Short answer: Not too much.
Long answer: Congress stood on its head to pass a supplemental $600 million border security bill yesterday, with two Senators returning to adopt the provision with unanimous consent. Election-year politics has a lot to do with the legislative consensus. But what exactly did the bill do?
It funds about 1000 new Border Patrol agents, adding to the 20 thousand already on the force. That’s a continuation of Bush Administration policies, which roughly doubled the size of the Border Patrol from 10 to 20 thousand over eight years. A five percent increase in border staffing won’t make a big difference, but it’s better than the Obama administration’s initial budget, which proposed to cut the size of the force by one percent. It also adds around 250 new officers at ports of entry – the legal crossing points from Mexico. That makes sense. As illegal crossings get harder, smuggling through the ports of entry will increase, and these officers will be needed.
The bill adds money for a couple more drones, again following Bush Administration policy. Drones have value, but I can’t help wondering how much these will add. The real problem in using them has been the extreme reluctance of the FAA to allow UAV flights along the border (or anywhere else, for that matter).
Surprisingly, a third of the money goes to the Justice Department, mainly to fund FBI, DEA, and ATF investigations of drugs and guns. There certainly is value in launching more crossborder investigations of Mexican organized crime, but in my experience, law enforcement agencies sometimes get money by selling the crime of the month, and there’s no guarantee that the increased funding will actually result in increased attention to that crime. My guess is that Sen. Schumer, with his Judiciary Committee background, is just more open to Justice Department appeals for funds than to DHS appeals. ICE, for example, is responsible for crossborder crime and immigration enforcement, but it gets no more of a boost in funding than the Justice components, and I hear it’s been told that the funds are not to be used for immigration enforcement, just for drug and money smuggling. That, of course, reflects the deep animus in the advocacy community toward immigration enforcement away from the border; the advocates weren’t happy with added border enforcement, but they would have erupted if the administration and Congress had added funds for interior enforcement.
Much was made of the fact that these increases were “paid for.” That’s true, sort of. It looks as though a lot of it was “paid for” by canceling hundreds of millions of dollars in fence-building and air security spending. In addition, Congress is claiming a lot of new revenue by charging an extra $2,000 for H-1B visas issued to companies that mainly depend on immigrant labor to carry out jobs in the US. There’s a policy case for discouraging that kind of company (although the more discouraging we do, the less “paid for” this bill becomes). Established US companies tend to use H-1B visas to hire college and postgraduate workers to fill particular slots and to try out employees for permanent employment. The mainly Indian companies that rely heavily on H-1B labor seem to be outsourcing companies, and the anecdotal claim is that they use the visas to bring in workers from India who work alongside US workers and learn to do their jobs, then return to India to do the US workers’ jobs in India. If you were making policy in the middle of a bad recession, you might prefer the first use of H-1B visas to the second.
But there could easily be a WTO challenge to the new fee. In a dumb move that hasn’t recently been repeated, the US long ago agreed at the WTO that it would always allow at least 65,000 H-1B visa holders to enter the country. I would not be surprised to see India challenge the new fee on a couple of WTO grounds – that it discriminates in practice against foreign companies and that it effectively withdraws – or at least improperly burdens — the binding US commitment to admit 65 thousand workers (after all, India will argue, no one would think the US was living up to its WTO commitment if it raised H-1B visa fees to $1 million apiece). If so, there’s a real possibility that a WTO dispute resolution panel will force the US to drop the fee, and perhaps any visa fees not directly related to the cost of issuing the visas. That will show just how dumb it was to add immigration issues to trade negotiations. But the pressure to make more such concessions continues. And as USTR runs out of trade concessions that other countries want, it is increasingly looking to make concessions in areas of policy whose social consequences it doesn’t understand or doesn’t care about.
UPDATE: Typos fixed; parenthetical added
PersonFromPorlock says:
Smoke and mirrors. If you want to really put a dent in illegal immigration, it’s the simplest thing in the world to pay illegal aliens a whacking great reward to turn in their employers, and then prosecute the employers. Pretty soon no jobs for illegals and no illegal immigration. Or a lot less, anyway.
August 13, 2010, 11:42 amStewart Baker says:
Or you could offer them legal work status if you wanted to be generous without spending money.
August 13, 2010, 11:44 amQuestion says:
Do you know of any study that has been done recently on how easy it is to enter the United States from Mexico without legal documentation?
August 13, 2010, 11:47 amTatil says:
Really? Negotiating about the movement of capital, goods or services across borders is all fine and dandy, but talking about the movement of labor is “dumb”. Really?
August 13, 2010, 11:51 amJmaie says:
the advocates weren’t happy with added border enforcement, but they would have erupted if the administration and Congress had added funds for interior enforcement.
Getting angry for a living sounds like fun. I am interested in becoming an advocate. How much does the job pay, and where do I apply?
August 13, 2010, 12:22 pmMalvolio says:
I wouldn’t go so far as “dumb”. But if a dollar or a Toyota or customer-service call from oversea, well, it’s just a dollar or a Toyota or customer-service call. A immigrant is at least capable of not just working, but going on welfare, committing a crime, having lots of kids, or voting Democrat. On the other hand, no Toyota is every going to found successful companies, win the Nobel Prize, or even become Miss USA.
Labor is ineluctably tied to a person in a way that commercial goods and services are not.
August 13, 2010, 12:23 pmPatrick says:
How much border security does an election-year meaningless pander buy, when officials in the ICE are complaining about deliberate attempts to undercut actually enforcing the law? None.
And just think, the administration could make a huge dent in the problem by backing off the lawsuit against Arizona and extending the State-Federal “Safe Communities” program, which does what Arizona law does but on a limited basis. No, we can’t actually do things that WORK, that would – shudder – leave people with the impression that a ‘comprehensive’ solution might not be needed.
You cant amensty without a crisis and you cant have a crisis if you actually enforce the law and fix the problem. So the charade goes on.
It is that attitude, and the failure of political leaders to challenge it, face it down, and actually enforce the law, that results in the immigration crisis we have today. This bill feeds the failure.
As for “It looks as though a lot of it was “paid for” by canceling hundreds of millions of dollars in fence-building …” Yeah, drones stop border crossings better than a fence. Not.
Never underestimate the capacity for Democrats in office to waste money and do less with more, all in the name of ‘doing something.’
Please, America, retire these guys as soon as possible.
August 13, 2010, 12:23 pmPersonFromPorlock says:
Actually, my full proposal is to give them and their families automatic legal residency and fund the reward from the employer’s fine, so it’s a no-cost operation. Also, the illegal worker has to be the first one to turn in his employer, to qualify.
This does nothing about Islamic terrorists, drug smugglers and whatnot, of course, but at least it thins out the crowd the Border Patrol has to deal with.
August 13, 2010, 12:36 pmLarry says:
I don’t believe a word that comes out of Washington! Present or past administrations! This has been beat into the ground and they still keep voting on it again and again. Who in their right mind could believe they are serious about controlling the border. I believe until someone very dangerous comes across our border and blows up one of our cities nobody will take this issue seriously. Congress must really believe we are a bunch of morons.
August 13, 2010, 12:49 pmLarryA says:
”Assault weapons” ban + gun show “loophole.”
Yesterday a researcher set up a study halfway between Laredo and El Paso, and asked the first thousand illegals that crossed that day if it was easy. He should have results calculated Real Soon Now.
“Immigration” does not equal “labor.”
The problem here is that we’re not negotiating the movement of labor, we’re trying to prohibit it. War on Labor is working about as well as War on Drugs. It doesn’t matter how much we spend, the U.S./Mexico border will continue to fester. The solution, as Steward notes, is to make peace.
After the boss gets prosecuted, the other illegal workers get deported, all the legal workers lose their jobs, and all the customers watch the company go belly-up, you better add in something for the cost of putting the snitch in the witness protection program.
August 13, 2010, 12:53 pmFloridan says:
OK, $600 million is not enough . . . how much is?
I live in a county that is over 50 percent foreign-born, a fair number of whom are undoubtedly illegal (others certainly would be illegal if not for being politically favored).
I just don’t see the benefit of sinking untold billions of dollars into building a Fortress America. Our war on illegal immigration is following the pattern of our war on drugs, and will probably be about as successful.
August 13, 2010, 1:03 pmSteve says:
Study after study shows that illegal immigration provides a net benefit to the economy. Illegal immigrants do not create any sort of special crime problem or drain on the welfare system, despite anecdotes to the contrary. There is no hope of debunking these myths in the public consciousness, of course, but it’s small wonder that administrations of both parties continue to treat it as a minor issue except when they feel they need to pander.
Does this mean I favor open borders, not really, everything has a limit. But I sure wouldn’t spend my national fortune trying to hermetically seal the border, either. I haven’t seen much in the way of a legitimate national security concern.
Take a look at what happens every time the feds bust some business that hires a bunch of illegal immigrants. Do they go out and hire some American replacements off the unemployment line, keep on doing business, and everyone ends up happy? No, in most cases, the business simply fails. And suppliers, local restaurants and shops, and everyone else who is linked to them in the economy either fails as well or suffers significant harm. Small wonder that no one in a position of power really wants to go around shutting down companies that are helping to drive the economy, particularly not in the current situation.
August 13, 2010, 1:09 pmCrunchy Frog says:
Fenceposts don’t have a union. Border patrol agents do.
August 13, 2010, 1:10 pmJmaie says:
After the boss gets prosecuted, the other illegal workers get deported, all the legal workers lose their jobs, and all the customers watch the company go belly-up,
After which an entrepreneur sees the opportunity and forms a new company, hires locals to fill job slots, native unemployment goes down. Creative destruction with an assist from Uncle Sam.
I understand this is simplistic and doesn’t take into account human misery, lives uprooted, issue of children of illegals born here, etc. The purpose for denying employment to illegals is to protect local workers, is it not? That policy is currently in place (even if not enforced vigorously).
August 13, 2010, 1:12 pmalkali says:
In 2009, of 91,899 federal immigration prosecutions, only thirteen employers in eight cases were prosecuted for the felony offense of illegal hiring of undocumented workers. (Source.)
Maybe we should build a bigger fence. With lights on it. That’ll work.
August 13, 2010, 1:13 pmSteve says:
Oh, I didn’t realize we were living in the fantasyland of economic models, I was trying to talk about the real world. Check out some actual cases. The notion that there are tons of “local workers” just sitting around, deprived of a job by all those illegal immigrants, is bollocks. These companies aren’t getting replaced, and you don’t just cause a major disruption in a local economy with no consequences.
August 13, 2010, 1:23 pmJmaie says:
Do they go out and hire some American replacements off the unemployment line, keep on doing business, and everyone ends up happy? No, in most cases, the business simply fails.
Google “immigrant raids” and in order I see:
Micro Solutions
McDonalds
Walmart
Timbuktu Restaurant
All still in business. I know of raids at multiple Con-Agra plants as well, and I believe they’re still around.
*****
As to policy, I would prefer we make e-verify into a working system first instead of depending on raids. Put the horse before the cart as it were.
August 13, 2010, 1:24 pmalkali says:
We may not have a big enough sample size to test your hypothesis, because businesses are exceedingly rarely “busted” for hiring illegal immigrants. But when the federal government raided the Swift meat packing plants in 2006, Swift hired legal workers to replace 1,300 immigrants working illegally. That business is still doing fine. (Incidentally, Swift faced no criminal charges, although one HR manager at one plant did plead guilty to an immigration charge.)
August 13, 2010, 1:25 pmTatil says:
Yes, those engineers and scientists with their fancy MS and PhD degrees working on H-1B visa holders present a big “welfare” problem even though they are required to leave the country if they lose their jobs. Besides, they are definitely joining big, powerful criminal gangs such as Microsoft, Intel etc. I don’t know how many kids they have, but they would definitely vote for Democrats if only they had citizenship (and not need a visa in the first place.) Better to leave them out.
August 13, 2010, 1:26 pmCrunchy Frog says:
Wow. Where to start.
Illegal immigrants do not create any sort of special crime problem or drain on the welfare system, despite anecdotes to the contrary.
Right. That’s why illegals are one third of California’s prison population, and why half of the births in local SoCal hospitals are to illegal parents. No drain at all.
Take a look at what happens every time the feds bust some business that hires a bunch of illegal immigrants. Do they go out and hire some American replacements off the unemployment line, keep on doing business, and everyone ends up happy? No, in most cases, the business simply fails.
And John Delorean sold cocaine to keep his car business afloat. Does he get a pass as well? He had employees. He had suppliers. So what? By hiring illegal aliens, and paying dirt wages, Mr. Business Owner is undercutting competitors who follow the rules, putting them out of business. He’s also driving down the wages of american citizens. Case in point: a man used to be able to support a family as a professional drywall hanger. No more. Not when you can pick up Pedro outside the Home Depot and pay him $12 an hour under the table.
August 13, 2010, 1:28 pmJmaie says:
Before we get too far down this line, Steve, we probably agree on more than we disagree. I don’t think raids are an effective way to stop illegal immigration, I’m sure companies such as Con-Agra simply wait for ICE to depart and then hire a different set of illegals.
Furthermore, our economic model depends on continued expansion. Demographically the “native” population is barely at stability, we need immigration to provide the increased population. I just think we should exert a little control over how that process plays out.
August 13, 2010, 1:32 pmasdfdft says:
Has any private property owner ever tried to stop illegal entry to the US from using their private land?
If an owner would just take some action to stop trespassing on private property then we will be able to determine with better clarity where the new government stands with respect to protecting its citizens, either with us or against us.
August 13, 2010, 1:57 pmDavid M. Nieporent says:
Since the first stat is made up, I’m going to assume the second one is, too.
August 13, 2010, 2:00 pmEH says:
In this scenario, what happens to the employer’s campaign contributions?
August 13, 2010, 2:39 pmSteve says:
I’m afraid you sort of refudiated whatever point you were making with this made-up statistic.
August 13, 2010, 2:53 pmGuest12345 says:
Followed by an illegal worker using fraudulent documents to get hired and then turning in the entrepreneur in order to claim the reward.
Just what we need, people who create jobs, services, and products being sent to jail and fined because someone who doesn’t even have legal residence in the country is able to trick the employer into hiring them.
(Yes, I know that way more than a metric-a**load of employers that employ illegal aliens are, at some level, aware of the nature of their employees. But if you provide a reward, it is certain that some honest folks will be nailed by this.)
August 13, 2010, 3:15 pmChris Green says:
I sort of agree, more or less. Remember, what businesses want is not sufficient labor, they want a glut of labor. That is the condition that allows them to pay the lowest wages. When you see guys at home depot on a Tuesday morning, waiting for somebody to pick them up for a job (believe me, I’ve seen it) it is not because we don’t have enough workers to perform manual labor in our ever expanding economy, it is because we have slightly too many. This is a bad situation for immigrants who are already here, who are trying to get ahead because it depresses wages. It is also a bad situation for US citizens working in construction (one area where citizens and illegal immigrants actively compete).
If we really had control of the boarder (little or no illegal immigration) we could double or triple the number of legal migrant workers we allow in the country according to the needs of local businesses and labor requirements. That way we could keep out the very few workers with criminal records and efficiently manage the supply of labor so that businesses can benefit from plentiful labor without glutting the market. This is a very logical solution to the problem.
August 13, 2010, 4:14 pmsbron says:
Assume illegal immigration was halted completely via a genie.
1. What should be the upper limit on the number of legal entrants into the U.S. per year. 1 million? 2? 10 million?
2. Is there any upper limit on population in the U.S. that would be acceptable to Libertarians? Would 1 billion be too many? 2 billion?
It seems the argument really isn’t about illegal immigration or birthright citizenship. The real argument is whether there should be any upper limit to immigration set by the government.
August 13, 2010, 4:37 pmCynical says:
1. This 2006 NewsMax article gives an estimate as high as half.
2. Criminal aliens are 29% of all Federal Bureau of Prisons inmates.
3. Illegal aliens can apply for welfare on behalf of their “anchor babies”… and they do. (Ending “birthright” citizenship will eliminate that problem.)
Crunchy Frog is right, you are wrong.
The upper limit on immigration should be the number of permanent emigrants. I see no moral or legal problem with paying people to leave.
August 13, 2010, 4:50 pmBZ says:
Rather than go through all the arguments again, here’s a brief explaining employers’ attitudes toward the recent collapse of immigration law enforcement.
August 13, 2010, 4:54 pmKamal says:
Regardless of what Obama does regarding border security, the congressional republicans will respond by giving it a stupid name, like “Obamagration”, and think the argument is over. For many of their constituents, such an “argument” would work.
August 13, 2010, 6:05 pmDavid M. Nieporent says:
I think the number is 97%. <- This sentence gives an estimate as high as 97%.
And there's as much reason to believe my number as the NewsMax one, seeing as how there's exactly as much evidence in mine as in the NewsMax article. (Coincidentally, Radley Balko today pointed out exactly that NewsMax article as being “cut-and-pasted by immigration opponents on message boards all over the Internet,” but without the slightest bit of actual evidence behind it. (It quotes an IBD story which also doesn’t provide any evidence, but just says that “some estimates” say that.)
I’ll be charitable and assume that Fair is honestly representing the data — though I’ll note that the statistic is about a decade old, even so. But so what? That’s not relevant to CrunchyFrog’s claim.
Setting aside that this data is even older, it is wildly off from what CrunchyFrog claimed; it refutes his post.
That’s sort of a tendentious way of saying that American citizens can get welfare.
Good luck with that one. When you have the votes to repeal the 14th amendment, let me know.
Funny, you couldn’t provide any data to support it.
Why? Is there something magic about the current size of the U.S. population?
August 13, 2010, 6:12 pmNickM says:
For some (especially county-run) hospitals, that is a true stat. I haven’t seen the raw data, but according to L.A. County Supervisor Mike Antonovich, 2/3 of births in L.A. County hospitals (e.g., County-USC Medical Center and Harbor-UCLA Medical Center) are to illegal alien mothers. This is not the same as saying 2/3 of births in L.A. County are to illegal alien mothers – “County” is where people go who don’t have insurance.
Nick
August 13, 2010, 6:59 pmOwen H. says:
People are walking across open desert, what good is an unmanned fence?
August 13, 2010, 8:52 pmronnie jones says:
what good is hiring more if the ones we got arent allowed to do the job of enforcing the law that is already there. an if a state decides to do it thereself then our president will probably file a federal suit on them even though it was the people who filed a petition then voted the law in. nope not much faith in our system doing anything about the illegal immigration problem in the america.
August 13, 2010, 9:33 pmDoug says:
Illegal immigration is a symptom of the foreign trade policy we have promulgated for generations. Our foreign trade policy has rewarded those countries that rely on cheap labor with lucrative contracts. Our tariffs are lower and our quality control requirements on incoming products are nowhere near as restrictive as those of our “trading partners.” As a result, incoming products have an economically superior advantage over those produced domestically.
This has a direct effect on our employment needs. While some employers hire illegals out of greed, most do so because it levels the playing field. They can fight cheap labor with cheap labor. I am assisting a friend with his bid for the Michigan House of Representatives. As he has knocked on doors, several individuals involved in agriculture have told him that they need migrant labor because of the lower overhead. Why? Because we are importing fruits and vegetables from Brazil, Mexico, Israel and other countries for less than we can grow them here in West Michigan, the area that has historically been known as “America’s Salad Bowl.” Farmers are selling off their farms for development. Why? Because they have been undercut for years by the imports resulting from American trade policy. As a result, jobs that used to be filled by high school and college students making minimum wage – particularly seasonal jobs like those in the agricultural sector – have either been given to illegals making a few dollars a day with no benefits, or disappeared completely. Change the calculus of the trade policy equation so that domestically produced products have a flat playing field, and the lure for illegals to come here – or stay here – begins to disappear. It also makes transferring production overseas less attractive.
No matter how one looks at the issue, our trade policies must change to protect our own industries and employees. We cannot continue to wholesale transfer entire industries to other countries on the assumption the we can continue to create new ones here in the US. That policy was developed during a time in which the US was truly an economic powerhouse. But to quote from the movie, The American President, “Americans can no longer afford to pretend that they live in a great society.” We gave that away with our manufacturing capability. Charity begins at home; if we truly desire to help other countries, then it must be done from a position of economic strength.
August 13, 2010, 10:27 pmosmoothie – Obama passes $600 million border security appeasement bill, does little says:
[...] The Volokh Conspiracy, Congress stood on its head to pass a supplemental $600 million border security bill yesterday, with two Senators returning to adopt the provision with unanimous consent. Election-year politics has a lot to do with the legislative consensus. But what exactly did the bill do? [...]
August 14, 2010, 12:00 amRichard Loyal French says:
President Obama has No intention of Really protecting our borders. He is only interested in gaining ground for Muslims.
NASA’s new directive to “Out-Reach to Muslims”.
And Now the push to build a Muslim Mosque at Ground Zero – which the Muslims blew-up !!
Obama will not fulfill his Oath of Office… as he is a Muslim’s Wet-Dream. A Plant.
The fact is: Arizona has the Right to Protect its Borders .
The Fact is: Obama wants to Take that right away from States.
The Fact is: Obama is Ignoring Federal Laws on immigrations.
The Fact is: Obama is NOT Protecting Our Borders.
The Fact is: Ignoring Laws is illegal !!
The Fact is: Obama is breaking the Laws by ignoring them. (or is Obama Above the Laws??)
The Fact is: Obama has already broken his Oath of Office.
August 14, 2010, 12:02 amHogar DeVuelta says:
Typical liberal being liberal with my tax money. I am a legal immigrant who had to leave the US with my family when our visa ran out and wait for a green card. Screw the illegal immigrants. What we need is four fences 50 feet apart. In the first and last fifty feet you fill it with concertina wire, and the middle fifty gets land mines and motion sensor activated machine guns. Now you would only have to man the border crossings.
August 14, 2010, 1:17 amChris Green says:
Maybe if liberals really like what Obama does on immigration, MSNBC will combine the word ‘Liberal’ with ‘Immigration’ and call it the Liberation Bill. If liberatarians like it, they might call it the Randimation Bill. Ha ha, I kill myself.
Seriosly, no offense. Your comment just made me start thinking of other wierd things we could call the immigration bill.
August 14, 2010, 2:24 amORID says:
I hate how stupid our government and how stupid the media is. This bill and all the other money spent on “border security” the past 5 years is a joke.
I got this information by doing a GPO FDsys search and filtering out Congressional hearings.
This is from a July 10, 2008 hearing on border security.
Our entire staff—I don’t know if Members of Congress have gone through E-Verify. I have. I got clearance in less than 2 seconds. It took less than 3 minutes to fill out the form online. But all Federal employees go through E-Verify. For every 1,000 workers that go through, 942 instantly have verification by the system. Five successfully contest the dis-match, which basically is primarily when a woman is married, and her name is changed. Then the other, obviously, we have 53 who don’t contest. Fifty-three that do not contest, and typically where the research has found that they are here illegally.
So we have interior enforcement. I know my time is up, but in my district we had two people who were here illegally for trafficking drugs. They were in Clay County, North Carolina, and they were arrested. They served their time. They called the ICE. The sheriff called the ICE agency in Charlotte and said, ‘‘I have two people that are here illegally, and they have been trafficking drugs.’’ They said simply, ‘‘When you get a busload, call me. We will come.’’ Out the door they were released. Three days later they were arrested again for methamphetamines in our district.
Now, here is the disgusting part. This is from a July 2009 hearing. It is Senator Cornyn:
Last year, U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services estimated a mandatory E-Verify program could cost about $765 million over 4 years, and that’s only if it covers new hires. To cover both new hires and current hires, that number rises to $838 million. The Social Security Administration also estimated that a mandatory E-Verify program would cost about $281 million over 5 years and require 700 new employees. These costs are significant and highlight that if we
do not resource our E-Verify program adequately, our workers and employers will become frustrated and they’ll never buy into the system.
Only about $1.8B and 6 years to fix e-verify (I assume scope growth, etc)?!
The real shame is that every “pro-enforcement” Representative or Senator isn’t screaming up and down about how border security isn’t the same as ensuring we are able to implement an effective mandatory e-verify program. The are happy to keep pouring money down the pit that is “border security”, which in effect doesn’t seem to be doing much to stem the problem, because we never tackle the root cause of the issue.
It’s clear they want the illegal immigrants to be hired.
August 14, 2010, 4:14 amORID says:
Let’s try a little exercise here. There are two questions inherent in US immigration debate.
1) To those who favor more enforcement and not amnesty. What would it take for you to accept amnesty?
2) To those who favor amnesty and no enforcement. What would it take for you to accept enforcement?
Since I fall into category 1, I’ll answer:
1) Fix e-verify
2) Make e-verify mandatory nationwide
3) Ensure everyone who comes into the country has tamperproof biometric id (note, I don’t support a national id card for citizens).
4) Allow states to enforce immigration law like Arizona wants to if they like (ie. vacate pre-emption if there is pre-emption) Look into possibility of allowing Arizona and states the power to deport immigrants.
5) Jack up sanctions for companies caught breaking the law and hiring an illegal; make these really punitive after the e-verify fixes are completed. Crack down on this and allow states to investigate and crack down on this as well.
6) Provide an “amnesty” ie. some type of legalization program with a path to citizens (at the “end of the line”). Make the companies sponsor illegal workers they want to keep (thus both illegal and those who want to participate pay some tax).
Unless these measures are taken, I’d rather see the status quo. I’m not really in favor of a guest worker program either, but if the steps I outlined are effective it may be necessary.
August 14, 2010, 4:42 amHarvey says:
All debate about cost/benefit analysis of immigration and enforcement is futile because at its heart this is a social issue, not an economic one.
Immigration restrictionists are defenders of the founding ethnic groups and immigration enthusiasts desire a different, more diverse, population, though both will gladly cite selected statistics to dress up and disguise their real agendas.
It is usually considered crass to choose a marriage partner simply for his/her money, yet we are expected to choose our new immigrants for their economic potential rather than social compatibility. What is wrong with this picture?
August 14, 2010, 7:32 amLT says:
Steve… you’re an idiot. :)
August 14, 2010, 7:59 amOscar says:
Even if that stat is made up Maricopa county has detailed documentation of it’s inmate population and guess what, it’s about 15%. Considering the illegals make up 7% of the state population they are clearly and disproportionately represented in the prison system. 40% of kidnapping convicts are illegal. About 25% of all drug convicts are illegals.
To be honest you talk like someone that has never lived in a border state much less visited one.
August 14, 2010, 8:55 amJmaie says:
Immigration restrictionists are defenders of the founding ethnic groups and immigration enthusiasts desire a different, more diverse, population,
Way too simplistic. You’ll find a wide spectrum of thought on this with only a few at the ends you’ve described.
It is usually considered crass to choose a marriage partner simply for his/her money, yet we are expected to choose our new immigrants for their economic potential rather than social compatibility. What is wrong with this picture?
Nothing?
August 14, 2010, 1:00 pmCareless says:
You mean like Roger Barnett? Sued and made to pay damages.
August 14, 2010, 2:23 pmHarvey says:
Okay, Jmaie (?), try this: Ask the restrictionist how he would feel about allowing in, say, one million white South Africans. Betcha he has no problem.
Now ask the other side how they would feel about bringing back the pre-1965 national quota system and offering just those folks whatever financial incentive is necessary to ensure we get the full number we “need.”
Then report back to us if it is really about economics.
August 14, 2010, 4:43 pmDan Lavatan says:
The border is sufficently large that even if the entire US population worked on securing it full time, people would still be able to get through. I guess you could have UAVs launch missles, but you’d run out of missles pretty fast.
Most H1B holders are smart foreigners who want to come to the US. Employers use them because there aren’t enough US workers who try at life. The consequence of limiting this is that US companies will have to expand overseas, and the US will lose the secondary revenue from those workers spending wages in the states. With the US debt, load this won’t matter in the long run, all smart people will have to move abroad anyway.
August 14, 2010, 9:07 pmJmaie says:
Harvey – perhaps I wasn’t clear.
There are many positions on this issue. Some feel that we should have little or no immigration. Some feel we should let anyone in who is not a convicted criminal. Many people favor some restrictions but believe immigration is overall a positive (I am obviously one). There is wide disagreement on the numbers which should be allowed in, and wide disagreement what criteria should be used.
There are restrictionists who are motivated solely by a dislike of brown people, i.e. your 1M white South African example. There are those enthusiasts from Mexico who believe that Reconquista is a viable possibility. These are the ends of a bell curve, most people are somewhere in between. For most it is not an either/or proposition.
You are free to make whatever moral judgments you please. I was not offering one.
August 15, 2010, 1:13 pmWatch Expendables says:
hey folks i cannot wait for the expendables to come out! Its gonna be awesome!
August 15, 2010, 2:37 pmWatch Expendables Online says:
Wow stunning site. I really love studying these articles
August 15, 2010, 3:03 pmruralcounsel says:
That will depend upon the actual value of $1 million … at the rate our economy and national debt is going, that might not even cover the visa application processing costs! But then, we’re not likely to have many economic immigrants coming our way under those conditions. H-1B or illegal.
There you go! The plan to halt illegal immigration…hyperinflation, crash the economy.
August 16, 2010, 5:49 pm