RSS Feed MenuMy new column for The Week argues that the best thing to do about the existing population of illegals in the U.S. is nothing. Let enforcement and recession shrink the population spontaneously – and then leave the rest to time.
By making illegal employment more difficult — and deportation more certain for criminal aliens — we can encourage current illegals to depart and discourage others from ever arriving.
Of course, enforcement will not reduce the illegal population to zero. Perhaps over half a decade we might drive the number down by a quarter, a third, conceivably even half — but unlikely more. What then?
That’s where the “nothing” part of the plan kicks in.
Those illegals who remain in the U.S. because they have formed deep attachments here — a stable job, home ownership, children — will remain exactly as they are now. They may legalize themselves through marriage or sponsorship by a citizen relative. Or the passage of time will remove them, as it removes us all, and their U.S.-born children will grow up as lawful citizens.
Yes, their lives will be uncertain — that’s the point. They signed up for that uncertainty, and the costs to society of alleviating that uncertainty are very great — including the creation of new incentives for further illegal migration.
If the Obama administration succeeds in enacting an amnesty, the illegal problem will revive and expand as soon as the economy recovers. If we do nothing — save enforcement — the illegal problem will dwindle over coming decades.
MI-GOPer // Dec 17, 2009 at 10:05 am
David, all the enforcement and stiff employer sanctions and secure borders will NOT stem the tide of illegal immigration to the US. Your suggested approach seems more like head-in-the-sand than realistic. There is absolutely nothing in the 250+ yr history of illegal immigration that suggests anything –even a speck– of your proposed approach would work.
The simple truth we all look to escape is that it is the US govt who determines what is or isn’t “illegal” about immigration. Our standards for citizenship are too severe and daunting. Our country’s social, political and economic attachments are historically attached to immigration –legal and illegal… we are a melting pot unlike any other country on Earth and that diversity, cheap labor, access to the world’s brain power makes us unique.
We’ve always had the impulse of Nativists and KnowNothings seeking to limit immigration, tamper down the influx of unwanted immigrants and jack up the seduction of highly skilled immigrants. It’s part of the immigration policy battle that led to “No Irish Need Apply” signs my forefathers found on entry into this country.
And it’s part of the American heritage –a plurality of legal immigrants come because their family members are US citizens. When we think things are bad in the US (as your piece contends) we need to remember that the current life of a wannabe immigrant –legal or illegal– is far, far worse. The drive to make their lives richer, to seek new opportunties, to push off the old order and restart their lives is a huge asset to America’s economic engine.
To think that recessions or new stiff employer penalties or hi-tech border security can thwart the drive of immigrants –legal and illegal– to get here is pure wishful thinking. If we were to increase the acceptance of immigrants beyond the paltry ~1.2m/yr, we’d move closer to reducing the illegal immigration to the US.
Last year, 13.6m potential immigrants competed for roughly 50,000 green cards. That’s obscene for a Nation built on the sweat, shoulders and souls of our immigrant Founding Fathers. We need to do more to address the difficult and troubling issues of legal and illegal immigration. We should no more begin that effort from a standing of fear or distrust for those who are different, than we should with your approach of sticking our head in the sand.
garlic // Dec 17, 2009 at 1:02 pm
an excellent point, MI-GOPer.
gmckee1985 // Dec 17, 2009 at 1:09 pm
We should make it easier for skilled, educated immigrants to apply and recieve citizenship. We have enough unskilled, uneducated workers of our own. No need to import them from Mexico.
PracticalGirl // Dec 17, 2009 at 1:40 pm
MiGOPer:
I thought I was scared when we agreed a bit on an earlier post, but now I’m completely freaked out. Where did this reason come from? Did you take your meds today?
Honestly-where would you start?
Carney // Dec 17, 2009 at 3:07 pm
Attrition through enforcement is not the worst policy available, but it is far from the best.
Far better to do everything the Left accuses the authorities of planning or doing already: high-profile neighborhood sweeps, fear-spreading raids, massive roundups, and high-speed high-volume deportations en masse, with chartered troop transport aircraft if necessary, deep into the interior of their countries of origin, especially Mexico, so they can’t just hang out just across the border until nightfall to go for it again and again until they get through. The volume of screaming from the Left and media should considered a measure of how good a job we are doing, a source of deep satisfaction, and a spur to do even more; thus the louder the hysteria, the better. If a deportee wants to challenge it in court, he can do it from his country of origin, not here.
We need a tamper proof national ID card, with biometric data, that is mandatory for all employment and government services, and fear-spreading, shockingly draconian penalties for fake ID makers and sellers, along with aggressive sting operations and extensive efforts to find and crush them. The more criticism of the intensity of the punishments, the better. It should be illegal, with stiff penalties, for anyone to do any business of any kind at any time for any reason with any illegal alien, with no excuses, and exemptions from anti-discrimination laws for people who take reasonable precautions such as demanding ID as proof of citizenship from groups that are disproportionately likely to be illegal (note: according to the Center for Immigration Studies, one half of all people of Mexican and Central American origin in the US, and one-third of those of South American origin, are illegal aliens). This will end the smug confidence of illegals that nobody cares, and make daily life here among us so difficult as to be unbearable. And if legals and citizens from these groups find the hassle of being constantly challenged, questioned, pulled over, etc. annoying, they can direct that resentment toward the illegal alien “fish” that hide in the “sea” these legals and citizens provide. The more legals and citizens support this policy, the quicker we’ll deport illegals (or cause them to self-deport) and the problem will ease significantly.
We should allow illegals who step forward and out themselves before they are caught a reasonable period (say 3 months) to sign an apology, have a background check (to ensure they’re not wanted for other things), be fitted with an electronic tracker (so they can’t melt away and vanish), get their affairs in order, make arrangements to leave, say their goodbyes, have their photos and biometric data taken to prevent them from ever returning, and allow them to take their liquid assets with them, minus, perhaps, a fine for having fake IDs and breaking our laws. As for the crocodile tears about “breaking up families”, America is not Cuba or East Germany; anyone can leave any time. So illegals can have their legal and citizen relatives reunite and visit them or live with them whenever they want, back in the old country that is.
We need a PHYSICAL, EXTREMELY TALL, CONTINUOUS, END-TO-END WALL, with multiple layers, ditches, barbed wire, whatever it takes. NOT the fake, sucker-bait, so-called “virtual wall” of a handful of expensive, contractor-enriching, years-late cameras on posts that will show a few ghostly figures running across our deliberately UNDEFENDED border and melting into the night and the interior of OUR country, to be long gone by the time the faraway under-manned Border Patrol finally shows up, if it even bothers.
As for the longstanding canard about law enforcement being unable to fight crime without the help of illegal aliens and their community, cops have been using criminals to get evidence against other criminals for as long as there have been cops. If necessary, we can provide an amnesty for a limited legal stay for an illegal who provides useful information about a violent criminal. Thus, illegals, far from hiding from cops and frustrating investigators, would be elbowing each other aside to come to the police, eager to provide leads and tips.
For that matter, we can offer illegals a temporary visa or even a green card if they turn in, say, ten other illegals, or an employer, or their “coyote” (smuggler) (it’s worth it to get rid of 90% of them). Similarly, we can offer amnesty for an employer or coyote who turns in a LARGE number of illegals (say over 20, or 100). This will destroy the informal trust networks necessary for all illicit activity and severely hamper efforts of illegal aliens and coyotes / employers to do business with each other, and thus bring in and employ new illegals.
Carney // Dec 17, 2009 at 3:33 pm
MI-GOPer, you are completely, exactly wrong.
Our standards for citizenship are ludicrously lax. Far from even requiring new citizens to be English speakers, we even have citizenship ceremonies in foreign languages(!! )
The “family reunification” immigration category by definition brings in people who would not qualify in any other way, and thus have nothing to offer our nation other than being the less talented, ne’er-do-well relative of somebody already here. The “diversity lottery” is similarly pointlessly destructive, deliberately bringing in people who literally have nothing to contribute other than being as starkly alien and difficult-to-assimilate as possible (otherwise they’d apply and succeed via some other category).
Nor is illegal immigration something uncontrollable like the tides. The US has always been dramatically wealthier than Mexico, but illegal immigration was not a problem for the vast majority of our history. It has only been a problem since the 1960s, when multicultural ideology began preventing enforcement of immigration law, and when the Ted Kennedy LBJ 1965 legal immigration law (on which more in a bit) allowed in demographically significant numbers of Mexicans for the first time, providing a community for illegals to be less conspicuous in.
Illegal immigration is merely a matter of political will or the lack thereof. Eisenhower deported all the overstayed guest workers of the World War 2 era bracero program. But millions did not flood over the border the next year, because we were serious about our sovereignty, borders, territorial integrity, and national cohesion at the time.
shecky // Dec 17, 2009 at 7:09 pm
Thank you, Carney. You just advocated a greater expansion of government power since the war on drugs, presumably in the name of conservatism. Like the war on drugs, it’s negative effects are mostly the result of the illegal behavior being declared illegal, rather than actual harm to person or property.
Furthermore, your history is shaky. Illegal immigration was not a problem until immigration became highly regulated. Before then, all one needed to do was show up, prove you weren’t sick or criminal, and off you went. That’s if you came via official gateway. Everyone else simply came by land or sea and stayed on if they wished. And look how that turned out!
MI-GOPer // Dec 17, 2009 at 10:43 pm
Carney offers: “Our standards for citizenship are ludicrously lax.” If that were the case, Carney, the long silent line of wannabe citizens and wannabe workers would be very short indeed –not 13.6m in 2008. 13.6m qualified applications for work visas and other categorical legal entries into the US from –get this– OUTside the US.
I hear a little more than just the patently offensive bigotry of Nativism in your scorn for citizenship ceremonies performed in a language other than English… did it ever occur to you that those ceremonial programs are attended by people who DON’T speak English to support their friends and families who are gaining citizenship? Gheeesh. It’s called Hospitality –and honest, you could take a few classes in it at your local community college.
Let’s get off the KnowNothing’s “They ain’t speakin’ our language” nonsense, ok? Besides, families with dual language capacities are usually smarter and possess higher brain functions than OnlyEnglish families.
Why are you so opposed to negating this great Nation’s 250+ yr history of constructive immigration? I’m guessing you must be one of the less than 788,000 Native Americans who claim pure heritage… that’s why you are opposed to immigration? Because if you aren’t, you’re part of the country’s immigration heritage, Carney.
sinz54 // Dec 18, 2009 at 9:20 am
Carney:
If America had implemented your proposals back in the 20th century,
I would not be here today.
My grandfather on my mother’s side was an illegal alien. He came here from Russia but his papers were never in order. Plus, he was a member of the Communist Party.
You would have had him expelled.
And I wouldn’t exist.
KL7212 // Dec 18, 2009 at 3:43 pm
MI-GOPer your case is not without merit but I think you’re being overly sentimental and a bit naive.
I see no reason why the United States can both welcome immigrants and enforce its own immigration laws. I also see no reason why current policies shouldn’t be reviewed or questioned or even challenged in a straighforward manner without accusations of bigotry being flung at those who question the status quo.
Face the facts: Our immigration system is broken and outdated. In the century since the last large wave of immigration our economy has become far more sophisticated, requiring considerably higher levels of education to sustain its needs.
100 years ago, when our country’s population was roughly a quarter of what it is today and its infrastructure and industrial economy were growing at a phenominal rate there was a great need for low skill industrial labor as well as more skilled tradesmen (masons, metalworkers, etc.). America’s factories and farms provided hundreds of thousands of physically demanding jobs which required few skills and little education. The small businesses that served these workers (general stores, taverns, shops) also provided millions more jobs.
There was no welfare state.
Today, most low skill factory jobs have gone overseas. Our economy is increasing reliant on literate, educated workers with technical and/or knowledge based skills. To put it bluntly, letting half a million low wage, low skill workers who are likely to be a burden on the system into the country is neither practical nor is it in the best long term interests of the country if we wish it to remain at the forefront of the (post) industrialized world.
Three suggestions.
First, end the policy of “family reunification”. An immigrant who gains legal entry into the United States should be able to bring his spouse and any of his children under the age of 25. The sole exception to this rule would be cases of political amnesty. The fact of the matter is that family reunification cases are overwhelming our immigration system with potential immigrants who will likely consume more resources than they will produce.
Second, expand greatly the amount of visas for skilled worker which the government grants on a annual basis.
I believe we should actually allow more immgrants from abroad into our country. But we should make a much greater effort to welcome those who are most likely to contribute to the country’s success both in the short term and further down the road.
KL7212 // Dec 18, 2009 at 3:45 pm
Whoops! Forgot the third suggestion: No workers under 50 years of age should be admitted.
KL7212 // Dec 18, 2009 at 3:45 pm
Correction: No workers OVER 50 years of age should be admitted.
Carney // Dec 18, 2009 at 4:41 pm
MI-GOPer, the slow pace of processing citizenship applications does not equal high standards.
Your excuse for citizenship ceremonies in foreign languages is below weak. Hospitality is a good reason to provide foreign language services in international airports, or diplomatic events, or hotels, or at tourist sites. It is by no means close to a good reason to provide citizenship ceremonies in a foreign language. By definition, the process of becoming a US citizen involves severing ties and allegiances with your country of origin; in fact the oath you swear makes that explicit. The irony of doing that in your old language would be funny if the situation weren’t so serious. I’ll tell you what’s offensive – it’s someone refusing to respect us, our way of life, our culture, and our language enough to learn it, but feeling entitled to become a citizen here anyway, to the extent of having a citizenship ceremony in their foreign tongue, on our soil! If that’s not a prime example of foreigners imposing their ways on us, what is?
What if English speakers moved en masse to Mexico, or Turkey, or Thailand, and began applying for citizenship, but having it in English? That’s not assimilation, that’s colonization. They would be suicidal not to resist it.
As for speaking more than one language, I speak Japanese, having grown up in Japan, and my mother is a language teacher (German, Irish, Latin), so I need no lectures from you on that. The issue isn’t whether it’s useful to know a foreign language when abroad, but whether we should continue a policy of failing to defend our way of life so that we are increasingly forced by necessity to learn a foreign language just to get by in our own country.
And I have no, zero obligation to support a suicidally wide-open immigration policy just because I’m not an Indian (actually I do have a small sliver of Indian ancestry). The term “Native American” is offensive because I am a native of this country; I was born here and am a natural-born citizen.
Lefties like you love to lecture us about how we need to shift policy to catch up with the times. Well, America no longer is an open continent with a frontier looking for settlers. America no longer needs large numbers of low skilled, low IQ manual laborers.
And the only way we achieved the success in dealing with the prior waves of immigration in our past (the first wave being the Irish and Germans, the second being the Southern and Eastern Europeans – the British were not immigrants but founders – a big difference), was with a pause, a break for a generation to allow us to digest, absorb, assimilate, and Americanize them. And it was not left to chance – there were intensive government driven efforts to do this – it’s the main reason public schools exist. The WASPs were unapologetic that they wanted the newcomers to conform, and insisted on it, and good for them. Even so it was a long hard slog, and it took most of a century for each wave to fully assimilate (best symbolized by switching to the Republican Party).
This third wave, from the Third World, is the biggest and longest and most different from the original stock, and represents by far the biggest challenge we have ever faced. And yet rather than dealing with it in a confident and serious manner, by stopping immigration more or less cold to digest this huge and very spicy meal we’ve over-stuffed ourselves with, and redoubling our Americanization efforts to go far beyond what our ancestors did or went through, we’re deliberately doing less than ever, and in fact doing incredibly stupid, counterproductive things. Things like inculcating new arrivals with anti-American, multi-cultural ideology, giving them a sense of grievance and entitlement, bristling with resentment at the very notion of acculturating to our ways, etc. What suicidal madness!
Carney // Dec 18, 2009 at 4:41 pm
sinz54, so what?
mthen // Dec 18, 2009 at 7:15 pm
Im a man without a country on this issue. There are the Frums, Tancredos, etc on the anti side. I understand the frustration and dont stoop to calling them the common epithets but I oppose their position. I would expect to find people to agree with completely on the other side. I rarely do. To them it seems that everyone who isnt for near open borders with Mexico is a know-nothing nativist xenophobe.
Im for greatly increased immigration. Hell, if certain conditions were met Id be for open immigration. But from the whole world not just Mexico. Why exclude about 5 billion people?