http://www2.pasadenastarnews.com/opinions/ci_3002894

Article Last Updated: 9/05/2005 08:39 PM


Hispanic or not, majority doesn't favor illegal immigration

Patrick Osio Jr.
San Gabriel Valley Tribune

THE U.S., or any nation, has to be able to control its borders; has to know who enters and can demand that those entering must be by permission.
And it follows that if there are illegal entries into a sovereign nation's territory, the nation has the right, indeed the obligation, to arrest and deport those entrants and to seal its borders to prevent reoccurrences.

There are those who suggest that the U.S. Hispanic community does not agree. In fact, according to a recent Pew Hispanic Center survey report, a significant majority of U.S. Hispanic citizens agree with these principles.

The friction and seeming disparity of opinion attributed to the Hispanic community on immigration issues have and continue to be the inflammatory and insulting rhetoric and accusations aimed at Mexicans and Central Americans in an effort to force public opinion against, seemingly, not so much their acts of illegal entry, but against them as human beings.

Describing them among other things as "Third-World scum,' "terrorists,' "rapers of our women,' and accusations, as Rep. Tom Tancredo leveled, "they are here to kill you and me,' does not make U.S. citizens of Mexican or Central American descent receptive to an exchange of ideas.

As well, it does not help to have civilians, "immigrant- hunters' as they are called in Mexico, walking along the border with bats, machetes and sidearms claiming their acts are a solution to the problem.

So, the disagreements are not on principle. Rather they are with those who have assumed, with the help of news media, leadership positions on would- be solutions. They have became spokespersons against illegal immigrants and the U.S. government, particularly against President Bush, with accusations of aiding and abetting or otherwise doing nothing to protect our nation from the "hordes of barbarians' storming our borders.

These groups insist they are not anti-immigration but rather anti-illegal immigration; they are not racist but rather patriots seeking to protect the nation.

But there is hollowness to their rhetoric in that while "being for immigration,' they refuse to discuss immigration reform with which to provide legal access to new immigrants. They instead insist that before any reform can be discussed, all illegal immigrants must be deported and the U.S.-Mexican border completely sealed to prevent any further intrusions. There is an assumption that doing that is as simple as saying it.

However, other than making accusations, these people make no proposals on exactly how this is to be done or what human resources will be needed, what is the price tag for the undertaking and succeeding in these endeavors, and whether the nation can afford it.

Fortunately, light is now shed on the subject by the Center for American Progress' recently released, "Deporting the Undocumented: A cost Assessment' for discussion and analysis "of a policy designed to deport all undocumented persons, currently around 10-million in the United States, and the cost of reducing the flow (illegal entries) to zero over a five-year period.

The report estimates, bottom- line, "the cost of a mass deportation effort to be at least $206- billion over five years ($41.2-billion annually).'

The cost analysis assumes that "20 percent of the undocumented population will self-deport and leave voluntarily' due to the government crackdown. If this does not happen, the costs can take a dramatic increase by as much as another $20 to $30 billion.

The costs include five factors: 1) apprehensions; 2) detention (bed space, meals, guards, and facilities); 3) legal processing; 4) transportation; and 5) reducing to zero the inward flow costs based on increasing border patrol agents.

Today there are close to 11,000 Border Patrol agents and around 2,200 interior enforcement agents clearly not enough. They are part of the present $19.3 billion budget for border and transportation security, which covers a wide array of programs including airport, sea port and border security systems; Coast Guard equipment replacement; Air Marshall hiring, training and deployment; and numerous other programs deemed critical to national security.

In fact, the entire Department of Homeland Security budget this year is $34.2 billion, which includes the above-mentioned $19.3 billion, far short of the $41.2 billion needed for the deportation/flow-stoppage undertaking alone.

Should funds from national security programs be diverted to a deportation/flow-stop program? Or what other non-national security critical programs can be curtailed or eliminated to provide the needed funds? Or, should taxes be increased to cover the needed $42.2-billion per year to get the job done?

And the critical question begging debate is: Are there alternative solutions? Is one such alternative immigration reform with a dramatic increase in internal inspections to stop the practice of hiring undocumented workers?