The New American Dilemma: Illegal Immigration-BECKER

President Bush proposed in 2004 that illegal immigrants with jobs be allowed to stay for up to six years. For good as well as bad reasons, his proposal has not gone anywhere in Congress. Mainly because of political obstacles I do not see any attractive policies toward the flow of illegal immigrants. The US has six basic options toward illegal immigration: 1) This country can continue its current policy of beefing up border security, and sending apprehended illegal immigrants back to Mexico, or wherever else they came from. Meanwhile undocumented workers who are not caught remain eligible for various kinds of health care, schooling for their children, and other benefits. 2) Illegal immigration could be discouraged by giving apprehended aliens jail sentences before sending them back to where they came from. 3) Employers could be punished for hiring illegal workers. 4) Illegal immigrants could be allowed to come, but would be ineligible for government transfers, such as health benefits or schooling. 5) Illegal immigrants could come and be eligible for all the public benefits available to other residents. 6) Illegal immigrants could be allowed to remain for a certain number of years if they have jobs, but then they would have to go back after their time expires, whether or not they are still employed. None are satisfactory, as we can determine by considering each of these options in turn. 1) The present policy of sending back apprehended aliens is not effective in deterring illegal immigration since many of these simply turn around and cross the border again. Various studies show that it is easy with enough persistence to come across from Mexico, guided by "cayotes" who do not charge that much. I doubt whether the recent tightening up of border patrols will do much to raise the cost of crossing illegally. 2) Most Americans do not wish to give significant jail sentences to illegal aliens whose only crime is that they want to come to this country, usually seeking higher wages and better working conditions than they have had. Yet in the absence of such punishment, immigrants will continue to flow across the border, pulled by earnings that are 5-10 times higher than what they could earn in Mexico and most other Latin American nations. So the only effective way to deter illegal immigration is not politically feasible, and is not attractive on moral grounds. 3) The 1986 immigration law barred employers from hiring illegal immigrants, but it did not help employers determine when potential employees had forged documents. It is cheap to buy forged social security cards, green cards, and anything else that would certify an employee is in this country legally. Unless that defect is overcome, and it will not be easy, the courts will continue to be reluctant to punish employers for hiring workers who turn out to be here illegally. 4) I am attracted by a policy that allows illegal immigrants to come, but denies them eligibility for any government assistance, or to apply for citizenship unless they return home and apply through normal channels. Some states have tried aspects of such a policy, but courts threw out their attempts to limit the education and medical care of children of undocumented immigrants, and emergency room medical care for adults. 5) The government can concede defeat and allow immigrants to be eligible for all benefits available to other residents. This approach too runs into opposition from many groups that believe immigrants lower the earnings of Americans, and accuse immigrants of enjoying medical, schooling, and other benefits paid for by American taxpayers. 6) Finally, we come to the President’s proposal for guest workers. He said in a speech in 2004: "I propose a new temporary worker program that will match willing foreign workers with willing American employers, when no Americans can be found to fill the jobs. All who participate in the temporary worker program must have a job, or, if not living in the United States, a job offer. The legal status granted by this program will last three years and will be renewable -- but it will have an end. Participants who do not remain employed, who do not follow the rules of the program, or who break the law will not be eligible for continued participation and will be required to return to their home. Employers who extend job offers must first make every reasonable effort to find an American worker for the job at hand. Employers must not hire undocumented aliens or temporary workers whose legal status has expired. All participants will be issued a temporary worker card that will allow them to travel back and forth between their home and the United States without fear of being denied re-entry into our country. This program expects temporary workers to return permanently to their home countries after their period of work in the United States has expired. Some temporary workers will make the decision to pursue American citizenship. They will not be given unfair advantage over people who have followed legal procedures from the start. I oppose amnesty, placing undocumented workers on the automatic path to citizenship. Granting amnesty encourages the violation of our laws, and perpetuates illegal immigration. America is a welcoming country, but citizenship must not be the automatic reward for violating the laws of America." This proposal and similar ones sound good on paper, but they are unworkable, and in most respects undesirable. After six years of employment as documented guest workers, what is to prevent these workers from becoming undocumented after their total term as guests expires? In fact, after working that long, they will have become accustomed to living in this country, especially if their children are in school, and if they marry or have spouses when they came who also earn good money, or made the adjustment to living in this country. Then we are back to the present situation with formerly documented guest workers becoming undocumented. The most desirable type of immigrant commits to this country, its values, language, and culture. Immigrants who came during the nineteenth and most of the 20th century made this commitment, and usually their children were fully integrated into American culture. But immigrants under the President’s guest worker program have little reason to become integrated if they plan to go back to their native countries after their six years as guest workers expires. In addition, it is a bureaucratic nightmare to require that "employers who extend job offers must first make every reasonable effort to find an American worker for the job". A lot of phony efforts are made, and who can determine if an effort was sincere? Moreover, such a stipulation displays ignorance of how competitive labor markets operate. The market for the unskilled or low skilled labor provided by Mexican illegal immigrants is usually highly competitive, with jobs available at the going wage to everyone who is willing to work at that wage. Open immigration to America worked well during the 19th century because the government did very little for immigrants and their families. How immigrants voted after becoming citizens also mattered little because government decisions were not so important. With the growth of government during the past half century, neither of these conditions continues to hold, so the case for open immigration is fatally weakened. Compounding this decline in the willingness to accept immigrants, during the past half century the incentive to immigrate from poor to rich countries has greatly increased with the growing gap between earnings in these countries, and much faster and cheaper modes of travel. Rough estimates put the number of illegal immigrants in this country at six to eight million- with about 500,000 entering every year. This clash between the flow of immigration and the resistance of rich countries creates the urgency of the challenge of designing better policies toward immigration. If apprehended illegal aliens are not to be punished, if illegal entrants are not to be denied significant benefits, and if employers are not punished for hiring illegal immigrants, the only workable solution is to allow virtually unlimited illegal immigration. This can be combined with a face-saving gesture toward immigration control through beefed-up border patrols that return thousands of apprehended aliens to Mexico and elsewhere. Can anything else be done? The US can try to help Mexico develop economically, for that would sharply cut back the number of Mexicans who want to work in the US. The NAFTA Free Trade agreement is an important step in the right direction, but Mexico has to take the lead in providing a good environment for faster economic growth. Unfortunately, while important policy changes have been implemented, progress has been slow in recent years, and a left wing candidate is the favorite in the upcoming presidential elections. I favor among all the least good policies reducing the benefits available to illegal immigrants in recognition that it is impossible to stem the flow of illegal immigration. This would require denying illegal aliens access to most health, education, and other benefits. If that is not feasible politically, illegal immigration will constitute perhaps the major American Dilemma during the coming decade.

Comments

[Bill]

A national ID card, coupled with penalties for hiring undocumented persons, should solve the problem, along with a fine to the hiring person and the individual subject to deportation. Increases the costs if apprehended and increases the probability of detection. It is no excuse to say I relied on a forged social security card. There are many, many secured cards today that are used for an infinite variety of businesses that need security.

Card technology is here and its use will increase in the future. Put in place the systems that will detect and involve the market in the solution.

[Dan C]

I was told that most European immigrants came to America with the intention of returning to their native countries after they had earned a bankroll. (Irish and Jews less then most.)

Two world wars tended to forge strong nationalistic feelings and most stayed in America for generations.

I don't know the view of current immigrants from Latin countries. Are they coming to stay or to earn a bankroll? My response would be very different for each response.

Clearly the best long run solution is to grow the Mexican economy.

The best short run solutions are to stop giving citizenship based on accident of birth, limit access to social services, (but do nothing to prevent private charities or churches), and increase penalties for hiring illegal workers.

[anon]

http://www.oc.uiuc.edu/images/ny_ang_lee_ad.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ang_Lee

[anaxanagorenas]

Bill, thank you for the clarification.

IIN, myself and others are still waiting for your response.

[Brett Bellmore]

We don't have a current policy of beefing up border security. We have a current policy of making a show of beefing up border security, as a sop to the public, while keeping the border as insecure as possible. That's why the administration was so hostile to the Minutemen: By observing and reporting illegal border crossings, they made it difficult to turn a blind eye to them.

Any reasoning that starts from the premise that we're currently making a serious effort to obstruct illegal border crossings, and that therefore simply policing the border can't be effective, is utterly divorced from reality. We won't know if we can secure the border until we've actually TRIED.

[anaxanagorenas]

Hi Brett. Intersting point about the minutement and the Bush administration's attitude towards them.

"Any reasoning that starts from the premise that we're currently making a serious effort to obstruct illegal border crossings, and that therefore simply policing the border can't be effective, is utterly divorced from reality. We won't know if we can secure the border until we've actually TRIED."

is also a good point. However, this does not take away from the fact that a long run a solution to immigration woes must go beyond policing the border.

[Steve P]

"I am attracted by a policy that allows illegal immigrants to come, but denies them eligibility for any government assistance."

I don't see what's so attractive about intentionally letting people get sick or allowing 8-year-olds to linger without any education. I would have thought that acute medical care for adults and basic education for children were the lowest common denominator for approaching this problem, so long as my preferred approach of imprisoning apprehended illegals is not feasible.

[H. Blix]

Having just gone through a massive expenditure of time, expense and paperwork to adopt three orphaned kids from overseas you might think I have sympathy for illegal aliens here. Nope. In fact I probably have less sympathy for those here illegally having gone through the legal process to bring three kids here, and I don't, frankly, much care about the motivations and reasons for those staying here illegally.

Life's tough all over, and entire sections of the U.S. are being fiscally strained to the breaking point by the numbers of illegal immigrants now here.

[Rodrigo Gallardo]

Some anecdotal data, from the south side of the border. These are my impressions, but may be useful to the debate, anyhow.

Minimum legal wage in Mexico is about USD80/month. About 40% of our population is below that. About 60% is below two minimum wages.

There seem to be two main classes of inmigrants. The poorest people will usually emigrate looking for any job at all. Usually conditions are desperate enough to take a life-risking choice. It's mostly male only emigration and it's not unusual to find towns entirely devoid of adult males. They usually intend to stay 'just for a while' until they 'save enough.' Their spending while abroad is normally very limited. They usually (try to) send back most of their earnings. A common use for those sendings is to raise the capital to allow some other relative to emigrate. Wife and kids emigrate after the husband has had a rather long time to settle, not only because of the cost, but also because of the danger of crossing. The crossing will sometimes be done without the help of a coyote, which of course lowers the cost but increases the risk. This seems to be a mainly rural phenomenon. People in this class will usually have very little education, often less than 6 years of school.

The other kind of emigration is from city people who earn enough to make a living but are disgruntled with their economic conditions. There will often be a higher level of education, a few times all the way up to some college. It's more common for a family to try to get there together from the beginning. They know they will be taking on low-status jobs but are willing to trade that for economical stability. They will make the crossing with a coyote, and view the expense explicitely as investment. Said expense will be a major chunck of their savings, but usually not deplete them completely, or at least not irreversibly. This families expect their children to grow up to be 'average americans'. I have no idea how many of them acomplish that.

As for legal emigration, it's almost non-existent. I would say it's a few temporary worker programs, post-graduate students with pre-aranged positions in universities and high ranking executives of mexican subsidiaries of int'l corporations getting promoted. I've never actualy heard of someone outside those narrow classes try to do it.

[lance sjogren]

Here are some of the questions I think need to be addressed on this issue:

1). What illegal immigration policy is in the public interest? Not what illegal immigration policy is in the interest of illegal aliens, what illegal immigration policy is in the interest of American citizens and legal immigrants.

2). can the United States continue to exist as a sovereign nation if it refuses to enforce its immigration laws?

3). Can the United States continue to exist as a prosperous nation if American jobs are filled by whoever in the world is willing to perform a particular job at the lowest common denominator wage within the global labor market?

4). Can America continue to have a social safety net if we allow an uncontrolled influx of poor people from other nations whose needs for taxpayer-funded services vastly outweighs their ability to contribute to those systems?

5). Even aside for the adverse impact of illegal immigration on Americas working poor, trying to achieve a better life for their families, where is the morality in illegal immigration even from the standpoint of the people who come here. They have not been selected based on need. Illegal immigration is extremely discriminatory on the basis of national origin, since those in close proximity such as Mexicans come in far larger numbers than those from places such as Africa, so that those who come, on the whole, are far less needy than those who do not.

These are a few miscellaneous questions that deserve consideration.

Also, let me make a shameless pitch for my upcoming book "Immigration Politics" which should be in print around May 2006.

[Anonymous]

مركز تحميل

[Anonymous]

بنت النماص

[Anonymous]

بنت الزلفي

[Anonymous]

Check out NUMBERS USA they have free petitions to send to Obama and his cronies, but you have to act fast!

[Anonymous]

Thank you, you always get to all new and used it
ÿ¥ÿßÿ™

دردشه

[Anonymous]

thanks to tell me that,i think thats ao usefully----
tiffanys
ed hardy

[Anonymous]

Perfect work!

[Anonymous]

Great work, webmaster, nice design!

[Anonymous]

دردشة برق

دردشة الخليج

[Anonymous]

دردشة برق

دردشة الخليج

[Anonymous]

Great site. Keep doing.

[Anonymous]

Great work, webmaster, nice design!

[Anonymous]

UvJyqR Perfect work!

[Anonymous]

Perfect site, i like it!

[Anonymous]

Great site. Keep doing.