Thread: Illegal Immigration on Talking Points

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/22/opini ... oref=login

June 22, 2006
Talking Points: Readers Respond to 'The Terrible, Horrible, Urgent National Disaster That Immigration Isn't'
Tony Wasserman, San Francisco: Almost all of the discussion about immigrants has focused on the impact of unskilled immigrants, both legal and illegal. However, this rancorous debate is having a strongly negative effect on the immigration plans for the scientific and engineering elite from India, China, and elsewhere. Many of the leading high-tech companies in Silicon Valley were started by immigrants. There is tremendous potential value to the U.S. in encouraging these highly intelligent and skilled people to immigrate to the U.S. for study and subsequent work. Unfortunately, they are being swept up in the proposals to close the borders, and are getting the message that the U.S. is a hostile place for them to pursue their aspirations. This feeling is reinforced not only by groups like FAIR, but also by our government agencies, who screen the applications and either approve or deny visas. There seems to be very little understanding of the contributions that have been made to high-tech companies by recent immigrants, or of the severe loss to our economy and scientific leadership that would result from their exclusion from the U.S.
Louise Lander, Guanajuato, Mexico (formerly of New York City) : Having retired to Mexico, it strikes me that the debate on what to do about illegal immigration, largely Mexican, ignores an important issue — the possibility of helping improve economic conditions in Mexico so that finding a job with decent pay doesn't require leaving one's family and risking one's life to enter a hostile environment. The European Union, for example, provided subsidies to its less-developed members. Nafta, on the other hand, flooded Mexico with subsidized American agricultural products and decimated Mexican agriculture. Americans generally don't realize that Mexicans aren't eager to leave home — they frequently feel compelled to.
Jim Stodder, Hartford, Conn. : A big point lacking in Mr. Downes's article on the impossibly high costs of immigration enforcement — his "Array of Too-Costly Solutions" — is any discussion of a national ID database, and stiff penalties for employers that fail to check it. Documentation is today a joke, one that allows employers to wax earnest in the claim that they've checked all documents — from people they know are illegal.
This charade is the clearest indication of the vast gulf of hypocrisy that exists between the political consensus to control immigration, and the employer pressure to leave things just as they are — out of control.
I agree with many of Downes's points about the economic need for immigrants. But the fact is that no other advanced industrial country allows anything close to the flood of undocumented immigrants, even in population-relative terms, as the U.S. now does — as a matter of policy by default.
James Linkin, New York: This assessment of our current immigration laws and of pending legislation actually comes up short in its description of how absurdly tragic the current state of the law is. Thousands of immigrants brought here as small children are deported back to countries where they know hardly anyone and may not even speak the local language. National immigration quotas are absurdly low: for Mexico, it's 5,000 ... and the same for countries a fraction of the size in far-flung continents like Africa.
If we have a tide of illegal immigrants, it's because legal immigration has become all but impossible. Our current law is essentially "immigration prohibition," every bit as preposterous and dangerous as Prohibition was in the 1920's. The proposed legislation, even the Senate version, will make things worse.
How has this situation been allowed to persist? Because it financially benefits a vast business community dependent on exploitable labor, businesses that almost never need fear the law. Perversely, if all these immigrants were to become legalized, then these businesses would lose a fortune, since they would have to comply with American labor laws.
As it is the federal government that mostly benefits from immigration, the federal government should fully indemnify the states and localities for the burden of immigration, and then set rational quotas and immigration procedures so that this vast underground economy can see the light of day. Prohibition was a bad idea 87 years ago, and it's a bad idea now. Let's end our "immigration prohibition" once and for all.
Don Jennings, Torrance, Calif. : I think Mr. Downes has it just right. Somebody stated in another article roughly this: Reagan gave amnesty to 3.5 million in 1986 or so and since then our murder rate is down, our economy has grown at historically impressive rates and generally nothing bad happened. Clearly immigration law needs a reform — we should increase drastically the number of foreign people — from, say, Mexico — who can come to the U.S.A. It is disturbing that we have no control over our southern border. And of course, it's our country and I don't want to go down the slippery slope of saying we owe the right to come here to anyone — immigration is totally a self-interest issue. We need the labor and with our low birth rates, we need somebody to help pay for our senior welfare state.
David Purdy, Leadville, Colo. : I agree with those who think immigration into America is horrible. Let's get rid of anyone who wasn't here first! First, get rid of all those white Europeans! Who invited those bozos? Then get rid of the descendants of black slaves. It's not their fault they're here, but they belong in Africa. Ship 'em back! The Asians belong in Asia. Easy do. How about those Indians? They started the mess by migrating across the Bering Strait. That leaves ... hey! Where'd everybody go?
Ben Pedersen, Palmdale, Calif. : In the vast majority of cases Americans have ancestors who were economic migrants to these shores. If being American to you is best summed up as, "I've got mine, to hell with everyone else," I suggest that you are un-American. This land is about opportunity, not entitlement.
Immigration quotas are basically arbitrary — resulting in a process which does not meet its basic objectives. Waiting times for Mexican spouses of U.S. legal permanent residents to enter the country are now 6 or 7 years. Other waits are higher ... Filipino siblings of U.S. citizens are now waiting more than 20 years.
While the press may comment infrequently on wait times, and many immigration opponents decry undocumented migration as grossly unfair to waiting applicants who respect the system and play by the rules, it is rarely mentioned that a great many of those migrants illegally present in the U.S. are the same folks on these ridiculous waitlists.
Further, some folks East of the Mississippi are apparently under the impression that undocumented status implies illegal entry. Most out-of-status migrants entered this country legally and simply overstayed their visa. One of the quieter changes to border control in the wake of 9-11 was the extension to 90 days from 3 of the automatic visitor visa granted by a Border Crossing Card, held by more than 10 million Mexican citizens.
Speaking of respecting the system ... the system is well past broken, anyone claiming to respect it is either ignorant, disingenuous, or insane. As one of countless testaments to that fact, I offer the anecdote of a U.S. citizen currently serving his country aboard a U.S. Navy carrier — his Australian wife has been deported from the U.S. and barred from entering the country for three years; she is currently living in Australia and caring for their U.S. citizen infant there. Her crime? Overstaying her visitor visa on the advice of immigration agents while waiting for paperwork related to her residency delayed by her husband's deployment to come thru.
Enforcement of immigration law is entirely possible ... we can stop illegal immigration now, simply by making it legal.
Lee, Palo Alto, Calif. : I get the impression that illegal immigration looks a lot different to someone in, say, an aerie in Manhattan, compared to someone living in the territory most impacted: the wide swath of the American Southwest in which Latinos now make up more than a quarter of the total state population: California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas. Across the southern part of this territory the Latino population now approaches 50 percent.
Formerly every wave of immigration has produced children who learned English and assimilated. But now, in the Southwest, it has become possible to live your whole life here — work, shop, vote, get hospital care, you name it, in Spanish. The children are still learning English, but we may be reaching a tipping point. This is abetted by the fact that the vast majority of Latino immigrants are campesinos, peasants who rarely have more than a grade-school education, and who lack as strong an incentive to learn English as middle class families have, regardless of origin.
If we do reach the tipping point, this territory will become Americas Quebec. That probably sounds like a xenophobic dystopian fantasy to educated folks in the Northeast. I saycome and spent a few months here researching the situation and see for yourself.
Perhaps on Long Island its a matter of being bothered by a few hundred illegals hanging out at the local 7-11 looking for work. Here its a matter of seeing your entire culture morphing into a different one. ...
Roland Buck, Morehead, Ky. : The argument is frequently made that illegal immigrants or guest workers are needed to take jobs that American workers will not take. This overlooks the fact that the reason American workers will not take these jobs is that they are low paying jobs with no benefits. If illegal immigrants and/or guest workers were not available to take these jobs, competition for workers would force firms to pay a living wage and provide benefits in order to get American workers to take the jobs. The fact that many American workers are willing to work as coal miners demonstrates that American workers will take dirty, dangerous jobs if the pay and benefits are right. The United States does not need a large influx of unskilled workers. The only Americans that benefit from such an influx are the employers who benefit from the cheap labor.
Richard Lloyd, Thomasville, N.C. : Thank you, Lawrence Downes, for your article ... It is refreshing to read for once a rational article on immigration. The more I witness on a personal level, on cable talk radio and TV, the more I am convinced the issue of Latino migration is nothing more than the perceived irrational fear of some white people losing control on this great country of ours with politicians pandering to this emotion to further their own selfish motives.
Joanne Spencer, Fort Worth, Tex.: When new immigration legislation began to be discussed in Congress I heard the proposal by Rep. Sensenbrenner to build a $2 billion fence. My immediate thought was to take that large sum of money and initiate a Marshall Plan-like program in Mexico to help the Mexican economy so the would-be immigrants could find jobs near their homes in their own country. As time has gone by, I have heard my idea repeated several times by others. This may be no more practical than other plans, but it seems more humane and positive.
I heard on local news today that the charity hospital in Dallas has billed the Mexican government for many millions of dollars for services they have proved to illegal Mexican immigrants. I thought the amount was surely for several previous years, but it was for one year only! I was amazed.
In Texas we struggle constantly to fund our schools. Much of the public school budget is spent on bilingual teachers and special classes for Hispanic students. I am a bleeding heart liberal but even I can see that SOMETHING needs to be done, for their sake and ours.
Lynwood Yarbrough, Leawood, Kans.: The Times does a tremendous disservice to journalism and citizens of the U.S. by portraying all those who have legitimate concerns about the huge negative costs associated with the influx of uneducated immigrants as racist. Robert Samuelson of The Washington Post and Distinguished Professor of Economics, Barry Chiswick, who testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on costs associated with illegal immigration, are hardly racists.There are huge differences in the costs associated with the illegal immigration of someone from Mexico or other points south with a sixth grade education and the legal immigration of Asian students seeking advanced training in the sciences or engineering. The latter will make very positive economic contributions to our society the former will continue to be an economic drag as studies for [Minnesota] Governor Tim Pawlenty and the Keenan Institute in North Carolina have shown.
Kenneth N. Davis, Jr., Stamford, Conn.: Mr. Downes says that there's no way to stop the influx of millions of illegal immigrants into the U.S., and he claims they are really such a great asset to our country that we should just relax and enjoy it. Otherwise he casts you in with restrictionist groups that he says are run by kooks.
The Simpson - Mazolli Act of 1986 is cited as proof that enforcement won't work. But the fact is that the border control provisions and employer sanctions of that law were poorly enforced, while the amnesty that was granted encouraged many millions more to come here illegally. The Senate's bill is very similar to the 1986 law. Skeptical, serious opponents who are not kooks at all say: Not again! This time we must do the hard work of border control first and then adopt liberal guest worker programs. It's time to end the anarchy at our southern border. It's not impossible at all, especially if the Mexican government helps rather than urging it's poor citizens to come to the U.S. any way they dare to try.
Peter Farago, Midlothian Va. : Since 9/11 Americans have been taught to fear foreigners inside and outside of the country. Even though President Bush is proposing a more moderate response to illegal immigration than the House, the current hysteria regarding undocumented workers is at least partially a result of the Vice President's "One Percent Doctrine." If terrorists might enter the country illegally through the Mexican border, then the One Percent Doctrine requires that we close the border immediately to stop terrorists from destroying our country. Never mind the fact that the 9/11 terrorists did not enter the country illegally. I wonder what percentage of enforcement-only advocates believe that the House immigration bill would have stopped 9/11. Sadly, some of the rhetoric sounds a lot like ethnic cleansing. I believe that the Marshall Plan is a better model for solving illegal immigration than either the House or the Senate bill. Let's remember our country's founding values and lets solve this problem using more than one reason. Inciting fear may be a way to win elections; there is a particularly disastrous example in the last century that comes to mind but it also incites hatred and more hatred is the last thing we need to promote peaceful and constructive relations in the world.
Craig L. Sparks, Prospect, Ky. : Our issue with Mexican nationals arriving within our borders is not an immigration issue in the conventional sense. It is an issue of heritage, history, and geographic proximity. We have largely forgotten that all of the U.S. southwest, from Texas to California, was once a part of Mexico. The solution to the Mexican immigration issue, including the national security aspect, is not to be found within border ideology. The solution is in the formal merger of the United Mexican States and the United States of America. The merger could take place through a careful, stepped, decades-long process of first a North American Accord a notion proposed by Ronald Reagan in 1979 that opens the border, followed by the establishment of Commonwealth status, and then statehood. This is a solution requiring leadership that thinks of the next generation, not the next news cycle.
Jacob Silver, Ph.D., Negaunee, Mich. : This whole conflict is a deliberate incitement by duplicitous Republicans. It is very well known that the engine behind Mexican and Guatemalan movement north is jobs. And it equally well known that the major employers of undocumented workers, aside from the King Ranch, are the beef, turkey, and chicken slaughter houses and the large janitorial services companies in the Midwest and West. If the laws prohibiting such employment were enforced, movement north would dry up. This is also well known. Even our current government knows that. But it is in its interests to allow its friends in to enjoy cheap and easily manipulated workers, and to keep the citizenry riled up, so as not to focus on other aspects of government performance.
John Wiener, Boulder, Colo. : Judging a policy, or indeed an administration, as successful or failed may implicitly presume that there is some common basis for such a valuation. Throwing good money after bad, for example, may seem like a very good idea if you are the receiver of the money. Its value in accomplishing any given stated purpose may be quite irrelevant if the receiver has successfully invested in control of the thrower. Any reason to throw more money may suffice. And, the objective valuation may have no particular interest to those describing the game if they are convinced of higher ends that justify the means, or just enjoying the fruits of their success in description, however fictional or factional. Neil Postman asked, years ago, if one could imagine the Lincoln Douglas debates today, in his book titled "Amusing Ourselves to Death." Can one imagine that?
Frank Lyman, Annapolis, Md. : In considering the question of illegal immigration, its useful to ask, Why is illegal immigration illegal? We make bad things illegal. Not all bad things are illegal: drugs are bad and illegal, but cigarettes, which most people would agree are also bad, aren't illegal. We do not try to make good things illegal. Scholars have for a long time recognized the distinction between things which are bad because they are bad in themselves e.g., rape ... and things which are bad because they are prohibited e.g., spitting on the sidewalk. One hopes it is indisputable that the idea of going from place to place i.e., freedom of movement, what many call liberty, is not inherently bad. So if it's illegal, its because we've just decided to prohibit it. Coming into the United States is not prohibited to everyone. Some people whose ancestors came here and stayed, for example, have an absolute right to come into the United States. What makes it illegal for people whose ancestors didn't come here and stay to come here and stay is that we, the descendants of people who came and stayed, decided to prohibit it ... Immigration isn't illegal because it is wrong, it's illegal because some selfish people have simply declared it to be illegal. They think liberty is an inalienable right of native born Americans, not everyone. I have the right to come here, but you don't.
Steve Fischer, Brooklyn, N.Y.: While I am basically in agreement with your entire article, I dug into the study you cite, "The New Americans: Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration," and their fiscal conclusions seem to be the opposite of what you stated. I'm referring to the conclusions section which starts on page 292. It clearly states that immigrant households do have a negative fiscal impact:
From page 292-293: "There are three central causes for the negative fiscal impact of immigrants on native residents at the state and local levels: 1) immigrant-headed households have more children than native households on average and therefore consume more educational services, 2) immigrant-headed households are poorer than native households on average and therefore receive more state and locally funded income transfers, and 3) immigrant-headed households have lower incomes than native households on average and thus pay lower state and local taxes ... A decision to admit 460,000 new immigrant-headed households assuming those households match the economic and demographic attributes of immigrant-headed households now in the United States would add about 10 per household to next year's net fiscal burdens for New Jersey residents and about 45 per household to next year's net fiscal burden for California residents. Nationally, admitting an additional 460,000 immigrant-headed households would lead to an increase in next year's net fiscal burden on all U.S. native households.
Lawrence Downes : Mr. Fischer is right; the study did find that immigrant families have a negative fiscal impact at the state and local levels. But the study calculated immigrants's impact at the federal level, too. And that is where, in the overall scheme of things, immigrants come out ahead. There are relatively fewer elderly immigrants, and for some programs that help the elderly, like Social Security and Medicare, immigrants receive proportionately lower benefits than the native-born. Averaged out at all levels of government and calculated over a lifetime, the study concluded that immigrants's net fiscal impact is positive. But that will not necessarily console state, county or local officials in areas with low-income immigrant populations. The nuance is important, and I should have explained it in the piece. Here is what the study said on page 351: "When we simultaneously average across both age and education to get a single summary measure of net fiscal impact based on the characteristics of recent arrivals, under our baseline assumptions, we find an average value of +$80,000. These summary measures mask important differences between the federal and the state and local levels. At the state and local level, the average NPV [net present value] is -$25,000, and at the federal level it is +$105,000."
Dr. James J. Stewart, Tucson, Ariz.: The point of this comment is simple: to be recorded as opposed to the thrust of this article, which [argues that we should] stop trying — as fitfully as we do — to enforce immigration laws and legalize illegal immigrants. Among the many arguments that I could mention to support my view, the most telling to me as an educator is the moral one — that rewarding illegal behavior sends the wrong message to my students and encourages other violations of what's left of the rule of law in the United States. Conflict of interest revealed: I have a niece who is a border patrol agent serving in the El Cajon district. She supports the Minutemen and is discouraged by the lack of full enforcement of immigration law.
Glen Dey, Wichita, Kans. : Obviously you are not competing for low wage jobs.
The toad beneath the harrow knows exactly where each tooth-point goes.
The butterfly upon the road preaches contentment to that toad. – Kipling
Marguerite Oneto, St. Louis Park, Minn. : I've been following the immigration debate but have not yet chosen a side. A few questions I have not seen adequately addressed:
1. Why should poor Mexicans and Central and South Americans be given priority to enter the U.S. illegally over starving Africans and Asians just because they live nearby? This alone angers me — that there are so many who strongly support our illegal southern neighbors. It also begs the question: What is the purpose of United States's immigration policy? Obviously we cannot bring every poor, starving, non-U.S. citizen here. So who gets priority and why? There are a lot of suffering people out in the world, and they all equally deserve help from the wealthiest of us.
2. I was impressed by the Latinos who came together to produce such large rallies here in the U.S. to protest unfair immigration policies. But the true answer to solving poverty south of the border is for the governments of those countries to take care of their own people, not for all of their citizens to move to the U.S. So why aren't all these rallying Latinos getting together to force their own governments to change their economic policies and laws? It is amazing to me that they demand that a country, of which they are not citizens, change its policies and laws to accommodate them. They should be holding rallies here in the U.S. asking, at most, that the U.S. government apply more pressure on their home governments to make real economic reforms, with additional U.S. foreign aid to make those reforms a reality. So what, exactly, are they asking the U.S. government for and why? What, exactly, are they asking their own governments for and why? I don't consider myself a xenophobe. I am more angered that our southern neighbors seem to feel so entitled to the opportunities offered to those living in the U.S. Any insights you could provide on these questions would be appreciated.
Lawrence Downes: Dear Ms. Oneto,
No one -- from Mexico, Central and South America, Africa, Asia or anywhere -- should enter the country illegally. No one should be given priority to do so. Borders mean something, and so does citizenship and the rule of law.
The trouble is, people are entering the country illegally anyway, in huge numbers. The country has so far been unable to control the flow. So what do we do? Do we give up and throw the borders open? No way. Do we throw resources at the border -- the military included -- to try to keep every illegal person out? We've tried that, and will keep trying, but experience shows that it doesn't work terribly well, and it's very expensive. And what about the 12 million illegal immigrants who are already here?
The get-tough approach -- militarizing the border and hounding illegal immigrants until they go home -- feels right and just to many people. But it's not right or just if it's the only thing we do. The American economy needs immigrant labor, legal and illegal, to fill huge gaps in its workforce. It has grown to depend on immigrant labor for everything from cheaper restaurant meals to home construction to fighting fires in the drought-parched West. In the white middle-class Long Island suburb that is home to United States Representative Peter King, an immigration hard-liner, a neighbor told a New York Times reporter that teenagers don't mow lawns anymore -- Latino immigrants do.
But immigrants have to play by the rules like everyone else. This means establishing a system of rules to replace the chaotic status quo. It means making sure there are enough work visas so that a would-be immigrant has a realistic chance of getting one. It means enforcing workplace laws so unscrupulous employers won't hire illegal workers, exploiting them and gaining an unfair advantage over employers who do things by the book. It means bringing illegal immigrants out of the shadows, not by rounding them up, but by offering a route to earned legal status and citizenship. A proud citizens will do more for this country -- putting down roots and paying taxes and enriching society -- than a furtive illegal will. The get-tough, enforcement-only strategy may be satisfying on a gut level. But since the border will never be perfectly sealed and 12 million people can't be rounded up and enforcement-only doesn't supply the workers we need, the enforcement-only argument is -- paradoxically -- an argument for continuing the status quo. It's a recipe for lawlessness and disorder.
As for Point 2, you are exactly right. Some people commenting on the immigration rallies said they were happening in the wrong country. Places like Mexico need to pursue wise economic development policies that keep their best and brightest young people at home. But that said, no one should ever deny people the right to emigrate and make better lives for themselves -- that's this country's bedrock assumption. It's one of the few things that people on both sides of the immigration divide would agree on.
Chris Bennett, San Diego: The solution to the immigration issue does not lie in criminalizing and expelling the immigrants, nor in fortifying the borders. What next? Machine gun turrets every 500 yards? The solution is to introduce an immigration policy that reflects the actual needs of this country — which means it needs to be easier, not harder, for ordinary immigrants to move in and out of the country, and they need to be treated much more fairly, as human beings with lives to lead. As things stand, even for a highly skilled immigrant who has the full resources of a trained migration lawyer being paid by a U.S. corporation behind him or her, it takes an absolute minimum of two years to get a green card, and its only going to get harder. What chance does an immigrant laborer have? The aim of the enforcement crowd is to reduce supply. But guns and fences won't do it. Fewer people will want to come here if they have a reason to stay at home. Here U.S. trade policy can do a lot to help, by encouraging policies in Mexico and other countries that create opportunities for people to prosper in their own countries. Security and enforcement are important, because there are criminals and terrorists. But let's not confuse detecting criminals and terrorists with immigration policy. More security and tougher laws will only make the immigration problem worse — unless you count more deaths in the desert as an improvement.

Sorry, I lost interest after the 3rd paragraph.