How I'd Address Illegal Immigration

 

Currently, the U.S. has a population replacement rate at around 1.6%, when sustainability -- including economic solvency -- demands around 2.3% as a minimum. Additionally, there are presently approximately two available jobs for every unemployed American. An immigrant flood would actually benefit the country. Furthermore, when economies are normal, economists are usually in agreement that any ill-effects are temporary with first generation migrants, and that by the second generation there is a net-gain in the GDP. Frankly, immigration is good and is essential for the life of the country.

Yet, many conservatives are apprehensive. They apply rhetoric that casts aspersions on immigrants. They decry illegal immigrants as criminals and invaders. They fear unrealized terrorist entry and the cartels, and so they blanket all immigrants as potential threats, even though terrorists and drug gangs (and other criminals) are in the extreme minority. They also criminalize illegal crossings with typical rhetoric claiming that crossers ought to have simply obeyed the law and waited their turn in line. And most recently, a report that around forty persons on the terrorist or no-fly watch list were caught attempting entry. These reports amp-up the rhetoric and suspicions.

There are nearly half a million people on the federal watch list and not all for terrorism as we'd define it. Many are targeted for political, criminal, and economic reasons too. And several thousand of these are American citizens. To hear that these folks have been captured at the border 1) doesn't presuppose a pending attack (we don't know who they were or why they were entering), and 2) it supports the need for immigration reform and the re-classification of illegals, not the entrenchment against immigrants. Let me explain.

The Hart-Celler Act of 1965 did away with prior quotas for immigration based on national origins, which largely favored white Western-Europeans while limiting other ethnic groups. The racist origins of earlier immigration law is clear. The KKK was in fact a major driver of the reforms of the 1920s, which the Hart-Celler Act replaced. The result of the 1965 Act was greater ethnic diversity, but it reduced the number of immigrants from any country to parity, which included Latin America. Prior, the U.S. was historically reliant on Latino migrants for certain spheres of labor and there was little in the way of a numeric cap. The Hart-Celler Act changed this. 

With socio-economic, political, war, and crime woes in many Latin American countries, the natural impetus is migration, and the U.S. is the ideal place to go geographically and economically. Yet, with these new caps, coupled with restrictions that limit entry only to certain skilled sets and families of existing citizens, most people are shut out. There is no line to wait in. This created a "rock and hard place" scenario. A migrant can either go home to impoverishment, hyper-criminality, or worse. Or, the migrant can risk being caught illegally, often with no chance of return (or at least a lengthily delayed return of many years should they be caught). 

To me, this suggests the severity of things in immigrant homelands, that they would risk time and money [often paid to coyotes] just to have a shot that could close permanently on them if they are found-out. This is no invader or criminal threat. Stats show that immigrants, both legal and illegal are less likely to partake in criminal behavior than citizens, lest they be caught and deported (they ain't dumb and are usually sincere to work). They are also less likely to use most welfare than citizens, and are only afforded a couple of emergent/life saving graces and child welfare benefits like WIC.

Frankly, we have created our own immigration problem by capping quantities and limiting people based on skills and familial status. This has pushed people to cross illegally. If these folks had a legal pathway (refugees and assylees do in fact), this would reduce the necessity to cross outside of designated ports and cross illegally at all. Border Patrol would then be free to look for actual perpetrators and potential terrorist threats. 

So, what would I choose?

I am open-border minded. That does not mean no vetting or automatic citizenship or full access to welfare. It simply means returning to our earlier -- pre-1882 -- immigration patterns. In the nineteenth century, people could exercise their freedom of movement (an inalienable right) and re-settle in America to become productive. This sort of freedom of movement benefits the U.S. and global GDPs (global GDP increase lessens the need for future immigration), as well as the lives of the immigrant. 

Furthermore, open borders would not mean that criminals or potential wrong doers get an automatic pass. Law enforcement would actually be benefited as they would be free from dealing with young laborers and families crossing desolate deserts in search of opportunity. 

Still, I am a realist. I know my view and that of so many economists will continue to hit blockades with skeptical people. The issues of security and compassion must find a middle-ground, at least until we all agree on the best course. I simply propose real immigration reform that creates residential pathways, while bolstering the enforcement capabilities against truly hardened criminals. Oddly enough, while drug mules and other nefarious people do cross outside of ports, most still pass through ports, while the desperate laborers and families still make up the larger portion of crossers outside the ports. We need to employ better crime mapping.

Lastly, we need a Congress that is willing to take a bold and historically-informed approach to immigration instead of positing rhetoric that only furthers the divide. Unless we can get over our hang-ups, we can never have efficacious dialogue. 

My two cents.