Should undocumented immigrants face pressure to "self-deport"?

Should undocumented immigrants face pressure to "self-deport"?

Written by
Elizabeth Aguilera
8:08 p.m., Feb. 3, 2012

U-T San Diego today debuts Insights on Immigration, a panel of experts who will regularly explore a variety of timely and often provocative issues.

Immigration can be controversial, personal and historical — especially in a region as diverse as San Diego County. The area’s proximity to Mexico contributes to that dynamic.

To better understand the many facets of immigration and provide more perspectives for readers, the U-T tapped these four San Diego experts:

•Lilia Velasquez — immigration attorney who often works with the Mexican consulate on high-profile cases, a legal commentator for Univision and past presenter at the Hague Appeal for Peace and the U.N. Human Rights Commission.

•David Shirk — director of the Trans-Border Institute at the University of San Diego. Specializes in Mexican politics, U.S.-Mexican relations and the U.S.-Mexico border. He has written or edited seven books, including “Police and Public Security in Mexico.”

•Peter Nunez — former U.S. attorney in San Diego and a board member of the Center for Immigration Studies, an organization in Washington, D.C., that calls for increased border enforcement, zero illegal immigration and limited legal immigration.

•Ruben Barrales — executive director of the San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce. He was director of intergovernmental affairs for President George W. Bush, and is currently a board member for the Public Policy Institute of California.

Here is the first question they answered:

Q: The idea of undocumented immigrants voluntarily returning to their native country has been highlighted as “self-deportation” in recent presidential debates. Do you think businesses, law-enforcement agencies and lawmakers should boost enforcement so the undocumented will consider this option?


LILIA VELASQUEZ

In recent years, several states have enacted laws to encourage undocumented immigrants to leave the country, by making it more difficult for them to land jobs, obtain housing or get educational benefits. Locally, undocumented drivers stopped by the police due to traffic infractions have commonly been turned over to ICE authorities for removal. The Obama administration has also stepped up enforcement and set a new record of some 400,000 removals for the 2011 fiscal year.

However, anti-immigrant state laws and steeper law enforcement have not resulted in undocumented people leaving the country. Although some have left voluntarily and fewer may be entering the U.S., the reason is the lack of jobs due to the current economy, not the higher risk of detection and removal.

As difficult as life may be for the undocumented, uprooting their U.S. citizen children and leaving their homes is not an option. Therefore, making it harder for them to live here will not achieve the goal of “self-deportation.”


DAVID SHIRK

There is currently no evidence that the roughly 200 anti-immigrant state laws and local ordinances scattered around the country, or federal initiatives like Secure Communities, are causing undocumented persons to leave the country.

Sure, requiring a visa or proof of citizenship to get city parking permits, send kids to school, obtain a library card, open a bank account, ride city buses, rent an apartment, etc. would put greater scrutiny on undocumented immigrants (and everyone else). But these policies merely drive the undocumented even deeper into the shadows of our economy and strain local law-enforcement budgets with an unfunded mandate.

The real solution is to create effective legal pathways that will allow the U.S. economy to harness the productivity and innovation of immigrant labor. That is a job for the federal government, one that has been neglected for far too long.


PETER NUNEZ

In order to encourage illegal aliens to leave voluntarily, and more importantly, to discourage future illegal immigration, we should remove as many incentives as possible that attract illegal immigration and create disincentives to encourage “self-deportation,” including enhanced enforcement at every level. Every segment of society should support the effort to restore adherence to the rule of law.

Immigration law for the last hundred years, passed by our duly elected representatives in Congress and reinforced on many occasions since, declares that those who are in the United States illegally should be deported. Because the federal government has allowed the situation to get so completely out of hand since the last amnesty in 1986, we are faced with an illegal population estimated at 11 million, a number that dwarfs the government’s deportation resources.

The single, most effective way to encourage people to leave voluntarily is for Congress and the president to mandate a national E-Verify (background screening) requirement for all current workers.


RUBEN BARRALES

Our immigration system is broken and outdated. Boosting enforcement of the current system without reforming our immigrations laws will just get us more of the same results.

Some level of so-called “self-deportation” might be reached with more vigorous immigration law enforcement, but to be effective it would have to be combined with comprehensive immigration reforms that included provisions to encourage certain undocumented immigrants to return to their native countries.

Also, businesses in California have many regulations to comply with. There are concerns about adding additional enforcement requirements and regulations on employers at a time when we need to create more jobs in California. Businesses obviously must comply with the law, but enforcement should not be allowed to become an undue burden or penalty on employers.

Should undocumented immigrants face pressure to "self-deport"? | UTSanDiego.com