- Introduction
Without the emotional pleas, the tearful stories, the inflammatory name calling and the religious devotion to one’s political “side”, what are some truths about illegal immigration from south of the US border? And what evidence based solutions are there? I went looking for these answers and, at least initially, found that objectivity is hard to find. The left believes it’s a human right to live anywhere you want without regard to the problems it creates. The right says “just enforce the *$% law” ignoring it’s implied racism and injustice.
I wanted a balanced view. And some questions answered.
So, I went looking. I specifically focused on south of the border illegal immigration particularly to Arizona. My objective here is to answer some of my questions regarding illegal immigration with as much objective data as possible. I want myself and the reader to draw their own conclusions. If you would, take off the “my side, right or wrong” knee-jerk know-it-all mentality, and try to look at this from all sides.
I call it illegal immigration because, at the moment, these undocumented residents are breaking existing laws. It is one of my contentions that, if once disagrees with a law, one must not flagrantly disobey without the expectation of the legal consequences. But if the law is unfair, unjust and does not promote a positive outcome, the responsible citizen must do their part to change that law. I hope to give you, the reader, information to make up your mind about what would be fair and just.
(If you disagree that immigration laws should be upheld, I’d appreciate a written argument on my desk by Monday. Convince me that you understand the importance of the rule of law in making nations prosperous and free.)
This paper is mostly bullet points. Fleshing it out proved to be far too daunting to actually read. I have references. Trust me.
- First, Let’s be Real. You’re racist
From an objective standpoint, illegal immigration is not racist. It is about laws and structure and government and how a society wants to organize itself. However, as in most countries, the laws previously set forth have a racial bias. Our political ancestors put themselves and their kind at an advantage and embraced, perhaps unwittingly, institutional racism.
You are racist, or sexist, or classist, something-ist, too. It is imperative and fair to acknowledge the elephant in the room: we are all discriminating beings. And if you think you aren’t, you just haven’t looked hard enough at yourself. Our brain has an efficient data analysis system that brought about tribalism as an evolutionary survival tool. This tool allowed us to quickly determine who to trust and who may endanger us. It is part of our genetic inheritance and it is the biologic “strong suggestion” that instructs us to perpetuate our genetic progeny. It exists in every corner of the world and takes on different names and forms. Orange, white, red, green, black, and blue people all do it. We discriminate. (#8)
Now that we’ve acknowledged that elephant, we know that racial discrimination no longer serves us and we must watch when discrimination rears its ugliness. We need to notice it…in ourselves first. Part of what keeps us from moving forward on this discussion is the name-calling. Acknowledging the truth about our human natural tendencies is imperative for us to then watch for it. Treat every human with dignity and kindness and notice when you don’t. The topic of racism is not the point in this discussion. But it underpins your personal beliefs on immigration and it’s important right here to stop and notice if your opinions might have racist undertones.
I do not care who comes into this country as long as they meet the following criteria:
- a) They are willing to work
- b) They obey the law;
- c) They respect our Constitution and our culture; and
- d) They pay taxes.
(Aside: Who Really is Most tolerant?) Here’s what the data show: (#55: A fascinating map of the world’s most and least racially tolerant countries Max Fisher May 15, 2013)
- Anglo and Latin countries most tolerant: the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand and in Latin America.
- India and Jordan by far the least tolerant.
- Wide, interesting variation across Europe. Though you might expect the richer, better-educated Western European nations to be more tolerant than those in Eastern Europe, that’s not exactly the case. France appeared to be one of the least racially tolerant countries on the continent, with 22.7 percent saying they didn’t want a neighbor of another race. Former Soviet states such as Belarus and Latvia scored as more tolerant than much of Europe.
- The Middle East not so tolerant.
- Racial tolerance low in diverse Asian countries. Nations such as Indonesia and the Philippines, where many racial groups often jockey for influence and have complicated histories with one another, showed more skepticism of diversity. This was also true, to a lesser extent, in China and Kyrgyzstan. There were similar trends in parts of sub-Saharan Africa.
- South Korea, not very tolerant, is an outlier
- Pakistan, remarkably tolerant, also an outlier.
- A Law is a Law
This discussion is about ILLEGAL immigration. Since the name implies that a law has been broken, the question then becomes about the justice and fairness of the law
The disobedience and subsequent lack of enforcement of this law has pernicious consequences. “The sanctity of the entire legal system in a republic rests on two important corollaries: citizens cannot pick and choose which laws they obey and equal applicability of the law. Citizens in modern Western societies are assured that their laws are applied in the same manner to all citizens regardless of differences in class, gender, race, or religion. “ (#26) When illegal immigration is allowed, neither of these are insured.
Since rule of law is one reason this country enjoys the security in which to safely be involved in commerce, the idea that the law should be broken is fundamentally a problem. What separates wealthier nations from unsecure ones is the notion that citizens entrust their elected representatives with the crafting of laws and then show their fealty by obeying the resulting legislation.
Some consequences of allowing immigrants to be excused from obeying immigration law.
- Citizens question why all laws are not equally subject to nullification.
- The immigrant himself adopts a mindset that obeying the law is unimportant.
- Illegal immigration erodes equality under the law. When millions of foreign nationals reside illegally in the United States, many laws must be enforced unequally to perpetuate the initial transgression.
-Sanctuary cities protect illegal aliens from federal immigration agencies in a way that is not true of American citizens who arrive at airports and must go through customs.
-thousands of illegal aliens operate automobiles without mandatory insurance, driver’s licenses and registrations and, in some municipalities, are not arrested for such violations—even as American citizens who cannot claim such apparent mitigating circumstances are.
-In some places, there are dwellings where multiple families live in trailers, sheds, and garages using illegal water, power and sewage hookups. Most are left alone by authorities because “such violations are too chronic and widespread to be addressed”. (#26)
- Yes, immigration is Good for our economy
A mountain of scientific evidence shows that immigration is the most powerful weapon we have in the fight against global poverty. Four different studies have shown that, depending on the level of movement in the global labor market, the estimated growth in “gross worldwide product” would be in the range of 67% to 147%. Effectively, open borders would make the whole world twice as rich. (#16)
This one is well documented. I don’t include a lot of detail on this because there is little to refute.
5. Do They take our jobs?…not really
-A bigger workforce means more consumption, more demand, more jobs. An influx of people from different cultures also increases innovation.
-Cheap immigrant labor force has virtually no effect on wages. Some research even shows that new arrivals lead to an uptick in the earnings of the domestic workforce. Hard-working immigrants boost productivity, which brings paycheck payoffs to everybody. The alternative to hiring immigrants is to outsource work to other countries. And that, ironically, does force wages down. (#3)
-Report from the National academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine states (1) little to no negative effects on overall wages and employment of native born workers in the longer term (2) Teens saw their hours of work reduced by immigrants but not their ability to find work. (3) high skilled immigrants have spurred innovation and helped create jobs (#20)
-The group most likely to benefit from a tougher approach to immigration enforcement is young black men, who often compete with recent immigrants for low-skilled jobs.
- The labor force participation rate for adult black men has declined steadily since the passage of the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act, which ushered in a new era of mass immigration. In 1973, the rate was 79%. It is now at 68%, and the Bureau of Labor projects that it will decline to 61% by 2026.
- A 2010 study on the social effects of immigration found “No racial or ethnic group has benefited less or been harmed more than the nation’s African American community.” Another study between 1980 and 2000 found that 1/3 of the decline in the employment among black male high school dropouts was attributable to immigration (#11)
- Do they pay taxes? …many do
According to the Institute of Taxation and Economic Policy, about half of all undocumented workers in the US file income tax returns. The IRS data from 2015, shows that the agency received 4.4 million income tax returns from workers who don’t have SS #s, which includes a large number of undocumented immigrants. That year, this crowd paid $23.6 billion in income taxes. (#23)
- Do they use a lot of entitlements?…yep, the first generation does. Then, it gets better
-Unauthorized immigrants are ineligible for most major federally-funded safety net programs.
-Undocumented immigrants are not eligible to receive Social Security benefits even though many contribute to the system.
-There are some federal programs that serve those in need, regardless of immigration status. Programs that serve undocumented immigrants include school meal programs, the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC), Head Start, and various in-kind emergency services. Undocumented immigrants are also eligible for Emergency Medicaid.
-Many unauthorized immigrants have dependent children or a spouse who are citizens and who may qualify for public benefits. About three quarters of children of undocumented immigrants are citizens. A study using 2014 data estimated that about 40 percent of all adult undocumented immigrants live with U.S. citizen minor or adult children. Therefore, although undocumented immigrants are not eligible for most benefits, their households often receive support.
-The combined total of state and local government general expenditures on illegal aliens is about $18 billion.. At the state level, examples of general expenditures would be the costs of general governance, fire departments, garbage collection, street cleaning and maintenance, etc. (#24)
-An estimated 49 percent of households headed by legal immigrants used one or more welfare programs in 2012, compared to 30 percent of households headed by natives.
-Households headed by legal immigrants have higher use rates than native households overall and for cash programs (14 percent vs. 10 percent), food programs (36 percent vs. 22 percent), and Medicaid (39 percent vs. 23 percent). Use of housing programs is similar.
-Legal immigrant households account for ¾ of all immigrant households accessing one or more welfare programs.
-Less-educated legal immigrants make extensive use of every type of welfare program, including cash, food, Medicaid, and housing.
-The overwhelming majority of illegal immigrants have modest levels of education; therefore, the high use of welfare associated with less-educated legal immigrants indicates that legalization would likely increase welfare costs, particularly for cash and housing programs.
-Restrictions on new legal immigrants’ access to welfare have not prevented them from accessing programs at high rates because restrictions often apply to only a modest share of immigrants at any one time, some programs are not restricted, there are numerous exceptions and exemptions, and some provisions are entirely unenforced. Equally important, immigrants, including those illegally in the country, can receive welfare on behalf of their U.S.-born children. (#27)
-The first generation of newcomers generally cost governments more than they contribute in taxes, with most of the costs falling on state and local governments, mainly because of the expense of educating the children of immigrant families. But, by the second generation with improved education and taxpaying ability, they become a benefit to government coffers, adding about $30 billion a year. By the third generation, immigrant families contribute about $223 billion a year to government finances. (#20)
-In 2013, it was estimated that the federal, state, and local levels, taxpayers shell out approximately $134.9 billion to cover the costs incurred by the presence of more than 12.5 million illegal aliens, and about 4.2 million citizen children of illegal aliens. That amounts to a tax burden of approximately $8,075 per illegal alien family member.(#24)
- Do They commit a lot of violent Crime…not really, but the data is confusing
Four academic studies show that illegal immigration does not increase the prevalence of violent crime or drug and alcohol problems. (#28)
This is in stark contrast to this study done in Arizona that used data on that separated legal and illegal residents who entered the Arizona state prison from January 1985 through June 2017. They found that undocumented immigrants are at least 142% more likely to be convicted of a crime than other Arizonans. They also tend to commit more serious crimes and serve 10.5% longer sentences, more likely to be classified as dangerous, and 45% more likely to be gang members than U.S. citizens. (#36)
- Back it up: A little history and relativity
Approximately 11.6 million Mexican immigrants resided in the United States in 2016, about half of them in the country illegally, according to Pew Research Center estimates. In Arizona, using data from the 2010 U.S. census Latinos make up nearly 30 percent of state residents, up from just over 25 percent in 2000. The illegal immigrants, primarily of Mexican origin, make up about 9 percent of the population and 10 percent of the state’s labor force. (#50)
How it used to be:
1852: There were no federal limits on immigration in the decades following the Mexican-American War and the Gadsden Purchase in 1852. Citizens from both countries passed freely across the border. It was Chinese immigrants, not Mexicans, that American authorities and vigilante groups first sought to keep from illegally crossing its southern border after the passage of the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. One of the ways that immigrants from China would try to get across the border is to learn a few words of Spanish and disguise themselves as Mexican.
1910-1965: Restrictions on the movement of Mexican citizens were not enforced by the U.S. government until the decade of the Mexican Revolution in the 1910s when large numbers of refugees came to escape the war and there was a large demand for Mexican labor. Following Mexican revolutionary Pancho Villa’s deadly raid on Columbus, New Mexico, in 1916 and the subsequent publication of the Zimmerman Telegram proposing a World War I military alliance between Mexico and Germany, the United States tightened border security and deployed soldiers to patrol the boundary along with the Texas Rangers and government-sanctioned “home guards.”
Mexican immigration peaked in 1920. At that time Mexican migration seems to have been a circulatory one consisting mainly of young men looking for temporary work in the United States. However, during the great depression, employment rates fell and Mexican repatriation prevailed in tandem with stricter deportation policy. Immigration that “averaged 58,747 a year during the late 1920s, dropped to 12,703 in 1930 and 3,333 in 1931 (#52)
1965: the Immigration Act of 1965 initiated a stricter immigration policy resulted in a major increase in Mexican immigration. Although estimates of a million illegal immigrants in 1927 still about equaled the estimates of 1971, the illegal immigrants could no longer return to Mexico in 1971 (unlike their counterparts in 1927) (#52)
1990’s: The United States began the installation of border fences to restrict the movement of unlawful immigrants and drugs in 1993 when President Bill Clinton mandated the construction of a 14-mile barrier between San Diego and Tijuana. The Secure Fence Act of 2006 authorized the construction of 700 miles of border fencing and vehicle barriers, which was completed in 2011.
1996: the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act vastly expanded the definition of crimes and included everything from shoplifting to child neglect as “aggravated felonies” that could lead to deportation without appeal.
2003: The National Fugitive Operations Program created in 2003, the program’s mandate was to locate, arrest, and remove immigrants with old deportation orders, focusing particularly on fugitives who threaten national security or endanger communities.
2005: Arizona’s unique human-smuggling statute established prison terms for those involved in the transportation of people known or presumed to lack legal status to be in the state. It also expanded the definition of human smuggling, allowing for the detection and arrest of those suspected to be engaged in smuggling activities.
Immigration Around the World:
US: Unless a person is coming to the U.S. through family or an approved job, it is very difficult to establish permanent residency (sometimes known as receiving a green card). There are special categories for those seeking refugee or asylum status, and a lottery for others who wish to apply.
Those who have had permanent residency status for five years can begin the process of applying for citizenship by filling out the application and taking a test, which includes knowledge of history/government and English. Before becoming a citizen, people must swear an oath to the constitution.
Austria : Anyone who is not a citizen of an EU country and is staying longer than six months must have a resident permit before entering the country. People who plan to stay longer than 24 months must also sign an Integration Agreement. Permanent residents must live in the country continuously for a period of 15 to 30 years before being eligible to apply for citizenship. If approved, applicants must renounce any other citizenship.
Germany : If you are not a citizen of an EU country, you must have lived in Germany for at least five years and demonstrate competency in language and knowledge of the political system and society. Applicants must also demonstrate that they have the ability to earn a living and have contributed to the national pension plan. They must also have proof of suitable accommodation. To become a citizen, applicants must have lived in the country at least eight years (seven, if they’ve passed a competency test) and renounce citizenship in any other country.
Japan: If one wants permanent residency he must have lived in the country for at least 10 continuous years. Those who want to become a citizen of Japan must have lived in the country for five years, receive permission from the Justice Minister and complete copious paperwork. The process can take six to 12 months and, sometimes, years. If approved, applicants must be ready to renounce citizenship in other countries.
Switzerland: To obtain a settlement, or permanent residence visa (unless you are an EU citizen), you must have lived in the country for 10 years. If you qualify for permanent residence by the length of time you have lived in the country, you also qualify to apply for citizenship, but that is not guaranteed; applicants for citizenship must also prove they are assimilated into Swiss society and do not pose a threat to security. Additionally, all cantons and municipalities have their own rules about granting citizenship. Switzerland permits dual citizenship.
Denmark: The largely homogenous country has reportedly offered immigrants cash incentives to leave if they cannot assimilate into Danish culture. The 24-year rule states that in order for the foreign spouse of a Danish citizen to qualify for citizenship both the Danish spouse and the foreign spouse must be at least 24 years old. The rule’s purpose is to limit the number of immigrants, prevent forced marriages, and create a better integration process.
UK: There is a £1,000 (U.S. $1,532) fee on migrants coming to the U.K. to work or study. The fee serves as a security bond to be returned only when immigrants return home following the expiration of their visas.
Italy: Italian citizenship is based upon the principal of jure sanguinis (blood right), meaning the child born of an Italian father or mother is also an Italian citizen. An Italian bloodline is not in itself sufficient grounds for claiming Italian citizenship – a foreigner with Italian origin is eligible to apply for Italian citizenship only if he/she was born before the naturalization of his/her father/mother.
Italian citizenship may be obtained by marriage to an Italian. A non-EU citizen having legally resided in Italy for ten years may apply for Italian citizenship and a EU citizen after four years. A foreigner with native-born Italian parents or grandparents who have lost their citizenship and therefore unable to pass citizenship on, is entitled to apply after three years of legal residency in Italy.
Mexico: A law enacted in 2011 guarantees that foreigners statelessness and Mexican nationals will receive equal treatment under Mexican law. Under this principle all immigrants, regardless of status are granted the right to access education employment and health services. It replaces the two large immigration categories—immigrant and nonimmigrant—with the categories of “visitor” and “temporary resident”, while keeping the status of “permanent resident”. For granting permanent residency, the law proposes using a point system based on factors such as level of education, employment experience, and scientific and technological knowledge.
Mexico admits fewer immigrants than the United States.
- Another aside: Money back to Mexico
“In 2015, Mexico’s central bank reported Mexicans overseas sent nearly $24.8 billion home, overtaking oil revenues for the first time as a source of foreign income. Remittances were up 4.75 percent from 2014 when they totaled $23.6 billion, the Bank of Mexico said.” (#39)
- Open Borders: mass immigration Thought experiment… (one guy’s opinion)
“History has demonstrated innumerable times that at-scale diversity doesn’t create utopia but tension. This tension can sometimes be negotiated, but often leads to societal fragmentation, secession, or the establishment of sprawling despotisms like the Austro-Hungarian, Ottoman, and Mughal empires. This is because civilizations are staggeringly complex economic, social and political coordination systems that slowly develop over hundreds of years. When these coordination systems are stressed by rapid change, they sometimes shudder and break.
Of the top ten most diverse countries in the world, every single one has suffered major, lethal political violence since 2001. Diversity is not some holy sacrament, it is a deadly serious socio-political challenge that needs to be prudently managed. It is a mistake to believe that unregulated mass migration will bring about redemption for guilty Westerners. For whatever economic benefits it may bring, it will also bring tribalism, disunity, and violence. And for those of you who think this isn’t a major issue or that the worst has passed, please note we are just in the opening act of this drama.” (#10)
- Some Solutions .
1) Reform the guest worker VISA program make it easier to enter legally enter for a visit or temporary work. When workers are here, they can also have access to information about how to become citizens or permanent residents.
2) Reform legal immigration so that people access the forms and process necessary to become citizens if they choose to do so at a reasonable price. Having a difficult, expensive and even inaccessible process for even attempting to come here legally only exacerbates the problem. In addition it encourages the most desirable candidates to look elsewhere.
3) Institute a merit-based system similar to Canada’s, not to limit immigration, but improve it.
As soon as an immigrant demonstrates their benefit to this country and pass whatever background checks are needed, they would be admitted. This would not exclude other types of immigrants but would prioritize those most beneficial to the U.S.
4) Fix the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program through Congress. Contrary to some popular myths, those eligible for DACA protection actually benefit the country more than the average immigrant.
5) Institute a transaction-based consumption tax so everyone pays in, largely eliminating the major economic concern of their presence. With this type of tax, anyone who lives here must pay taxes on the vast majority of things they buy. There is a slew of other benefits to this, starting with reaping an estimated $500 billion in tax revenue from unreported income in the underground economy.
6) Deploy an identity-theft type system that tracks the activities of illegals and the Americans who do business with them. If it were against the law for Americans to employ, rent housing to, sell cars to, open bank accounts on behalf of, and provide government services to people here illegally, and there were an online system for instantly verifying identities, the problem of illegal immigration would be solved. People would not be able to remain in the U.S. illegally for very long, even if they were able to enter without difficulty.
7) End the War on Drugs While legalization of all drugs would almost completely undermine the cartels and trafficking, that isn’t likely to happen. There are numerous benefits, including helping reform the prison industrial complex, but the Center for Investigative Reporting found that nearly 90 percent of the drugs seized on the U.S.-Mexico border from 2005 to 2011 were marijuana. Federal legalization would cause the cartels to lose a significant chunk of their profits and decrease the violence and trafficking across the border. Encouraging other countries to do the same would help. Many people making the journey here are not looking for work, but fleeing violence in their own countries.
8) Prioritize court proceedings for criminal offenders so they are deported quickly.
According to the Migration Policy Institute, we can reasonably guess that as of 2015 we have an estimated 820,000 illegal immigrants with criminal convictions living here and of those, over 300,000 had a felony conviction. Focusing on these individuals isn’t nearly as controversial and should allow for more cooperation between ICE and sanctuary cities.
Wait, What? 