Justice Antonin Scalia's dissent in the recent Supreme Court decision to strike provisions of Arizona's strict immigration law has drawn significant attention. "To say, as the Court does, that Arizona contradicts federal law by enforcing immigration law that the president declines to enforce boggles the mind," Scalia declared, before referring to the "evil effects of illegal immigration." Various commentators criticized Scalia's dissent for being political in nature, as he examined a matter that was not before the Court, namely President Obama's announcement that his administration would not deport certain undocumented immigrants who came to the United States as children.
However, Scalia's remarks raise two questions that warrant more attention. First, why does the federal government not apprehend and deport virtually all undocumented foreigners? Second, is illegal immigration really an "evil"?
Critics have argued, not without some justification, that President Obama was courting the support of Hispanic voters when he announced that the federal government would not deport upwards of 800,000 undocumented persons who came to America before the age of 16, are younger than 30, and have clean criminal records, among other conditions. The political dimension of this decision in an election year cannot be overlooked, especially given that President Obama had previously stated that he lacked the authority to take this step: "With respect to the notion that I can just suspend deportations through executive order, that's just not the case, because there are laws on the books." Despite his change of position on this particular issue -- in the aftermath of Congress' refusal to pass the Dream Act -- President Obama has actually taken a tougher stance on immigration than his Republican opponents have claimed. Over 1.1 million foreigners were deported during his tenure, the most by any president since the 1950s, although around 11.5 million undocumented persons remain in America.
Other factors help explain why, under both Democratic and Republican presidents, the federal government has not deported essentially all undocumented immigrants, the most obvious one being that it cannot. America's vast and relatively porous borders are difficult to monitor. Deference to America's principles of civil liberties should also preclude overly aggressive immigration law enforcement. Short of turning America into a police state, it would be impossible to ferret all undocumented immigrants and expulse them. (The Supreme Court has yet to rule upon whether the "show me your papers" provisions of the Arizona law are enforced discriminatorily, but even these provisions are unlikely to ultimately satisfy partisans of blanket deportation.)
Another key factor has received insufficient attention: the extent to which the present-day American economy needs undocumented immigrants. Certain sectors, such as agriculture and construction, rely heavily on undocumented laborers, who perform low-wage jobs that few or no Americans want. Pragmatic politicians in both political parties are aware of this reality, which may explain why many apparently share reservations about a wholesale dragnet approach to immigration law enforcement.
Arizona's harsh immigration law seems to have dissuaded many undocumented workers from taking construction jobs, thereby leading to downtime at construction sites and lower productivity in the industry. In Alabama, which enacted a similar law, certain crops have been left rotting in the fields due to the departure of undocumented laborers apprehending a crackdown. Overall, multiple economists estimate that illegal immigrants are, by and large, beneficial to the U.S. economy and that their absence could even hinder growth. The low wages earned by undocumented workers do not have a significant negative impact on overall wages, as few Americans except high school dropouts compete with them for employment. Lower wages also mean lower prices for agricultural produce, building construction, and restaurant meals, for instance.
Insofar as the U.S. economy could not function without undocumented immigrants, it is because the vast majority come to America to work hard and lift their families out of poverty. While much of the public associates illegal immigration with criminality, that is largely a misconception. The crime rate of undocumented immigrants is not negligible but is far lower than most people realize. Except in a minority of cases, the only offense that undocumented immigrants will commit in their lifetimes is being undocumented. The cities with the largest increases in immigration between 1990 and 2000 experienced the largest decreases in homicide and robbery. Immigrants in California, for example, are less likely than U.S.-born Californians to commit crimes. Second and especially third-generation citizens are more likely to engage in criminal activity than first-generation immigrants; ironically suggesting that acculturation to certain aspects of American society might foster criminal conduct. Various police officials have criticized Arizona's new immigration law, such as Jack Harris, Phoenix's former police chief, because it detracts from crime fighting. "It takes officers away from doing what our main core mission is, and that is to make our community safe, and instead tells us to become immigration officers and enforce routine immigration laws," Harris said.
Unsubstantiated or exaggerated fears about undocumented immigrants, especially Hispanics, are reminiscent of xenophobic reactions to immigration in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Irish, Italian, Catholic, Jewish, and Asian immigrants were notably perceived as menaces to American culture and prosperity, if not as criminal elements. The notorious Chinese Exclusion Act was also enacted in 1882 and not repealed before 1943.
Even though a rational examination of unlawful immigration in modern day America should warrant a nuanced view of the question, certain influential figures have promoted the misconception that the bulk of undocumented persons are shady characters or criminals. Rush Limbaugh illustratively claimed that Mexican undocumented immigrants are "a renegade, potential criminal element" that is "unwilling to work." By the same token, Justice Scalia contended in his dissent that "the very human realities" in Arizona are that "[i]ts citizens feel themselves under siege by large numbers of illegal immigrants who invade their property, strain their social services, and even place their lives in jeopardy."
That is not to say that one should make an apology of illegal immigration. America is a land of immigrants but millions of people come to its shores while abiding by immigration laws. To some extent, illegal immigration fosters disrespect for the rule of law. Pragmatism may justify discretion in the enforcement of immigration laws, yet pragmatism also justifies their existence. America, like other developed countries, evidently cannot simply abandon all immigration laws because it could hardly accommodate the dozens of millions of people who seek to emigrate away from impoverished nations.
The underlying cause of illegal immigration is the wealth gap between the economically developed and under-developed worlds. So long as the gap remains considerable, people of modest means will strive to come to America, Europe, and other parts of the developed world in hope of finding better living conditions, even if it entails violating immigration laws. There is no reason to believe that this situation will come to an end in the foreseeable future.
It is apparent that the author not think a million legal immigrants a year is sufficient. I cannot help wondering how many it would take legally admitted every year to satisfy the proponents of illegal immigration?
We are actually right in the middle of the summer AUDIT of businesses. Each agent has to spend 200 hours checking businesses reported. So do help them find the places so that they can use their time more effictively in riding us of a few more illegals. The President made a good start....but he could use the help.
When I call around to even clean my home...a "legal" agency wants $200. An illegal and her family will charge $40-$50, and work an hour longer.
There's no comparison.
it works great.
Pass a amndatory E verify. end anchor babies. End most of the visa programs that are riddles with fraud and bringing in over 100,000 green card workers a month in the midst of massive unemplyment, and most importantly, jail those emplyers that deliberately scam and game the system to hire illegals and even legals instead of Americans.
why is USA importing Chinese to build our bridges?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83pNM3Oy1As
Secret Video-Immigration Lawyers teach companies how to steal jobs from USA workers
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TEwJvmJj2uo
They Took Our Jobs - Immigration Stories You Are Not Supposed to Hear H-1B H-2B Visas
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YItkuxv7dhU
Jon Stewart is THE MAN on lying to America about immigration!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5kgNwvSHyc
Millions of illegals will now get free healthcare.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9Banza7Y0A
end our immigration problems. Chief among her ideas was a national ID card to be used only
twice in a citizens life, which would be when they were applying for a job or for government benefits. Cutting off the jobs and benefit magnet would cause those here illegally to return the way they came.
All of her ideas were applauded by the Clinton administration, yet none were ever implemented
by him or any succeeding president. In the place of Jordan's commission recommendations, came
only calls for more and more amnesties by ethnic advocates and those that benefit from massive
immigration and then pass on all the social,economic and environmental costs to our
communities.
Those citizens that dare to speak up for advocating less immigration are smeared as racist,xenophobes,nativist,anti immigrant bigots.
We are not a nation of immigrant, we are a nation of citizens that have been betrayed by
the media and BOTH parties on immigration for decades.
We deserve better.
Given that Obamacare requires an ID before services can be given, this will be likely.
Lastly, the media continues to regurgitate the same tired and flawed statistical data fed to them by the Political Elite when it comes to giving an honest estimate of the number of illegal aliens living in the United States. Everybody is sick and tired of hearing the same grossly inaccurate figure(11.2 million) year after year. CAPS and other honest sources place the true figure anywhere between 30 and 40 million. We hit a peak of 38 million in 2007, after which we experienced a gradual decline. With the Presidents new deportation policy will create a reversal of recent trends as the numbers will move upward again.
You should really assess whether or not you think FAIR has the ability to issue information that doesn't have some kind of spin on it.
The IPC critique of FAIR’s data makes some interesting claims:
1) FAIR includes US born children of illegal parents. OK, maybe IPC can explain how those kids would not be a cost of illegal immigration.
2) FAIR doesn’t include the taxes paid by foreign born by US raised illegal young adults. Ok, but since they cannot legally work in the US their wages (& possible taxes) are small relative to their social costs.
IPC continues in a similar manner discounting costs and inflating “benefits” of illegal immigration. It is a purely political hack job. NOT a serious critique of the FAIR study.
Not much new in this article. However, there are not all that many people who are observers of this issue anticipate "blanket deportation."
Rather, what they support is "attrition through enforcement." When illegal aliens can no longer gain employment, renew the permits for their mobile homes, or walk away from casual encounters with law enforcement, they'll begin making decisions that protect their own self-interests.
And your newly minted legal workers would find themselves out of work the second they demanded a living wage.
Until we can effectively regulate immigration ALL other discussions are moot!
Mexico (the source of estimated 50-60% of illegals) has the 12th largest GDP on the planet. There is plenty of wealth in Mexico to care for their poor/uneducated class. But why should they, when they can export their poverty North to become (they assume) our responsibility??
Does Mexico provide welfare and food stamps, which increase with each new child a poor woman births? Does Mexico provide job training, school loans, or small business help for their poor? The problem ISN'T the wealth gap between Mexico's poor and the United States. The problem is the Mexican govt and their 1% exporting their poor.
I'll vote for ANY Presidential candidate who, for once, will say: Enough mexico. Take care of your poor - or we'll eliminate every DIME of aid and assistance we provide your country - and we'll start billing your country for the costs associated with your citizens living illegally in our country (specifically healthcare, education, and incarceration costs). Push us too far, and we'll treat Mexico like we treat Cuba. Mexico needs to provide for their poor - they can afford it.
When they do, they roll the dice and when they lose don't come crying. Americans have their own wealth gap to deal with.
Sadly your argument is winning just as the supporters of slavery won back in the 18th century.
crops rotting in fields is the perennial argument for massive immigraion and not enforcing our laws.
less than 4 % of illegal labor work in the fierlds, the rest compete dierectly with the poorest citizens in non agriculture emplyment.
I worked in agriculture , I know that crops do not always ripen at the same time every year. Sometimes there are storms or heat that causes you to replant or have a late or early crop. if youu are dependent on migrant workers, they may be picking onions when it comes time for you to have them pick your crops that came in early or late.That is the main reason you will always have any crops rotting.
the other reason is millinaire farmers refuse to use the agriculture visa program to bring in UNLIMITED amounts of farm workers. Tha catch is those farmers prefer slave labor hired via crooked labor contractors instead of the visa program that requires them to pay a decent wage and provide humane living conditions.
it amuses me to see so may liberal progressives promoting the immigration policies and desires of big busienss and agricultre that profits from treating workers like slaves.
That is 100% right, Mr. Moffett. The Democratic Party spent 50 years fighting to enact laws to protect American workers. They have spent the last 30 years helping businesses exploit workers.
Every country fights for its own best.
The biggest thing that we as a country can do to harm the poor is to import more poor. They compete directly with our poor for limited jobs, limited social program funding and limited schools spaces. NOTHING will keep our poor in that position like mass immigration of more uneducated competition. Who wins? The wealthy with lower wages = higher profits.
How the 1% has convinced the dems and liberals to go along with their plans is what amazes me. They must have some sort genius with propaganda to get so many to go along with their plans.