Thread: Enforcement or Recession?

National Review Online
Thursday, April 10, 2008

Enforcement or Recession? [Mark Krikorian]

There seems to be a genuine decline in new illegal crossings, and anecdotal evidence that some illegals already here are packing up and going home. The open borders crowd is arguing that this proves we don't need immigration limits or enforcement, because it's all just an economic phenomenon — the economy softens, and illegals go home (there's a good deal of that in this Wall Street Journal piece). Of course, this is also the very same time that enforcement has increased, after the failure of the Bush-McCain amnesty bills; Ed Rubenstein points to evidence that may suggest enforcement is responsible. It seems to me both must matter — in prompting illegals to leave, a weak economy is like having the wind at your back, but you need to put up the sail of enforcement to take advantage of it. Enforcement can always reduce illegal immigration, but it reduces it more, and more quickly, if there's also a soft economy. The trick is to have a ratchet effect, so that when the economy picks up again, the enforcement mechanisms are robust enough to prevent too much new illegal immigration from taking place.

04/10 01:58 PM

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/? ... UyMzI1MDM=

Links embedded in above post:

Crossings By Migrants Slow as Job Picture Dims

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1207704 ... lenews_wsj

Immigrant Job Decline: Recession or Enforcement?

http://blog.vdare.com/archives/2008/04/ ... forcement/

whether the economy is soft or not, i think, has little to do with illegals leaving (if theyare). they will still get their free medical care, free education, free food...etc. the economy has a more pronounced effect on the American middle class taxpayers. who are loosing their jobs but still have to pay taxes... etc. if there is a decline in the # of illegals (not seeing it here in Illinois) it has do to enforcement of our immigration laws, or as is true here, the lack of enforcement.