Is it a problem and what should we do about it?

Donald Trump has made immigration, particularly illegal immigration, the signature issue of his presidency; referring to it as a national security and humanitarian crisis.  He even shut down the government for thirty-five days in an effort to coerce Congress into passing a bill giving him funds for his long-touted ‘border wall’.  In fairness, immigration has been a major political issue for decades and it is time that we finally deal with it in a comprehensive and effective manner.  Let’s take a deep dive into the facts and scope of the issue.

The history of immigration law:

The U.S. Constitution, adopted in 1787, gave Congress the power to establish uniform rules for naturalization (Article I, section 8, clause 4).  Numerous immigration and naturalization laws have been passed over the years since, and any objective review of these laws will find that they are inherently restrictive, racist and discriminatory.  Initially only “free white persons of good character” were allowed to be naturalized.  The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution passed in 1868, granted citizenship to any child born in the U.S. regardless of the citizenship of their parents as long as the parents had permanent residence in the U.S., however children of diplomats and Native Americans were excluded.  In 1870 a law was passed that allowed blacks to be naturalized but prohibited Asian immigrants.  This was reinforced by the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 which prohibited Chinese immigration for ten years and eliminated Chinese immigrants from naturalization.  This was the first actual immigration law passed by Congress and was not repealed until 1943.  In 1907, in the so-called “Gentleman’s Agreement”, Japan agreed to not issue passports to its citizens who wished to emigrate to the U.S., however they continued to allow them to travel to the Territory of Hawaii.  Between 1870 and 1917, Congress passed various pieces of legislation banning persons of “poor health”, those lacking in education, “lunatics”, infectious disease carriers, “anarchist agitators” and those who were not literate.  In 1921, Congress passed the Emergency Quota Act which established quotas on the numbers of immigrants of specific nationalities who could emigrate to the U.S..  Several Supreme Court decisions and federal and state laws followed which prohibited aliens from owning land (including Native Americans), and created further restrictions on Asian immigrants as well as those from Southern and Eastern Europe.

More recent immigration/naturalization law:

The Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952 (also called the McCarren-Walter Act) was born out of the “Red Scare” and “McCarthyism” climate of the 1950’s.  It was designed to protect the U.S. from communism, “Jewish” interests, and undesirables.  Specifically it: 1) enacted more stringent naturalization procedures; 2) established the H-1 and H-2 visa categories; 3) placed preference on economic potential, special skills and education; 4) continued national origin quotas but eliminated racial restrictions; and 5) reiterated the requirement that immigrants must be of “good moral character”.

The law was amended by Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 (also known as the Hart-Celler Act).  This law changed the way quotas were allocated by ending the National Origins Formula.  It also prohibited preference or discrimination based on race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence, however “sexual deviants including homosexuals” were still prohibited (immigration law was finally becoming more humane).  This was the first law that limited immigration from the Western Hemisphere.  It should be noted that this was a bipartisan piece of legislation that was widely supported by both parties.

The Refugee Act of 1980 redefined the term “refugee” based on United Nations norms, established policies for admitting refugees and set targets for the admission of refugees.

The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 was again a bipartisan piece of legislation passed by a divided Congress and signed by Republican President Ronald Reagan.  For the first time, penalties were enacted for employers who knowingly hired illegal immigrants.  It created the current Form I-9 process, but did not hold employers responsible for determining the authenticity of documentation presented by prospective employees.  The law also legalized certain undocumented seasonal farm workers and mandated intensified border security efforts by the Border Patrol and Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS).  A controversial part the law granted amnesty to three million undocumented immigrants who met specific criteria.

Numerous efforts were made by Congress in the 1990’s and early 2000’s to expand and improve the 1986 law but were never passed and signed into law.  This effort culminated in the 2013 “Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act” drafted by the so-called “Gang of Eight” which passed in the Senate with bipartisan support but was not take up by the House of Representatives, which was under Republican control at the time.

This effort toward comprehensive immigration reform addressed all aspects of the immigration process from border security and enforcement issues to legal immigration reforms.  This bill could have obviated many of the immigration issues we have today and undoubtedly will provide a framework for future comprehensive immigration reform.

Scope of the Problem

The issues surrounding legal/illegal immigration:

Trump and his administration have resorted to their usual demagogic, xenophobic hyperbole to create support among their base for harsh immigration measures and the building of his vaunted border wall.  Let’s examine the issues in detail.

Illegal immigration data:

 

• In 2016, the Pew Research Hispanic Center reported the number of unauthorized immigrants in the country fell to its lowest level in more than a decade. There were between 10.7 million and 12 million unauthorized immigrants in the U.S., representing 3.3%-3.7% of the total U.S. population—a 13% decline from the peak of 12.2 million in 2007.
• Mexicans made up half ( 5.4 million) of all illegal immigrants, but their number has been declining for over a decade.
• Undetected, unlawful entries into the U.S. fell from 850,000 in 2006 to less than 100,000 in 2016 (The Department of Homeland Security estimates they are successful in detecting illegal entries more than 90% of the time).
• The number of Border Patrol Agents has been increasing steadily since the 1990’s, going from 3555 in 1992 to over 22,000 in FY2012, although that number is somewhat lower now due to a high degree of turnover and a struggle to meet their recruiting goals.
• The illegal immigrant population increased by 470,000 per year from 2000 to 2007 but by only 70,000 per year from 2010 to 2015. This is due to fewer Mexican illegals crossing the border and more voluntarily returning to their home of origin.  This reverse migration is attributed to several factors:  a sluggish U.S. economy; a more stable economy and greater number of jobs in Mexico, tougher border enforcement laws, and (primarily) a desire of immigrants to reunite with their families.  61% of returning immigrants did so on their own, while only 14% of this number were actually deported (Mitt Romney’s voluntary deportation has been a reality for many years).
• 66% of illegal residents come in through major airports with a visa and fail to return home (in 2016, 42.7 million immigrants came into the U.S. with visas with most returning home).
• In contrast, the number of unauthorized immigrants from Central America has increased by 375,000 over the 2007 to 2016 timeframe.
• The 1.85 million Central American unauthorized immigrants in 2016 came mainly from the three Northern Triangle countries of El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras—a trend that continue today.
• More than a million unauthorized immigrants have Temporary Protected Status which prevents them from being deported.
• The number of family units apprehended crossing the southern border has increased substantially from 3.6% of those apprehended in 2013 (14,855), to 27% (107,212) in 2018—most of these are coming from the Northern Triangle of Central American and are attempting to seek asylum in the U.S. due to the level of crime and violence in their home countries.

Impact of illegal immigration on workforce:

• As with overall population, the number of adult unauthorized immigrants in the workforce has decreased in the past decade—numbering 7.8 million in 2016, however their labor force participation rate has increased somewhat in this timeframe.
• Among occupations, illegal immigrants comprise a larger share of the workforce in low-skill occupations making up about 24% in agriculture and 15% in construction.
• The number of illegal immigrants in low-skill occupations has declined since 2007, while the number in higher skilled occupations (management, business and professional jobs) has increased by a third over the decade.
• Unauthorized workers make up only 2% of the overall workforce.
• The U.S. Chamber of Commerce reported that “immigrants typically do not compete for jobs with native-born workers” because “native born workers and immigrant workers tend to possess different skills that often complement one another, and…are not interchangeable.”
• A 2015 study by Drs. Gihoon Hong and John McLaren (both economics professors) found that each immigrant creates 1.2 local jobs, most of which go to native workers and concludes that domestic workers benefit from the arrival of more immigrants.
• Daniel Griswold of the Cato Institute points out that while immigrants may take less desirable jobs in retail, agriculture, landscaping, construction and service industries; this allows employers to expand and create middle-class jobs in management, bookkeeping, and marketing that typically go to native-born citizens.
• It is often said that immigrants take jobs that Americans won’t do. When the United Farm Workers union launched a campaign to connect unemployed Americans to farm jobs, only three people accepted—out of thousands of inquiries.
• Of the 1.5 to 2 million agricultural workers today, at least 50-70% are undocumented immigrants. If the U.S. were to deport a significant number of them it would result in major labor and food shortages and lead to a 5-6% increase in food prices according to a report by the American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF).
• A consensus has emerged among economists that while illegal immigrants may depress the wages paid to agricultural workers and some other low-skill workers, they have a negligible effect on the overall wage levels.
• While blue-collar wages have been depressed for years, most experts believe that increased automation, globalization, declining unionization, and government overtime policies are the primary culprits.

Impact of illegal immigration on taxpayers:

• Some argue that immigrants and particularly illegal immigrants have a major impact on taxpayer financed government programs such as Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, unemployment insurance, worker’s compensation, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), public housing, the Earned Income Tax Credit, Supplemental Security Income, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), public education, and local services such as police, fire, highways, parks, etc.
• In a 2013 article, two Heritage Foundation researchers found that the average U.S. household received $31,584 in such government benefits and services in these areas. They report that in 2010, for the U.S. population as a whole, households headed by persons without a high school degree received, on average, $46,582 in government benefits while paying only $11,469 in taxes.  They go on to assert that since the typical unlawful immigrant has only a 10^th grade education with half having less than a high school diploma and a quarter having only a high school diploma, that unlawful immigrants share this disproportionate ratio between benefits received vs. taxes paid.
  • They rightly point out that although unlawful immigrants do not have access to means-tested federal programs such as Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, SNAP, TANF, etc., they do send their children to public schools, and their U.S. born children can access the full-range of government welfare and medical programs along with locally provided services such as police, fire, parks, roads, etc. They estimate that unlawful immigrant households received $24,721 in government benefits while paying $10, 334 in taxes.
  • They also assert that “most analysts assume that roughly half of unlawful immigrants work ‘off the books’ and therefore do not pay income or payroll taxes.
  • They state that under the current law, the aggregate annual tax deficit from unlawful immigrant households is $54.5 billion which would essentially double if these individuals were given legal status and became eligible for various means-tested federal programs.
• In a report by Matt O’Brien and Spencer Raley for the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), an anti-immigration group, it is alleged that there are approximately 12.5 million illegal aliens along with 4.2 million citizen children of illegal aliens in the U.S. that are costing U.S. taxpayers $134.9 billion at the federal, state, and local levels. They break this down to $8,075 per illegal alien family member and a total of “approximately” $115,894,597,664.
  • They further breakdown these costs as follows: Federal Cost=$45,870,474,332, State and Local Cost=$88,992,981,032, Total National Cost $134,863,455,364 which is offset by Federal Taxes Paid by Illegal Aliens=$15,447,897,700, State and Local Taxes Paid=$3,520,960,000 for a Total Taxes Paid by Illegal Aliens of $18,968,857,700 which leads to the total economic impact of almost $116 billion figure.
• Donald Trump, using his own unexplained data, puts the cost to U.S. taxpayers for illegal immigration at more than $250 billion per year.
• The libertarian think tank, Cato Institute, founded Charles Koch, et. Al., called the above report “fatally flawed” in its analysis. In a 2017 report the Cato Institute put the costs at between $3.3 billion and $15.6 billion.
• Reviewers of the F.A.I.R. report state it does not take into account the impact of removing millions of illegal immigrant workers, consumers, and business owners on the economy, and ignores the generally positive fiscal impact that the citizen children of unauthorized immigrants have once they become adults.
• In 2018 a study by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services generated a report that compared the tax revenues generated by refugees to their overall cost of settlement. It showed that refugees brought in $63 billion more in government revenues than their cost of resettlement.  Interesting it was buried by the Trump Administration.

Impact of illegal immigrants on crime in U.S.:

A major part of Trump’s condemnation of illegal immigrants and refugees is the assertion that they bring gangs, violent crime, and drug and human trafficking along with them.  These concerns go back almost to the beginning of foreign immigration, and are not without justification.  Virtually every large influx of immigrants  have brought with them criminals and criminal gangs–from the Italian mafia to Jewish gangs of the 1920’s, to the Chinese Triads and Russian mafia, to the various Mexican and Central American drug cartels and gangs that are currently such a problem.

Numerous studies have been done in the past 100+ years to determine the validity of this claim.  The vast majority of these studies have found that immigration in general and illegal immigration in particular do not contribute significantly to overall crime rates.  On the other hand, other studies have found that “illegal immigrants” do have a 2 to 3 times higher crime rate than native-born citizens.

Unfortunately most of these studies have severe design limitations.  Most are based on Census Bureau data (both the decennial census and the annual American Community Survey); the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report, the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP) which reimburses states and counties for incarcerating illegal immigrants; Homeland Security data, federal and state incarceration statistics, etc.  The major limitation is that the federal government and most state and local law enforcement agencies do not track the citizenship status of people arrested and adjudicated for crimes.  So while we can track arrests and incarcerations by race, we do not track nationality or citizenship.  The SCAAP program reimburses states and local governments for incarcerating “illegal aliens” who are arrested for a felony or multiple misdemeanors, but does not track if they are actually convicted unless they are sentenced to a county jail or state prison, nor does it track offenders sentenced to federal prisons.  Incarceration data tracks the crimes of conviction, but not those dismissed in plea bargains.

As a former police officer and corrections professional, I am aware that the majority of crimes committed never result in an arrest, and of those arrested, many are not convicted.  Of those convicted, most are given plea deals that results in dismissal of many charges.  These factors are particularly prevalent in the low income, crime-ridden areas where many immigrants, particularly illegal immigrants live.  It also likely that Census Bureau data misses a good number of illegal aliens, so tracking their actual numbers is problematic.

Given all of these factors, it is highly likely that immigrants, particularly illegal immigrants, do commit crimes (usually drug and property crimes) at a higher rate than native-born citizens; but not necessarily violent crimes which are mostly associated with criminal gangs, many of whose members are second- and third-generation immigrants and are U.S. citizens.  Obviously the Mexican drug cartels are a serious issue, both for drug and human trafficking, but they mostly reside in Mexico, and generally do not come to the U.S. to live.

Bottom line, we must address criminal behavior in this country regardless of its source, and hold those responsible accountable.  But this does not mean that we have to demonize any particular racial, ethnic, or religious immigrant faction—most of whom are law-abiding and are just coming to this country in an effort to better their lives and those of their children.  I have had the opportunity, primarily thanks to the military, to travel rather extensively throughout the world; and have met peoples of many races, cultures, languages, religions, etc.  The one constant that has impressed me is that all people, regardless of their superficial differences, have the same basic human wants, needs and values.  According to Maslow’s hierarchy of human needs, survival and long-term safety and security are the strongest needs we have as humans, and it is these needs that are driving most illegal immigrants to come to this country.  It is only through an accident of nature that any of us are born into the circumstances we find ourselves in.  If those of us lucky enough to have been born in this country were in these immigrant’s shoes, I’m sure that we would probably do exactly the same thing, regardless of the immigration laws we had to break.

So what do we do about the problem:

Most everyone, regardless of political party or ideology, agrees that in this age of international terrorism and criminal activity, we need effective border security; and virtually no one I know of is advocating for open borders (regardless of Trump’s rhetoric).  It is ironic, however, that pre-1965, when we had virtually open borders with Mexico that allowed Mexican workers to freely come into the U.S. to work in seasonal agriculture and labor jobs, we did not have significant problems.  Most would follow the farm jobs while they were available and then return to their native country at the end of the work season.  We did not have a significant problem with illegal immigrants staying in the U.S. until we made it so difficult for them to cross the border that they just decided it was easier to stay.  Be that as it may, let’s take a look at what can and should be done now to secure our borders and control illegal immigration.  Most would agree that since illegal immigration is a multi-faceted problem, it is going to require a multi-faceted solution; not simplistic ones like building a 2000-mile border wall.

When experts today are asked what it is needed to secure our borders, most identify the need for additional border fencing in specific high traffic areas, along with enhanced surveillance technology, more inspectors and Border Patrol agents, and, especially, greatly expanded Immigration Courts and asylum officers.  But let’s take a broader look at the problem.

When tackling any problem I find it is usually best to start with root causes.  The root cause of our most immediate issue is the greatly increased numbers of families, primarily from the Northern Triangle of Central American, that are seeking asylum in the U.S. causing major backlogs for our immigration courts.  It seems obvious to me that rather than cutting off aid to these countries, we should be doubling down on our diplomatic  efforts and financial aid to help these countries alleviate the conditions that are driving their citizens to flee from crime and violence.  U.S. aid to El Salvador has already had a significant impact on the crime, and particularly the homicide rate in that country.  Increased assistance to their military and law enforcement efforts along with economic assistance to combat the poverty in these countries would go a long way in reducing the number of refugees leaving these countries.

Secondly, rather than castigate Mexico for their lack of response to this problem, we should proactively work with them to try to slow the flow of these refugees and to find a more humane ways to manage them as they make their way to the U.S.  I do agree with the Trump administration that it would be better to keep these people in Mexico until they can be vetted and processed for asylum, but it should be done in an humane manner that respects the dignity and worth of these people.  Our military, including our National Guard, is very good at constructing temporary housing facilities.  In cooperation with Mexico, we could construct safe, secure, tent-based refugee camps in Mexico in proximity to the U.S. border.  These camps could include living, dining and medical facilities along with the necessary staff and immigration courts to process asylum seekers on site.  They could also provide consular facilities where Mexican nationals could apply for immigration visas to work temporarily in the U.S.  Security in the facilities could be provided jointly by the Mexican and U.S. military. The costs could be shared by the U.S., Mexico and the Central American countries involved, along with fees charged to the refugees as appropriate.  Obviously laws would have to be changed to alleviate the concerns recently expressed by the courts regarding requiring asylum seekers to stay in Mexico.

Next we need to address the issue of economic immigrants to the U.S.  It is a given that large segments of the U.S. economy rely on both low-skill and high-skill workers emigrating from foreign countries, and this need will continue into the foreseeable future.  It is also evident that we have a large number of undocumented aliens living and working in this country, either in the underground economy or by using forged or stolen identification papers.  Our challenge is to bring these people out of the shadows, identify them, and either provide a legal means for them to remain in the U.S. or to deport them back to their native countries.

Again it seems the best place to start is at the root of the problem.  These illegal immigrants would not come to or remain in this country if there were not employers willing to give them jobs.  Rather than targeting illegal immigrants, it seems to me we should concentrate on the employers.  It is currently illegal to knowingly hire an illegal alien, but relatively few resources are devoted to identifying and prosecuting employers who do.  By enhancing the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (I.C.E) agency’s staffing in this area, and significantly increasing the monetary penalties for employers hiring illegals, we can make it financially unsustainable for employers to hire undocumented workers.  Without available jobs, there would be no incentive for immigrants to come to or stay in this country.

Obviously, however, such an action would lead to unintended consequences in the economic sectors that rely on these workers and to the country as a whole.  It would, therefore, be necessary that we give both these workers and their employers sufficient lead time to allow them to meet the requirements to legally work in this country.  This would, in turn, require refining our current guest worker program so that it meets the needs of both employers and workers (both legal and illegal) as well as the security needs of the country.  This would necessitate streamlining the current H-1B, H-2A and H-2B visa processes.

Secondly, to combat the problem of stolen and forged identification, it is time the U.S. implemented secure forms of identification and mandated their use for both citizens and immigrants.  Senators Charles Schumer and Lindsay Graham have previously suggested a “hard Social Security card” that is imprinted with biometric identifiers (fingerprints, DNA, etc.) that would make it impossible to forge or alter.  The same technology could be used to develop a guest worker I.D. card which could also include a GPS tracker.  Both foreign nationals seeking a guest worker visa and illegal immigrants already in the country would have to complete a vetting process before being approved to work in this country.  Once approved, they would be issued the appropriate visa and I.D. card.  Employers could use a form of the current E-verify system to determine the worker has been approved.  Once hired, or officially retained, these workers would be subject to existing payroll taxes, be required to pay income tax like any citizen, and continue to pay both state and local taxes and fees.  Employers would still be required to give preference to available U.S. citizens and pay the prevailing wage for the job.  Length of stay requirements would be enforced by requiring employers to notify I.C.E. whenever an immigrant was no longer employed or had reached their allowable limit.  I.C.E. resources would have to be enhanced to track visa overstays.

None of the above recommendations would be easy or cheap.  It will require a major financial commitment, and will challenge some of the privacy concerns that many Americans have.  Unfortunately effectively combatting illegal immigration (like most social problems) does not allow half-measures.  We either do what it takes to fix the problem, or we live with the problem as it stands.  But that does not mean that we have to follow Trump’s lead and take a pugilistic, combative approach.  We can develop compassionate, humane policies and procedures that respect the rights and dignity of everyone involved, and yet accomplishes the outcomes that we are seeking.  It is incumbent on the American people to demand that our politicians do what is right and what works–not what is politically expedient.

I welcome your comments and suggestions and look forward to hearing from you on this issue