Immigration

There are moments that remind me of the vital importance of debate in the framing of public policy. The current debate about changes to our immigration policy is one of those moments. To some, the solution seems obvious; to others, the problem is much more complex. Still others, believe that our policy on immigration is working and only requires better enforcement of existing laws. Until recently, without the benefit of hearing all the different viewpoints on the subject, I felt that there was a fairly simple solution. I have long felt that the solution is merely to increase border patrol levels and the deportation of those found to be in this country illegally. I now believe that the problem is more complicated and requires an examination of all other approaches. Even now, I'm working through the pros and cons of the different approaches.
Several ideas have been proposed in this past week. I have enjoyed the debate thus far, agreeing with the merits of some and rejecting others. At times, I have even found myself agreeing with some very unlikley figures, such as U.S. House Rep. Tom Tancredo from Colorado. Tancredo suggests that existing laws are sufficient and that increased enforcement will dramatically improve the situation. A guest worker program allowing foreign citizens to work in America without having to become a citizen and thus enjoying the benefits afforded to citizens has been introduced. The construction of a wall across our entire land border has been suggested. Some hardliners propose new laws to make illegal immigration a felony, punishable by imprisonment. They also wish to penalize anyone who knowingly aids illegal immigrants. Another faction seeks to penalize employers who hire people who lack proper proof of U.S. citizenship. The most extreme advocate making English the official language.
First, it is necessary to identify whether a problem actually exists. If so, what is the problem and how can it be corrected? As I see it, our economy can only absorb a certain number of immigrant workers in any particular field. We can not restrict immigration only to the best and brightest from other nations. The resulting competition for the best jobs would undoubtedly force many talented and skilled workers into lesser jobs. On the contrary, accepting too many unskilled workers can create a proportionate shortage of skilled workers, such as doctors and educators, needed to support the society. Any immigration policy must first be devised to allow a balance of skilled and unskilled workers. With the proper balance, the danger of a "top heavy or "bottom heavy" worker pool is minimized from the standpoint of legal immigrations.
Most problems with immigration policy are unlikely to relate to legal immigration although there certainly could be areas in need of attention. Legal immigration should be concerned with proper document control, counterfeiting, and background checks. The new emphasis on counterterrorism measures plays an important part in screening applicants for American citizenship and loyalty.
Of primary concern is the potential for illegal immigration. Person entering the country illegally pose a problem for everyone. One can certainly assume that anyone crossing the border illegally is willing to violate other laws, creating an undue burdern on law enforcement and victimizing law abiding citizens. Illegal aliens often come to America in search of employment. Employers aware of their precarious status are able to hire them at wages lower than the legal minimum, forcing lawful citizens to compete for jobs on an unfair playing field. On a more humanitarian note, crossing the border illegally is dangerous. Border crossers, in the attempt to elude patrols, must survive harsh conditions and many fail, dying of exhaustion, starvation, and dehydration in the desert. Finally, aliens who become homeless or in need of social services cause a drain on the welfare structure, since to deny services would be grossly immoral and politically unpopular.
One of the possible solutions to the problem is a guest worker program. Foreigners seeking work in America, who would otherwise cross the border illegally, would be allowed to work here within defined guidelines, without requiring proof of citizenship. The most often cited benefit of this program is that guest workers are more willing to accept jobs that Americans are unwilling to perform. Since guest workers would not be citizens, employers would not be required to pay them the federal minimum wage. It would further allow some employers to operate in a more open environment, eliminating the need to "pay under the table", possibly also enabling the wages of foreign workers to be taxed whereas they are not now.
I have a number of problems with the guest worker proposal and I would not even consider it as part of any possible reform. First, its entire premise is based upon the belief that there are jobs that Americans refuse to accept. This is a myth of untold proportions. From the slums of any major city, to many of the indian reservations, there are throngs of people clamoring for honest work, not a handout, just an opportunity to provide for their families. There are American citizens in declining steel and mining towns, who are desperate for work, no matter how small or demanding. The vicious cycle of temporary employment and extended layoffs forces people in textile towns like Martinsville VA to welcome the jobs that allegedly only foreigners would accept. The guest worker program would indeed likely reduce the number of victims of illegal crossings, however, opening the border to legitimate crossing for work would ultimately be exploited and create a larger crisis of immigration. Workers would come here initially to work and once inside would remain to do as they please. In reality, the guest worker program serves only one purpose and that is to relieve employers of their moral obligation to afford protections to workers, which currently only apply to American citizens. The lack of citizenship does not mean that foreign workers are less human or less deserving of the minimal worker protections U.S. law provides.
The construction of a wall, fence, or other barrier across our border has a couple of intended goals. By reinforcing the physical border, it would become much harder for aliens to gain entry. Obviously, the fewer people that are able to breach the border, the fewer will fall victim to the harsh conditions of the desert. It would also make the border easier to manage by requiring fewer patrols and funneling potential crossers to points that can be easily monitored. Most importantly, to effectively combat terrorism, drug trafficking, and other criminal activity, an inpenetrable and secure border is essential.
I don't believe a wall is the answer, although the problems it seeks to solve are important and need to be brought to light. A physical wall with concertina wire and armed guards conjures recollections of Checkpoint Charlie and the infamous Berlin wall. Such a symbol of repression was almost universally despised by Americans. Its dismantlement, upon Reagan's now famous insistence, was lauded by Americans as the symbol of Reagan's victory over Communism. While I credit the Beatles, McDonald's, and Levi more for the fall of communism than Reagan, the perception is what it is. To reconstruct a similar wall here in America should nauseate the proudest American. The appearance of hypocrisy has all too many times been eschewed by the Bush administration, given his utter disregard for Geneva conventions, abuse of power, and reckless penchant for burning bridges, literal and figurative. Hypocrisy, though, is exactly what a border wall would represent.
Ultimately, a physical barrier is unlikely to achieve its intended goals. Illegal immigration has become rather sophisticated and organized. Alien smugglers are very resourceful and have demonstrated a good ability to adapt to changing border patrol strategies with tunnels, vehicles, communications, and intelligence. The wall would be expensive to build and only addresses border crossing over land; it does not address the problem of Carribean immigrants, including Cubans, arriving by boat. In the end, the wall would be expensive to build only to be circumvented by other means.
An alternative to a physical wall is a human wall in the form of a larger presence of border patrol. The idea creates jobs and is more effective than brick, mortar , or barbed wire. Although the analogy makes me a bit uneasy, an enhanced patrol along the border offers our military a real world training environment similar to the demilitarized zone (DMZ) in Korea. Such training is invaluable for troop readiness and perfecting security techniques, while providing a tangible public service. It would be very expensive, but the cost is justified given the threat of terrorists gaining entry onto American soil, which a mere wall can not prevent. If we are truly at war with terrorism, we must defend our perimeter from the enemy and the way to do that is with troop deployment. I totally support increasing patrols along our borders.
Also on the table are some proposals to imprison those found to have crossed the border illegally, rather than simply to deport them. Some would also like to criminalize anyone who knowingly aids an alien gain entry. The threat of imprisonment as a harsher penalty than deportation is meant to deter attempts to enter the country illegally. It is assumed that the rate of successful border crossings may be attributed to assistance from our side of the border. By penalizing those who aid in alien smuggling, it is estimated that the rate of success would decrease, making the attempt more risky, and deterring the more timid of the potential immigrants.
I personally think that imprisonment of apprehended aliens is rather foolish and needlessly costly. I doubt it will deter anyone and will only increase the burden on taxpayer to house and feed illegal immigrants for their term of imprisonment. On the other hand, I don't see much of a downside to imposing harsh penalties on Americans involved in alien smuggling. Without their help, I do believe many people would reconsider their prospects for a successful crossing.
Another possible solution is to crackdown on employers who hire illegal aliens. As said before, employment is the leading motivation for illegal immigration. If employers stop hiring aliens, it is logical to assume that most aliens will have little reason to come here. I agree with this approach entirely. The number of people seeking to gain entry to America would drop dramatically. The jobs vacated by illegal aliens would be filled by citizens who would pay taxes, whereas aliens have not. Enforcing laws to require employers to hire only U.S. citizens would admittedly be problematic, however, it is worthy of the investment of additional resources, from the federal budget. It will be impossible to penalize very small businesses or individuals who hire aliens for small jobs, but the situation is vastly improved if the larger employers stop hiring them. Penalizing such employers with fines and criminal penalties alone will not solve the immigration problem, however, it is certainly a plan that I support.
There are extreme groups who want to make English the official language. This idea is often mentioned dueing any discussion about immigration, however, the relevance escapes me. Is it supposed to deter people from coming to America? I doubt it. It strikes me as little more than the ethnocentrist ravings of a majority that lacks the understanding of our country's history. America was not founded as a nation that bends its will to the whim of the ever changing majority. To be clear, important questions that need a definitive answer must be decided by majority rule, however, in all else, Americans are left to our own free devises. America is a nation of immigrants, a mixture of many different cultures. Being allowed to preserve our respective heritages is a source of distinction.
I believe I have finally come to a more informed conclusion about how to improve the immigration situation. First, recognize that there is a need for balance between offering legal citizenship to both skilled and unskilled workers. To help minimize the need for some to resort to illegal immigration, we should expand the avenues and opportunities for legal immigration, with priority given toward reuniting families. To combat illegal immigration, larger investments in border patrols are needed. Add to that harsh penalties for employers who hire illegal aliens to reduce the number of people that try to come to this country illegally. Finally, we need to penalize the enablers on this side of the border who knowingly aid in the business of smuggling illegal aliens. This combination of solutions offers us the best opportunity for success in reforming our immigration policy.