This is the fourth and final installment on a series on the benefits and detriments of illegal immigration. For the other three parts on the economic and social effects and moral implications, see these three posts.
My Opinion on Illegal Immigration
For me, the illegal immigration controversy boils down to compliance or noncompliance with the law. Accepting illegal immigrants in the workplace economically injures Americans not so much through wage decreases, though such does affect some residents in certain income brackets, as in the indirect rewarding for breaking the law. It belittles those who earn legal entry or citizenship, a betrayal to those who “followed the rules.”
Both sides present different statistics on the financial contribution or burden of illegal immigrants on Americans, so an argument built on the economic sector of society will shift according to whom one asks. The same follows for the discussion on the threat of crime that illegal immigrants impose on society: supporters will rail against the claim of illegal immigrant criminality, and statistics will support them, while opponents contend that the rate of crime does not matter so much as the fact that some does occur.
In the end, one must primarily consider the moral aspect of illegal immigration. Supporters highlight the human side of illegal immigration, putting faces to the names of undocumented aliens. They only want the peace and security that anyone else does.
Not uncommonly, supporters paint la migra [immigration] as heartless authorities who tear families apart. However, immigration officers act only in compliance with the law. Would supporters rather authorities turn a blind eye to law-breaking? Would they accept the police ignoring blatant violation of DUI laws just as much? Respecting the law, I do not agree with allowing illegal immigration.
My Thoughts on Fixing the Illegal Immigration Problem
While I do not accept illegal immigration, I do respect the dreams of illegal immigrants and acknowledge the need for a solution to their predicaments. Each side proposes their own answer, with many supporters calling for amnesty and many opponents for deportation.
In response to the former suggestion, a survey by the Federation for American Immigration Reform found that, in 2013, only 18% of Americans agreed with granting illegal aliens immediate amnesty (“Illegal Immigration and Amnesty Polls”). As mentioned before, giving illegal immigrants legal status condones – rewards, even – their breaking of the law. Regardless of their reasons for undocumented residence, the government should not legalize illegal immigrants to eliminate the problem.
On the other hand, the alternative of deportation imposes a heavy financial burden on the government and taxpayers. Enforcement against illegal immigration costs $15 billion annually. The Center of American Progress concluded in March of 2010 that deportation of the entire American population of illegal immigrations would cost $285 billion (“Debate”).
A survey by the Pew Research Center in 2015 found that only 27% of Americans agreed that undocumented immigrants should not be allowed to stay, including 76% of Republicans, the political party most against illegal immigration (Goo). Based on these numbers, deportation does not offer the answer either, at least not entirely.
To confront the current illegal immigration population, a combination of the two solutions – legalization and deportation – proffers what seems to me a more logical resolution. As mass deportation could and/or could cripple the economy, the government could identify illegal immigrants who met certain criteria and grant them opportunity to obtain legal status.
The legislative proposal known by the acronym DREAMAct, for example, recommends granting conditional residency and, eventually, permanent residency, to qualifying alien minors (“The Dream”). The act has passed through several versions since its first submission to Congress in 2001. The current bill allows “current, former, and future undocumented high-school graduates and GED recipients a three-step path to U.S. citizenship” (“The Dream”).
A bill like DREAM that extended to non-high-school residents could address the whole illegal immigrant population. Those who did not fulfill the requirements the federal government would deport, while those who did could apply for legal status following reparation for their initial breaking of the law, whether through service or through fines.
This proposition differs from the pro-illegal immigration argument for amnesty, which pardons the violation of immigration policy, in that former undocumented immigrants would still face penalties for their law-breaking.
After addressing the matter of current illegal immigrants, attention would have to turn to stopping the annual influx across the border. This question concerns immigration policy. The fact that increased border security, quadrupling both under President Clinton and President Bush, had not impact on the growth rate of illegal immigration indicates the stronger borders are not the answer (Holland).
Geographers refer to push and pull factors to migration to explain why people move from one region to another. Push factors impel migrants out of a region, while pull factors compel them to another. In the case of Mexico and America, so long as enough factors repel Mexicans out of Mexico and enough factors attract them to America, illegal immigration will occur. The fact that Americans, whose economy suffers from a low supply of necessary laborers, buy illegal labor bolsters the argument that illegal immigrants rightfully come to this country.
Given the market need for this labor, a shift in immigration policy would enable more legal immigration of laborers seeking work in America. Current policy does not allow sufficient legal migration to meet supply and demand, and often favors merit-based immigration, which means that those awarded visas and green cards often demonstrate greater technical skill than those who enter or stay illegally.
Moreover, potential laborers meet the hindrance of the process itself. Queues for visas frustrate legal immigration, prompting many to opt for the illegal route that allows for quicker response to market needs (G. Hanson). This means expanding immigration quotas and streamlining the immigration process.
For migrants who continue to come illegally despite these changes, a strengthening not of the border, but of workplace laws would discourage attempts to find employment, such as using E-Verify from Homeland Security, which informs an employer about the legal eligibility of a prospective employee.
If enacted, these steps just might reduce the illegal immigration problem in a way that respects the security and laws of the nation and the humanity of undocumented immigrants.
Conclusion
Each economic, social, and moral benefit of illegal immigration meets with an economic, social, and moral detriment, leading the topic of illegal immigration not to question of its continuance, but of steps required to control the current population and reform current immigration policy.
A solution requires joint respect of the law and of ethics. By granting legal status short of citizenship to current qualified illegal immigrants, deporting current unqualified illegal immigrants, reforming immigration policy, and enforcing workplace laws, American could bring this divisive problem under control without condoning it or too harshly punishing families who came only seeking what any American desires.
Great quote: “Giving illegal immigrants legal status condones – rewards, even – their breaking of the law.”
The problem with rewarding illegal immigration is it incentivizes more illegal immigration. But when millions have been here for many years, you can’t deport them all.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks, Christopher! I agree that while we shouldn’t “award” citizenship to illegal immigrants because it would just encourage more, we also can’t deport them all. Mass deportation is not fiscally feasible, especially with the amount of debt that weighs down the United States now. That’s why I think that penalizing illegal immigrants, deporting those who present a danger to society (e.g. drug dealers, known criminals), and creating a path to citizenship for the rest is a viable option.
Your article on The Post Millennial suggests to me that you’ve done your fair share of research and thinking on the illegal immigration topic, at least as it concerns Canada. What do you think the answer to the problem is?
LikeLiked by 1 person
You’ve presented both sides of the matter very well. The American government would do well to think things through this thoroughly and not continue stubbornly holding to their views.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you, Candice! It’s definitely my goal whenever I embark on research into a controversial topic to look at both sides of the story. Much change could happen, I think, if politicians did likewise. So much disagreement and misunderstanding arises from simply not taking the time to hear the others’ point of view.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I remember in 1986 when the Democratic controlled House offered President Reagan a compromise on immigration. They agreed to amnesty to those illegally in the US in trade for something Reagan wanted. This amnesty was supposed to be the solution and end to illegal immigration. Obviously someone was very, very wrong.
Rewarding criminal behavior only encourages others to engage in the same. The US desperately needs to do something. No other nation allows illegal immigration like we do and then rewards it through public welfare benefits and even citizenship.
One thing the US could do is assert more pressure on nations where the illegal immigrants are fleeing. As these nations improve their economies through free-market capitalism and freer forms of government, there will be less reason for people to flee their own nations. As it is now, the poorest flee their impoverished nations and who is left behind in those nations? Those who benefit financially or politically from fewer poor. It’s like cleaning the house of undesirables without ever making it a public policy.
You’ve provided us a very well balanced and neutral series on illegal immigration, Abigail. I’ve enjoyed reading and thinking about the issue. I hope you will use your research and writing skills beyond your blog. Professional journalism is in desperate need of people like yourself!
LikeLiked by 1 person
I agree with you about the incredulity of rewarding illegal immigration. When my dad worked in California, he had an employee who had legally immigrated from Mexico. His family remained back home. Every week he would drive down to visit them, and he worked hard to bring them to America legally. By granting amnesty and citizenship without compunction to illegal immigrants, we throw dirt in the face of men and women like my dad’s employee, who waited and entered the country the right way.
The complexity of the immigration process, as I noted in the article, is one of the reasons I think for the spike in illegal immigration. The demand is so great that some would-be immigrants are waiting five or more years! I don’t know what can be done to untangle the process so that more have the opportunity to legal enter the country.
The United States could definitely help by improving the economies of the origin countries, rather than taking in all of the workers leaving them. In the case of the America-Mexico relationship, so long as America presents better prospects for work and success than Mexico, immigrants will continue to cross the border illegal. We should work to minimize the PUSH factors in Mexico so that families don’t feel compelled to leave. I like how you described the situation: “cleaning the house of undesirables without ever making it a public policy.”
I’m so glad that you enjoyed the series, Richard! I find that organizing my ideas in a full-length essay/report helps me better understand the topic and more easily form my own opinions on it. Research for illegal immigration was complicated and interesting, so I thought it worthwhile to share, particularly with elections upcoming and tensions high in Washington over such matters as this. Thank you for your kind comment and the encouragement to continue using my writing and research in other spheres. Perhaps I will!
LikeLiked by 1 person
I don’t agree with everything you said, but you presented it in a logical, methodical and interesting way. Well-written!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you for reading, masercot. I’m glad that I presented my interpretation well, though you may not agree with my thoughts. Illegal immigration is a divisive controversy, and I recognized when I wrote this series that not not everyone would agree with my point of view, so I appreciate you sharing your opinion gracefully. If you don’t mind me asking, what is your perspective on illegal immigration?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Legally, the Fugitive Slave Law was completely valid because it was law; however, morally, it was just as completely invalid. Pretty much my issue with immigration:
We, as a nation, stole our southwest from Mexico. The government allowed Americans to settle there and, in return, the Americans invented a conflict and then seized Texas, California and other areas. For over a hundred years, Mexicans have been walking into the USA and working. Suddenly, without ANY proof, there is an outcry that they are a threat…
When, in reality, if they were to all go home, our economy would collapse. I have a unique perspective because I worked agriculture in Texas as a teenager…
LikeLiked by 1 person
(I mistyped in my original comment. I had been reading through my most recent post on the Fugitive Slave Law, and assumed that your comment was for that post. I meant to ask about your opinion on illegal immigration. I’ve edited my comment to reflect this.)
I’ve learned in the past about how we essentially stole Texas and other regions, but haven’t encountered that history used as an argument for illegal immigration until now. It is a unique position, but not invalid. I agree that our economy would suffer if we lost Mexican labor, not only because of loss of hands but also because of the cost of moving them out. Do you think that much of the outcry against illegal immigrants relates to a misunderstanding of their impact?
LikeLiked by 1 person
That’s exactly what I think…
LikeLiked by 1 person
Abigail, I’m not as young as you are, so please correct me if my memory of history is foggy, but the Mexican people of today are largely the descendants of the Spanish who invented a conflict by starting wars, settling and stealing the land from the existing native tribes, who invented a conflict by starting wars, settling and stealing the land from earlier native tribes, who invented a conflict by starting wars, settling, and stealing the land from earlier native tribes ….. Is this not the history of every place on planet earth?
Just because a line is not visible on the ground doesn’t mean an internationally recognized border does not exist. Just look at any map. Mexico has its borders and its agents check me and my passport every time I move across that invisible line. China and India have borders. Even France has recognized borders.
The US Immigration Service sent mounted troops to patrol the border with Mexico as early as 1904 to check the illegal flow of people across that invisible line in the desert. The US Border Patrol was created in 1924 to provide additional services in this regard. This is not an issue created by the election of Mr Trump. In fact, I can remember hearing debates about this issue going back to my childhood in the 1960s, and certainly every president since Gerald Ford in 1975 has said the illegal flow of peoples must be stopped.
Yes, many officials have turned a blind eye for decades to the matter in order to advance a particular economic agenda, but that doesn’t make the current perceived “threat” anything new or different. Maybe the perceived “threat” is that something may actually be done to enforce the existing laws of the US … like Mexico currently does by deporting tens of thousands of illegal immigrants who cross it’s southern borders annually. According to the nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute, in recent years Mexico has taken into custody tens of thousands more Central Americans than has the US, and Mexico has deported twice as many as the US (https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/02/politics/mexico-immigrants-deportations/index.html).
LikeLiked by 1 person
Your comments always make me think, Richard. Thanks for contributing even more to the discussion. You’re correct that Spanish descendants make up the majority of Mexico’s ethnic composition. Mexico doesn’t collect ethnic census data, but the CIA estimates that 62% of the Mexican population are mestizo, or Amerindian-Spanish. In our evaluation of history, we do seem to often “forget” that the injustices performed by one people are not exclusive to that group. Oppression, enslavement, deception – these are not the trademarks of any particular race, nationality, religion. These are the trademarks of humanity.
I agree that international borders exist and are to be respected. Much discourse today argues that borders are artificial constructs, but they certainly hold more authority and reality than lines on a map. I’ve read some arguments that a border-less world would be richer, but I don’t think so myself. It sounds like a recipe for chaos, but I’d have to study it a little more to form a legitimate opinion.
I believe that unless you are seeking refuge from dangerous conditions in your home country, you should abide by the laws of the country you’re entering, including the immigration and citizenship laws. The current political and social atmosphere is making this stance on the matter more and more unacceptable. I can understand why some have defended illegal immigration on historical or social grounds (a popular one being the forcing out of natives by European colonists to America), but I don’t agree with or condone illegal immigration myself based on them.
The fact that the illegal immigration conversation is so loud now gives the perception that it has only recently begun to be a problem. Granted, in the course of American history it is a relatively newer problem, as America had basically open borders until 1924, with the exception of certain immigration restrictions like the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. Still, the debate goes beyond the present administration.
Thank you for the link to the illegal immigration problem that Mexico has. I hadn’t heard of it before, probably because the American situation monopolizes the news. I wonder how Mexico’s relationship with Central American immigrants compares to America’s relationship with Mexican immigrants.
LikeLike