One hot-button item in recent policy discussion is illegal immigration. Various bits of information have been tossed around, and broadly speaking the two parties have postured heavily. My curiosity about immigration policy was piqued by this article from The Washington Times, addressing the nomination of Jeff Sessions as attorney general.
Listed here are some of the numerous sites I used for data-
Pew Research Center
Wikipedia- on sanctuary cities
Wikipedia- on anchor babies
OJJPAC
Center for Immigration Studies
US Immigration and Customs Enforcement
One sadly obvious discovery is the media spin on this topic bears little relationship to actual facts. Readers likely know the meaning of many of the terms I am about to describe. I knew some, but not all, and not nearly all the legal issues.
The word 'illegal' is being assiduously avoided by the press, who prefer the term 'undocumented immigrant'. This sounds so much nicer, but obscures a central issue. Every person and act I am about to talk about is illegal under multiple federal laws. As a first establishment of fact, then, it is important to recognize this is not a discussion of proposed law, only a discussion of existing law.
The current number of illegal aliens is about 12 million. I had a very intelligent and educated friend estimate it at 2 million, a reflection of the general awareness of the significance of the problem. About 1 in 25 people currently in the United States is here illegally. Nearly 30% of all immigrants are illegal.
Anchor babies, a pejorative but generally understandable term, are a bizarre and troublesome phenomenon. The fourteenth amendment to the Constitution is often cited as a legal basis for all children of illegal immigrants being granted US citizenship. This is not accurate. The amendment grants citizenship to children of aliens who are foreign citizens, have permanent domicile status in the United States, and are engaging in business in the United States except performing in a diplomatic or official capacity of a foreign power. This excludes the children of most illegal aliens, although this is rarely enforced (more on this in a moment). There has been no SCOTUS decision on illegal alien children (the one case dealt with legal resident aliens). There are some oriental 'maternity hotels' in Los Angeles, where Chinese and other asian citizens come to stay in the US specifically to have their children here. Even including this, there is little evidence that anchor babies are a major issue, since such a child does not confer citizenship on the parents.
Visa overstays are a growing problem. Of the 12 million illegals, about 500,000 are visa violations. Most of these are from Europe.
Deportation is not going well. The Obama administration has claimed to deport more people than any other administration. This is misleading. Border interceptions were not counted as deportations until 2009. These account for the bulk of the larger number. ICE enforcement operations are down by more than 50%. Yearly deportations under Clinton were more 1,800,000. Under Obama deportations were 715,000 in 2011, with a further 22% decrease the following year.
Numerous immigration laws are being unenforced at the discretion of the executive branch. There are arguments put forth that this is longstanding executive policy, but that is disingenuous. Federal agencies have to choose how to enforce law, such as how the IRS chooses to audit. The executive, however, has never before given orders to NOT enforce law, which is what we have been doing with immigration law for the last 8 years. This is not a matter of an agency choosing, within budgetary constraints, how to best enforce law (even local police do this, looking for speeders only on certain streets). It is a direct policy to not enforce law, such as the non-deportation of minor criminals, selective deportation enforcement, and non-prosecution of sanctuary cities.
The federal government required, in 1996, that local municipalities cooperate with federal immigration authorities. Numerous cities and even states are not doing this, largely with the full, winking cooperation of the federal government. Thus cities like San Francisco, New York , Philadelphia, and many others, do not enforce federal law. The feds are welcome to come and do it themselves, but the city will not. Since illegal immigrants may be deported for violations of law, many thousands of illegal immigrants end up staying even after being arrested. The enforcement of federal law is being falsely described as racial profiling and differential enforcement against hispanics. There have been stories of hispanics afraid to drive lest they be deported after a traffic violation. That's the whole point of the law; Illegals should be deported. Our government made a legal framework for this, which some cities are not obeying.
There is much sympathy being expressed for illegals who have been here for years, built homes and businesses, and are gainfully employed. Long term illegals form a larger and larger proportion of all illegal aliens.
So, with these details established, what is my take on this?
If we are a nation of laws, that means enforcing them. We need no new laws or policy, only enforcement. This is being portrayed as racism and anti-hispanic sentiment, but that is manipulative and fatuous. If you want to come to the US legally, please do. Immigrants created this country. I am the child of an immigrant. Immigration is good. Non-enforcement of law is bad, at both a federal and local level.
I want a sanctuary city. I want no enforcement of federal tax laws. Can you imagine a city refusing to comply with federal mandates to collect social security tax? Many would love that, but it would bring swift action from the feds. Non-enforcement of immigration law is no different.
The idea of well-established but illegal immigrants losing their businesses and homes seems cruel. These people are productive even if they are not citizens. Shouldn't we be both merciful and practical, and let them stay and become legal? There are mafia leaders and drug dealers who have gone to prison for many years. They have left behind bereft children, lost homes, destroyed businesses. That is the consequence of illegal activity.
I welcome an attorney general who will enforce law, without politically motivated favors. I welcome legal immigrants. I would like to see illegal aliens treated as the law requires, and as other countries treat them, and have them deported. Sanctuary cities are illegal, and should cooperate with federal law. Those who have overstayed their visas need to leave. Those who have reason to stay need to get their visas in order. That is simply part of how a nation is defined- by its borders, and by its laws. That does not violate the spirit of an America that welcomes immigration, and is neither harsh nor cruel. it's simply real, and just, two concepts ignored too long.
Ted
Listed here are some of the numerous sites I used for data-
Pew Research Center
Wikipedia- on sanctuary cities
Wikipedia- on anchor babies
OJJPAC
Center for Immigration Studies
US Immigration and Customs Enforcement
One sadly obvious discovery is the media spin on this topic bears little relationship to actual facts. Readers likely know the meaning of many of the terms I am about to describe. I knew some, but not all, and not nearly all the legal issues.
The word 'illegal' is being assiduously avoided by the press, who prefer the term 'undocumented immigrant'. This sounds so much nicer, but obscures a central issue. Every person and act I am about to talk about is illegal under multiple federal laws. As a first establishment of fact, then, it is important to recognize this is not a discussion of proposed law, only a discussion of existing law.
The current number of illegal aliens is about 12 million. I had a very intelligent and educated friend estimate it at 2 million, a reflection of the general awareness of the significance of the problem. About 1 in 25 people currently in the United States is here illegally. Nearly 30% of all immigrants are illegal.
Anchor babies, a pejorative but generally understandable term, are a bizarre and troublesome phenomenon. The fourteenth amendment to the Constitution is often cited as a legal basis for all children of illegal immigrants being granted US citizenship. This is not accurate. The amendment grants citizenship to children of aliens who are foreign citizens, have permanent domicile status in the United States, and are engaging in business in the United States except performing in a diplomatic or official capacity of a foreign power. This excludes the children of most illegal aliens, although this is rarely enforced (more on this in a moment). There has been no SCOTUS decision on illegal alien children (the one case dealt with legal resident aliens). There are some oriental 'maternity hotels' in Los Angeles, where Chinese and other asian citizens come to stay in the US specifically to have their children here. Even including this, there is little evidence that anchor babies are a major issue, since such a child does not confer citizenship on the parents.
Visa overstays are a growing problem. Of the 12 million illegals, about 500,000 are visa violations. Most of these are from Europe.
Deportation is not going well. The Obama administration has claimed to deport more people than any other administration. This is misleading. Border interceptions were not counted as deportations until 2009. These account for the bulk of the larger number. ICE enforcement operations are down by more than 50%. Yearly deportations under Clinton were more 1,800,000. Under Obama deportations were 715,000 in 2011, with a further 22% decrease the following year.
Numerous immigration laws are being unenforced at the discretion of the executive branch. There are arguments put forth that this is longstanding executive policy, but that is disingenuous. Federal agencies have to choose how to enforce law, such as how the IRS chooses to audit. The executive, however, has never before given orders to NOT enforce law, which is what we have been doing with immigration law for the last 8 years. This is not a matter of an agency choosing, within budgetary constraints, how to best enforce law (even local police do this, looking for speeders only on certain streets). It is a direct policy to not enforce law, such as the non-deportation of minor criminals, selective deportation enforcement, and non-prosecution of sanctuary cities.
The federal government required, in 1996, that local municipalities cooperate with federal immigration authorities. Numerous cities and even states are not doing this, largely with the full, winking cooperation of the federal government. Thus cities like San Francisco, New York , Philadelphia, and many others, do not enforce federal law. The feds are welcome to come and do it themselves, but the city will not. Since illegal immigrants may be deported for violations of law, many thousands of illegal immigrants end up staying even after being arrested. The enforcement of federal law is being falsely described as racial profiling and differential enforcement against hispanics. There have been stories of hispanics afraid to drive lest they be deported after a traffic violation. That's the whole point of the law; Illegals should be deported. Our government made a legal framework for this, which some cities are not obeying.
There is much sympathy being expressed for illegals who have been here for years, built homes and businesses, and are gainfully employed. Long term illegals form a larger and larger proportion of all illegal aliens.
So, with these details established, what is my take on this?
If we are a nation of laws, that means enforcing them. We need no new laws or policy, only enforcement. This is being portrayed as racism and anti-hispanic sentiment, but that is manipulative and fatuous. If you want to come to the US legally, please do. Immigrants created this country. I am the child of an immigrant. Immigration is good. Non-enforcement of law is bad, at both a federal and local level.
I want a sanctuary city. I want no enforcement of federal tax laws. Can you imagine a city refusing to comply with federal mandates to collect social security tax? Many would love that, but it would bring swift action from the feds. Non-enforcement of immigration law is no different.
The idea of well-established but illegal immigrants losing their businesses and homes seems cruel. These people are productive even if they are not citizens. Shouldn't we be both merciful and practical, and let them stay and become legal? There are mafia leaders and drug dealers who have gone to prison for many years. They have left behind bereft children, lost homes, destroyed businesses. That is the consequence of illegal activity.
I welcome an attorney general who will enforce law, without politically motivated favors. I welcome legal immigrants. I would like to see illegal aliens treated as the law requires, and as other countries treat them, and have them deported. Sanctuary cities are illegal, and should cooperate with federal law. Those who have overstayed their visas need to leave. Those who have reason to stay need to get their visas in order. That is simply part of how a nation is defined- by its borders, and by its laws. That does not violate the spirit of an America that welcomes immigration, and is neither harsh nor cruel. it's simply real, and just, two concepts ignored too long.
Ted
As someone who while living abroad was professionally inconvenienced and spent a great deal of time and money to get a permanent resident visa (and green card) for his wife (a productive professional) so that we could move to the U.S., yet who has also seen close hand a household guest who escaped to stay in America beyond his visa limits (thus becoming an illegal alien) I have vested interest in this issue.
ReplyDeleteNo doubt much of the difficulty with immigration reform has come because even the professional economists can't agree on whether illegal aliens are economically good or bad for the U.S. (For a great site that compares 7 short arguments from BOTH sides, go to procon.org and look up "Is Illegal Immigration an Economic Burden to America," or just click on http://immigration.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000788 )
Do we need congress to pass immigration reform? Absolutely: too many of the illegal aliens in the U.S. are breaking the law simply because the rules for legal entry into the U.S. for work are so arduous that they (paradoxically) often keep out the legals and encourage people to enter illegally.
But here's the bottom line: Regardless of economic impact, regardless of whether or not reform comes, what is the point of having laws if you are going to daily circumvent them? The laws were not created ex nihilo: they were born - and modified - from experience. There was (and still is) a need for them, and a need for their being enforced.
Will the new chief executive and new attorney general do that? I hope so, but only time will tell...
-D-