Desirability and enforceability.
The biggest question I have regarding the illegal immigration debate ongoing in the US is whether or not the federal government is or has ever actually been serious about cutting down on the flow of migrant workers from Mexico and Central America, and what, if not, "getting serious" would entail. Doug Massey, op-eding in the New York Times has some remarkable numbers on the subject of border security:
[In response to public outcry,] the number of Border Patrol officers increased from around 2,500 in the early 1980's to around 12,000 today, and the agency's annual budget rose to $1.6 billion from $200 million. The boundary between Mexico and the United States has become perhaps the most militarized frontier between two nations at peace anywhere in the world.
Although border militarization had little effect on the probability of Mexicans migrating illegally, it did reduce the likelihood that they would return to their homeland. America's tougher line roughly tripled the average cost of getting across the border illegally; thus Mexicans who had run the gantlet at the border were more likely to hunker down and stay in the United States. My study has shown that in the early 1980's, about half of all undocumented Mexicans returned home within 12 months of entry, but by 2000 the rate of return migration stood at just 25 percent...
Faced with these stats, it's easy to assume that successive federal governments have been either cynical or incompetent -- in the former case, spending federal dollars to pander to public sentiment while making sure border state business interests are supplied with a dependent, politically powerless pool of workers who are essentially stranded on US soil. While I always sort of assumed that was a big part of the story, it's not really the essential thing. The bigger question is, if we could magically assume away cynicism and political cross-currents, or if public pressure became so great as to override business demand for cheap labour in the politician's calculation, whether the US actually could block the flow of illegal immigrants at the border or increase the flow of migrant workers back to Mexico to any significant degree.
Neil, wonking out at the John Edwards blog, takes up the other major aspect of the enforcement argument:
In the last few years, the government has completely lost interest in fining businesses for immigration violations...For instance, in 1999, 417 businesses were fined for hiring illegal immigrants. In 2004, only 3 businesses were fined. This is despite the fact that the easiest way to crack down on the hiring of illegal immigrants would be to attack the businesses that hire them. Just let the immigration authorities look at the Social Security records, and check if businesses are paying Social Security taxes for people who aren't known taxpayers. This would be a lot more effective than improving border security...or trying to find everyone and deport them (which would cost an insane amount of money, and would be really hard to do).
But, again, is there any evidence that the more vigorous fining regime in the late 90s actually slowed illegal immigration or discouraged illegal hiring? And, if not, would an even more vigourous fining regime do the trick? It's a pretty central question. The thing is, despite the ugly centrality of Tom Tancredo-Michelle Malkin-style nativism (not to mention the Instapundit-Mickey Kaus "let them eat cake" approach), it's perfectly reasonable for conservatives and even some liberals to be uncomfortable with the "illegal" part of illegal immigration. The constant, low-level, implicitly tolerated violation of US law by foreign workers and their domestic employers does present a fairly fundamental challenge to soverignty and raises all sorts of perfectly valid slippery-slope concerns. You don't have to be a cold-hearted bigot to see it that way.
Essentially, then, there are two questions at stake: (1) is a draconian law-and-order-based immigration law of the Kyl-Cornyn variety a good thing on the merits? (Neil has plenty of really good liberal arguments about why it isn't.) And (2) regardless of the merits, is such a law even enforceable? Or will it simply add to the number and cost of regulations being violated, thereby undermining its conservative aims? Without an answer to (2), which we don't seem to have, the answer to (1) seems kind of moot.
[In response to public outcry,] the number of Border Patrol officers increased from around 2,500 in the early 1980's to around 12,000 today, and the agency's annual budget rose to $1.6 billion from $200 million. The boundary between Mexico and the United States has become perhaps the most militarized frontier between two nations at peace anywhere in the world.
Although border militarization had little effect on the probability of Mexicans migrating illegally, it did reduce the likelihood that they would return to their homeland. America's tougher line roughly tripled the average cost of getting across the border illegally; thus Mexicans who had run the gantlet at the border were more likely to hunker down and stay in the United States. My study has shown that in the early 1980's, about half of all undocumented Mexicans returned home within 12 months of entry, but by 2000 the rate of return migration stood at just 25 percent...
Faced with these stats, it's easy to assume that successive federal governments have been either cynical or incompetent -- in the former case, spending federal dollars to pander to public sentiment while making sure border state business interests are supplied with a dependent, politically powerless pool of workers who are essentially stranded on US soil. While I always sort of assumed that was a big part of the story, it's not really the essential thing. The bigger question is, if we could magically assume away cynicism and political cross-currents, or if public pressure became so great as to override business demand for cheap labour in the politician's calculation, whether the US actually could block the flow of illegal immigrants at the border or increase the flow of migrant workers back to Mexico to any significant degree.
Neil, wonking out at the John Edwards blog, takes up the other major aspect of the enforcement argument:
In the last few years, the government has completely lost interest in fining businesses for immigration violations...For instance, in 1999, 417 businesses were fined for hiring illegal immigrants. In 2004, only 3 businesses were fined. This is despite the fact that the easiest way to crack down on the hiring of illegal immigrants would be to attack the businesses that hire them. Just let the immigration authorities look at the Social Security records, and check if businesses are paying Social Security taxes for people who aren't known taxpayers. This would be a lot more effective than improving border security...or trying to find everyone and deport them (which would cost an insane amount of money, and would be really hard to do).
But, again, is there any evidence that the more vigorous fining regime in the late 90s actually slowed illegal immigration or discouraged illegal hiring? And, if not, would an even more vigourous fining regime do the trick? It's a pretty central question. The thing is, despite the ugly centrality of Tom Tancredo-Michelle Malkin-style nativism (not to mention the Instapundit-Mickey Kaus "let them eat cake" approach), it's perfectly reasonable for conservatives and even some liberals to be uncomfortable with the "illegal" part of illegal immigration. The constant, low-level, implicitly tolerated violation of US law by foreign workers and their domestic employers does present a fairly fundamental challenge to soverignty and raises all sorts of perfectly valid slippery-slope concerns. You don't have to be a cold-hearted bigot to see it that way.
Essentially, then, there are two questions at stake: (1) is a draconian law-and-order-based immigration law of the Kyl-Cornyn variety a good thing on the merits? (Neil has plenty of really good liberal arguments about why it isn't.) And (2) regardless of the merits, is such a law even enforceable? Or will it simply add to the number and cost of regulations being violated, thereby undermining its conservative aims? Without an answer to (2), which we don't seem to have, the answer to (1) seems kind of moot.
1 Comments:
Australians have a country with a desert at its heart. Asians look at the size of it and try to get in in ridiculous numbers. Confinement on islands is common. The U.S. isn't the only nation facing numerous illegal entries. And yes, they arrive on Canada's coasts, too. The only way to get a handle on it is to get serious about booting them out. It's a nasty business where smugglers don't do much on reliable and considerate business practice ( that's being very droll ).
Post a Comment
<< Home