undocumented workers are being treated fairly. As human beings, their illegal status should not subject them to wage exploitation or unsafe working conditions. As a general rule, companies that employ an illegal workforce do so to avoid paying higher wages, health benefits, workman’s compensation, disability insurance premiums, etc. Until they move out of the shadows, illegals are susceptible to exploitation.
For their protection–as well as ours–we must uncover and document illegal aliens. Anyone currently in the U.S. unlawfully should be given ninety days to identify themselves, provide information on their work history, places of residence, photo identification, fingerprints, etc. and ask, not demand, that they be granted guest worker status. I’m not arguing that illegal aliens denigrate themselves to win acceptance. An appeal to the American sense of justice and compassion is the answer, not protests that propagate fear and polarize opposition.
Illegals should pay a processing fee for their applications, and should keep a notarized receipt of this information on hand at all times. Anyone failing to comply with this mandatory identification–or anyone caught entering the U.S. illegally–should be permanently barred from participation in any guest work programs, obtaining student visas or applying for permanent citizenship. At 4.7 percent unemployment, the U.S. should expand its current green card program to meet the demand for workers.
Once undocumented workers have been identified, they should be allowed to pursue permanent citizenship. This citizenship must be contingent on continuous employment, security checks, citizenship education and proficiency in the English language. This language requirement is not xenophobic or racist. It is pragmatic. If they or their children are to realize any upward mobility in the United States, migrants must speak English fluently.
Critics argue that massive amnesty will pose an uncontrollable drain on social programs, and may further depress wage averages.
Wage depression seems initially like an easier situation to absorb. According to a “Center for Immigration Studies” paper by Dr. Steven A. Camarota, this impact hovers around the 5 percent mark when considering all employment. This effect is much higher–approximately 12 percent–on low-skilled positions, which include jobs typically attained by high-school dropouts or those first entering the workforce.
Once legalized, undocumented workers earning less than the minimum wage will have their salaries increased to the current federal minimum of $5.15 an hour. Nineteen states currently have minimum wages that exceed the federal mandate.
While this serves to appease unrest over wage depression, it is a double-edged sword. A sudden earnings increase will drive up the price of consumer goods and services, but so would massive deportation of employees currently working illegally. The economic impact of “amnesty vs. deportation”–at least in the private sector– is essentially a wash.
Now the hard part. Amnesty will dramatically increase state and federal social expenditures. To cite Dr. Camarota’s figures again, federal spending on programs covering immigrants would increase to $29 billion annually–triple the current figures–under massive legalization. With a ballooning national deficit and rising state spending, this increase is difficult to bear. The economic impact of amnesty at the state level–especially in larger states like California, which currently spends $10.5 billion annually on programs covering illegal immigrants–will be even harder to tolerate.
State and federal legislatures will need to examine the financial impact of amnesty and act accordingly. While the necessity of providing public education for immigrants is a sound argument, our representatives will need to make serious decisions on extending healthcare, welfare, housing allowances, etc. to newly-legalized immigrants. Tightened access restrictions, rationing or “phased” eligibility–i.e. migrants may utilize programs after a 5-year waiting period–are viable remedies to a complex fiscal puzzle.
In a post-9/11 world, a temporary or short-sighted patch of our immigration issue is no longer acceptable. America’s elected officials owe us a comprehensive solution to a problem they avoided for two decades.
buxtohispano.com 
7 Responses to “Illegal Immigration”
By Scott Bannon | Reply to article
Mike, this is a complex new issue–new in the sense that it suddenly has election year focus.
We disagree on a few smaller points, for instance that the illegal immigration issue and border security can be lumped together as politicians have recently done. That’s good fuel for campaign stumping but it’s also an obstacle to effectively addressing these two very important, but very different issues.
The new attentions on illegal immigration from politicians has no sincere foundation in national security. I believe this because their rhetoric always fails to mention the larger northern border; which we know has already been exploited by terrorists attempting to attack us.
They also fail to mention the wide open coast lines of the U.S. The state of Oregon is one example where miles and miles of coast line are only patrolled by an understaffed state police department which also has to patrol small towns, highways and etc. in their territory; preventing any real good watch of the coast lines.
And they fail to acknowledge that the majority of southern border crossers make that journey for opportunities–instead preferring to lump opportunity seekers with hardened criminals and terrorists. This is important, because if we actually enforced existing laws which are intended to prevent American employers from exploiting illegals and providing these opportunities the number of border crossings would be drastically reduced, making it a much more manageable problem.
In no way do I mean to dismiss the issue of security, nor ignore that some border crossers have more criminal intents. Still, the overwhelming number are coming for work. Work that American companies and families are providing them with. If we began sending CEO’s and affluent parents who are exploiting undocumented workers to save a few dollars over hiring Americans to prison; the opportunities would suddenly disappear–reducing the number of border crossings.
I agree that our borders are a serious threat, but I also believe it’s counter-productive, disingenuous and politically motivated to focus only on southern border crossings and claim it’s in the interest of national security. If we’re really going to address border security–which we should do–it must encompass both the southern and northern borders. It must address the coast lines.
Illegal immigration is a separate issue, and deserving of separate attention. The first step would be drying up the well of opportunities that draws and then exploits undocumented workers. This would be attacking the disease instead of treating the symptoms.
I do agree with some of your points on the immigration issue. Expanding the green-card program and ensuring a path to citizenship is not only reasonable but aligns with our favorable traditions.
Still, even this leaves questions that must be addressed prior to enacting legislation. We depend upon cheap labor for certain industries in this country. The agricultural industry for example. You can’t suddenly expect American families to pay $15 for a bottle of orange juice or $9 for a head of lettuce. But you can expect prices like that if you begin to regulate salaries of workers in the agricultural industry. You can also expect a sudden drop in production as smaller and family owned farms that are barely staying out of the red as it is go under.
That will factor into driving further price hikes as well. Less production, upon which there are newly legislated higher costs and an ever increasing demand will only take prices up.
Whatever we ultimately do with immigration, it can’t just be knee-jerk or half-cocked. It must be addressed in a manner that protects immigrant/migrant workers and American industry and consumers equally.
Reply to this specific comment
By Anonymous | Reply to article
Undocumented immigrants are the scapegoats of problems that were not caused by them:
- Mismanagement of social security, foreing relationships and bad tax policies in general were not created by undocumented immigrants.
- 9/11 WAS NOT the work of undocumented immigrants, they are been scapegoated as a way to place a “bandaid” in the many atrocities commited by the US government for a good part of the XX century.
- Groups like ” Minuteman” and all these fools, are seeking a way to justify racism, they can not care less for “secure borders”
Reply to this specific comment
By Michael Clark | Reply to article
Scott, thank you for your response.
Illegal immigration and border security are opposite sides of the same coin. With 11-15 million illegal immigrants residing in the U.S.—and approximately 6-9 million of these immigrants from Mexico—it’s impossible to separate these issues, especially with respect to the southern border. These migrants are entering our country illegally by crossing an unsecured border.
From a security standpoint, this massive illegal entry poses a strategic risk to the United States. With as many as 1.5 million illegal immigrants entering the U.S. annually, it’s impossible to differentiate between criminals—and yes, possibly terrorists—and those entering the U.S. to work hard and pursue a better life. Intentions, be they malicious or benign, can’t be deciphered when lost in a sea of undocumented humanity.
If we weren’t faced with overwhelming illegal immigration figures, I may be willing to accept that border security and immigration are separate problems. Given the facts, however, it’s difficult to argue otherwise.
I agree with your point that any border security initiative must also take the northern border and coastlines under consideration. However, dozens of factors—including economic inequities, infrastructure, political climate, geography and our own immigration data—contribute to my suggestion to focus on securing the southern border first.
Illegal immigration is overwhelmingly a “southern border” issue. Figures note that anywhere from 1,000-5,000 migrants cross the U.S./Mexico border illegally each day. People of Mexican descent comprise 50-60 percent of the illegal alien population in the United States.
Canada and the U.S.—when taking into account wages, infrastructure (electricity, highways, sewage, and water treatment), medical care, infant mortality, etc.—share similar living standards.
On the other hand, Mexican citizens see an overwhelming reward for crossing the border in to the U.S.
Mexican hourly wages average 50-cents in U.S. currency. Mexican living standards are excessively low, especially as you migrate away from larger cities. In border cities, potable water and electricity is often in short supply. Sewage capacity and treatment facilities are inadequate or non-existent. Infant mortality in Mexico is 98th in the world, with 21.69 deaths per 1,000 births.
While Canada is a stable country, the political climate of Mexico and other Central America is chaotic at best. Corruption and bribery—the subject of an October 2005 summit between the U.S., El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras—is rampant. Reports from the American southwest indicate that regular Mexico army troops are escorting smugglers to—and sometimes across—the border. Just today, Texas police were involved in an armed standoff with Mexican soldiers and civilian smugglers. A similar incident was reported in November of 2005.
As support for my appraisal, consider a response from former Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge. When asked in January 2002 which border posed a great risk to U.S. National Security, he immediately pointed to the U.S./Mexican border. To quote Secretary Ridge, “The infrastructure is better on the Canadian side” and in Mexico there is “endemic corruption…. There are more organizational problems down south.”
Turning to U.S. coasts, I believe the U.S. Coast Guard has made significant strides to strengthen our coastal security. The Coast Guard has reorganized post-9/11 and is improving its “Deepwater” and coastal response capabilities via upgraded cutter ships, an expanded helicopter fleet, and state-of-the art detection and tracking systems.
To address your economic arguments, American families won’t pay astronomical prices for goods or services because, simply stated, we’ll refuse to do so. Fifteen dollar orange juice and nine dollar lettuce will languish on the shelves, collecting inches of dust.
This decreased demand will bring tremendous market pressure to bear, which will act as a leveling force on prices. The American business community is far too astute to be caught off-guard, or defeated, by increased wages and production overhead.
The situation will warrant tough decisions and aggressive industry response.
Illegal immigrants comprise 50 percent of the U.S. agriculture workforce. This abundance of cheap labor has deferred pressure for increased harvest mechanization and other technological advancements. With an increasing number of U.S. businesses already going to China and, ironically, Mexico for agricultural commodities, American industry will need to adapt or perish.
As far as supply is concerned, smaller, family-owned farms have little impact on U.S. agricultural production or commodity prices. As defined by the U.S. Census Bureau, fifty percent of all farms market about three percent of all farm products. The majority of the agriculture industry relies on large agribusiness and not smaller farmers. Though family-run ranches may be hit hard by mandated wage increases, they contribute little to the national supply.
Yes, we could punish CEOs whose companies employ illegal immigrants. However, if judicial recourse is the answer, it must be enforced across the board and include prosecution of illegal workers. Though this is an option, we’re too far into the game for it to make an immediate impact. Immigration control/border security by judicial attrition is too little, too late.
Improvement of a broken process begins by bringing it under control. While the security measures I propose may be scaled back in the future, I see no other recourse given the current situation.
Reply to this specific comment
By Shawn Bannon | Reply to article
One reason the U.S./Mexican border is more of a security concern than the U.S./Canadian border is that Canada has a much better/more active system for screening immigrants and foreign visitors than does Mexico. Despite Mexico’s tough penalties and felony classification for illegal aliens, there are almost no real barriers to entry for terrorists who would use Mexico as a gateway to the United States — traveling from even less-developed countries with no means for screening foreigners through Mexico, with its limited and ineffectual screening measures, to the United States by way of our porous southern border.
Is security along the northern border lax? Yes. Is it anywhere near as great a cause for concern as security along the southern border? No, not in any reasonable sense. So, with limited resources, our first priority (in terms of border control/security) must be the U.S./Mexican border.
Reply to this specific comment
By Scott Bannon | Reply to article
Michael, I understand how and why responsible, rational people see the immigration issue and border security as related. Still, I believe it’s counter-productive and dangerous for two reasons to do so.
First, by merging the two issues you inevitably create larger obstacles to developing effective resolutions. The greater scale and scope of a problem balloon the time and resource needs to addressing it.
Second, and possibly even more important is the fact that politicians who already over-politicize these issues for personal gain only amplify their rhetoric to match the enlarged scale of the merged issues.
By keeping illegal immigration separate from border security it allows for more candid and focused solution seeking for both.
Politicians on both sides of the aisle have already been exploiting these issues. The illegal immigration issue isn’t new, neither is border security. Both have been discussed and revisited at length inside and outside of politics since long before even September 11th, 2001. They were headlines and questions posed after 9/11, yet neither became a hot topic until now? Why is that.. I propose it has something to do with this being the first election year since 2001 where opinions on foreign policies and the economy aren’t favorable among middle and lower class voters towards incumbents, and the same-sex marriage card has already been played out. Politicians need issues to energize their core supporters and I believe that public reactions to the Dubai Ports deal inspired much of the politicization and lumping of these issues we’re seeing now. Politicians have combined the issues, it’s opportunistic and politically motivated, but it ultimately only muddies the waters and slows any real progress to resolving either issue.
I wasn’t disputing which border is more of a security risk, I think it’s problematic to try to assess them in that way because it’s dangerous to be dismissive at all of the northern border or coast lines. Remember, the only border crossed by terrorists that we know of so far has been the northern, there is a very real problem there. We need to address all of these, only addressing one because it’s the most visible leak today is like sticking your finger into a hole-filled dike. It’s not an answer, it’s a redirection of the risk.
Back to immigration, you say if we prosecute CEO’s and others who illegally hire undocumented workers we must also prosecute the workers. Why?
It makes no practical sense. Seriously, what benefit does that serve to society? Our desired result is to lessen the number of illegals within our borders and reduce the draw that’s bringing them in. Prosecuting the workers only serves to prolong their stay and further drain the public services being consumed.
On the other hand, prosecuting those who hire them does serve the public interest. It would suddenly dry up the well of opportunities that draw illegal immigrants across our borders, reducing that problem as well as having the long term benefit of providing more of those opportunities to Americans.
As for what Shawn added, that’s just not accurate. Since 9/11 the U.S. has been quietly pushing Canada to tighten their security. In-fact, just a few days ago (April 28) the state department issued a report that blasts Canada, saying that terrorists have exploited the liberal Canadian immigration and asylum policies to enjoy safe haven, raise funds, arrange logistical support and plan terrorist attacks.
Again, I’m not arguing that either border is or isn’t more of a risk to our security, I’m only pointing out that there’s a very real danger in failing to recognize that both borders and our coast lines are all a huge risk–and that the lumping of security onto the illegal immigration issue has already caused this to happen to some extent.
Reply to this specific comment
By Shawn Bannon | Reply to article
Not much time to write, but you’re wrong, Scott, regarding Canada’s immigration policy. The U.S. is unhappy with the fact that Canada has not tightened its immigration standards in line with our own. But, the criticism of Canada’s immigration policy is a reflection of the fact that something can actually be done to influence terrorist access to Canada whereas the Mexican government has no interest in or resources applied to actually prosecuting a strict immigration policy. So, the State Department has to criticize Canada. But, realizing that the Mexican government lacks either the will or the ability to implement and enforce an immigration policy that would aid in our efforts to thwart terrorism, the U.S. must move to dramatically and immediately put an end to illegal border crossings from Mexico.
Reply to this specific comment
By Scott Bannon | Reply to article
Shawn, I appreciate the truths in what you’re saying, but I disagree with the conclusions you’re drawing from them.
It seems you’re suggesting that we should just keep pressuring Canada so that we can rely on them to secure our northern border; because they have the means. In a perfect world such neighborly co-operations are ideal, but it isn’t a perfect world and I certainly don’t wish to rely on Canada to protect me.
Even if I did, the evidence is clear that Canada hasn’t been–and according to the State Dept. still isn’t–willing to be more proactive and aggressive in doing the job.
We, and only we, can be responsible for protecting our own borders.
Reply to this specific comment