Thread: Our view on Coming to America: Recession freezes immigration

Our view on Coming to America: Recession freezes immigration debate but points to answers

With jobs gone, number of illegal immigrants drops, but few leave.

Not all that long ago, immigration was the nation's hottest political topic. Then the economy fell apart, a new president set a new agenda, and immigration quietly moved out of sight, where it will likely stay for a while, eclipsed by two other mammoth problems — the economy and health care.

But while eyes have been averted, the recession has been teaching some useful lessons about how to ease the crisis.


Even before rising unemployment began to affect Americans, Mexicans were reacting to the changing jobs climate. Data just out from the Mexican government show 226,000 fewer people emigrated from Mexico in the year ended August 2008 than during the prior year. That's a 25% drop. The decline confirms what has been generally accepted for years: Jobs and the willingness of U.S. employers to hire illegal immigrants are the fuel that powers the system. Cut off the supply, and you can slow the illegal flow. Which points to workplace enforcement as a key part of the equation. Yet scores of high-profile workplace raids netted fewer than 6,000 illegal workers last year.




At the same time, though, the recession is delivering another message: Enforcement alone won't resolve the problem. If fewer illegal immigrants are coming, there's no evidence yet that those already here are leaving. In 2008, there were still about 12 million illegal residents in the USA, only slightly down from 2007, according to the Pew Hispanic Center, a Washington think tank. Despite the deportation of thousands of immigrants with criminal records and despite a swarm of Draconian local laws that target illegal aliens, there has been no mass exodus.


Presumably, they sense that tough times here mean tougher times where they came from, and Pew notes that many have families here, including children who are citizens. Which means the nation should provide a way for the most qualified to become legal, productive, taxpaying citizens.


What does this point to?


The same sort of balanced approach the Senate failed to pass in 2007, in a show of political stubbornness. One component is tough, sensible workplace enforcement rooted in a strong verification program. In April, the Obama administration changed its worksite program to target not just illegal workers but also employers who make a practice of hiring them. It's too soon to tell whether that will work, but it's the right approach. Thousands of employers each month have been signing onto a voluntary program called E-Verify to check Social Security numbers and ensure that new hires are legal. Critics charge the program is so error-prone it will harm legal workers. That's reason to fix it, not suspend its use.


The other key need is for a rigorous path to citizenship for many of the millions already here. Critics, such as Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, deride that as "amnesty." But the plan rejected in 2007 was anything but. It included a tough, long, expensive route for people who came not to do mischief but to take jobs offered willingly by U.S. employers.


Obama made a fleeting attempt last week to keep attention on the issue with a White House conference. But the truth is that fixing the economy and health care comes first, with energy issues also higher on the president's agenda. We wouldn't dispute the priorities, but the economic downturn provides a chance to make some gains, particularly in the workplace. When the economy picks up, as it surely will, illegal immigration will again become a crisis.

Posted at 12:20 AM/ET, June 29, 2009 in Immigration - Editorial | Permalink

http://blogs.usatoday.com

Sorry, there's only one solution and that is to enforce US immigration law which calls for the deportation of illegal aliens, whether they have minor citizen children here or not. The whole family goes home, no child left behind, families unified.

This was a debate in USA TODAY.

Here is the other side of the debate.

Opposing view: Amnesty makes no sense

‘Attrition through enforcement’ is better way for immigration reform.

By Lamar Smith

Unemployment hit 15.5% last month for American workers without high school diplomas. It makes no sense to give amnesty or a "path to citizenship" to millions of illegal immigrants who would compete with unemployed Americans for scarce jobs and drive down their wages.
Amnesty would hurt American taxpayers. After illegal immigrants are legalized, they'd become eligible for federal, state and local taxpayer-funded benefits such as Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security.
Most illegal immigrants don't earn enough to pay taxes. Even when they do, the benefits they receive outweigh the taxes paid.

Amnesty would threaten to bankrupt Social Security. According to the Social Security Administration, most illegal immigrants who received amnesty would collect thousands of dollars more in benefits than they paid into the system.

Granting amnesty would increase illegal immigration. Since Congress passed the last "one-time" amnesty in 1986, the number of illegal immigrants in the U.S. has jumped to more than 12 million. Amnesty sends the message that if you just get into the country, even illegally, you can stay indefinitely.

Amnesty rewards illegal immigrants with the right to live and work in the U.S. That is unfair to the millions of legal immigrants who play by the rules, wait their turn and come in to the U.S. the right way. And selling amnesty to lawbreakers for the price of a fine would demean the value of the greatest honor our country can bestow: citizenship.

To achieve immigration reform, the choices are not just amnesty or mass deportation. A strategy of "attrition through enforcement" would dramatically reduce the number of illegal immigrants over time.
If the federal government enforced our immigration laws, especially those that target the employment of illegal workers, many illegal immigrants would simply return home because they can't get jobs. Others would never come to the USA in the first place because they would not be hired. A Zogby poll in 2006 found that a majority of voters prefer this approach over others.

Amnesty would cost Americans their jobs, depress wages, burden taxpayers and encourage even more illegal immigration. On the other hand, enforcing immigration laws would increase respect for the rule of law and reduce illegal immigration.

Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, is the ranking member on the House Judiciary Committee.

Posted at 12:21 AM/ET, June 29, 2009 in Immigration - Editorial
------------------------------------------------------------------
You can post a comment at this link:

http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2009/06/ ... .html#more

You can post a comment about the first part of the debate at this link:

http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2009/06/ ... bate-.html