http://www2.dailybulletin.com/news/ci_3129628

Follow the money when immigrants send it `home'
By Conor Friedersdorf, Columnist


Editor's note: This is a twice weekly column written Conor Friedersdorf, who is managing the Daily Bulletin's blog, or special Web site, on immigration issues. The blog is designed to provide a forum for opinions and information on immigration. The blog is at www.beyondbordersblog.com.
In a hole-in-the-wall pizza joint, Afghan immigrant Noor Alcozy earned an extra $1,000 each month accepting money from Bay Area immigrants, depositing it into a Bank of America account and sending it to a Dubai clearinghouse for recipients unknown.

He is a detail in a recent Forbes magazine article about illegal immigrants' reliance on informal means when transferring money for purposes good and evil; funds sometimes go to starving relatives back home, other times to international criminal cartels and sometimes even to terrorist organizations.

Forbes reports that at least 20,000 black market money transfer businesses exist in the United States, most of them run immigrant entrepreneurs trying to make extra cash. Federal authorities, hoping to disrupt those monetary networks that fund terrorist organizations, have been cracking down on all illegal money senders. Since 2001, 155 "invisible bankers" have been shut down. Only 19,845 to go!

If you believe, as Beyond Borders Blog does, that preventing terrorist attacks ought to be priority number one as we craft our immigration policies, the Forbes story provides an interesting counterweight to an argument about making life as difficult as possible for illegal immigrants.

I refer specifically to Wells Fargo Bank and other financial institutions that have begun accepting matricula consular cards as valid identification for sending remittances abroad.

The banks' attempts to capture immigrant business enrages some anti-illegal immigration activists, who make the plausible argument that the easier things are for illegal immigrants within our borders, the more we'll attract. Mark Krikorian, who heads the Center for Immigration Studies, often claims that if daily life is made difficult for illegal immigrants many already here would leave voluntarily.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that a convenient legal means for sending remittances home does increase the number of illegal immigrants who come here seeking work. If the goal is having as few illegal immigrants as possible, opposing such practices seems like a no-brainer.

But what if illegal means of sending money abroad thrive when legal means are unavailable?

Surely some "invisible bankers" would exist no matter what. But federal authorities can target 1,000 such enterprises far better than 20,000. Given an easy legal means of sending money through official channels, wouldn't most immigrants -- having nothing to hide -- abandon the black market in remission services? Those remaining "invisible bankers" would thus prove both easier to target and more concentrated with criminals and potential terrorists.

This situation suggests a hard truth about the immigration debate: policy options that reduce illegal immigration won't always enhance national security. Fewer illegal immigrants nonetheless affords other benefits. Social welfare spending would decrease. Overcrowding would be alleviated.

Thus we are left with a choice: when the two are in conflict, how much national security are we willing to sacrifice to maximize our efforts against illegal immigrants?

My answer: I'd sacrifice hardly any, which is why, upon reflection, I tentatively favor policies that allow private banks to send money through official -- and hopefully well-monitored -- channels.

Unlike some who share my position, I acknowledge that this will tend to increase illegal immigration, insofar as it makes life for illegal immigrants within the United States more attractive.

Moreover, increased illegal immigration itself is a security threat since massive numbers of illegal immigrants make it that much easier for terrorists and criminals to slip into the nation.

Still I say allow the remittances.

Illegal immigration can be fought in other ways with much greater consequence -- legal remittances will have a relatively small impact on the larger immigration battle. Meanwhile more effectively stopping funds from getting to terrorist organizations will have a comparatively huge impact on the War on Terrorism.

Often attempts to fight illegal immigration and efforts to prevent terrorism go hand in hand. They are at odds infrequently, I think. But it is important to look for and identify those times. The stakes are high enough that national security must trump immigration concerns when we face that choice.