Illegal immigration: causes, effects, and policy implications

Illegal Immigration

Both the United States government and individual state governments as well are concerned about the high rate of illegal immigration into our country. There are several reasons for this. Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the country recognizes great need to know exactly who is in the United States. In addition, many worry that illegal immigrants take jobs that would otherwise go to people who are legally in the country. School districts struggle to educate the children of adult illegal immigrants. Some at the federal, state and local levels of governments believe that illegal immigrants put a strain on welfare programs and feel such services should go to people who are here legally. The problem is multi-faceted, and different government entities have differing concerns, making agreement about what should be done difficult.

SCOPE OF THE PROBLEM

However, most people are law-abiding residents of the United States and believe that others should obey the law as well. Although the United States has open borders, both Immigration and Customs officers attempt to make sure that people who travel or move here do so legally. In 2003, for instance, these officials arrested over 7,000 illegal immigrants between March and September, 112% more than in the same period for the year 2003. However, many more slipped through their nets, and the problem of illegal immigration into the United States continue to grow (Johnson, 2005).

In addition to the sheer volume of illegal immigrants, in spite of recent increases in staff, the United States does not have enough staff to prevent most illegal immigration (Johnson, 2005). Illegal immigrants move easily across United States borders with both Mexico and Canada, especially in the more unpopulated areas.

In addition, those who smuggle illegal immigrants continue to come up with new ways to move people across the border. Recently, federal officials forced a small plane down in Texas and found four Chinese nationals without proper documentation to enter the United States aboard (Badger, 2005).

But although the laws regarding who may and may not legally enter the United States are clear, many illegal immigrants not only enter the United States but find themselves welcome in some industries as well, because often these visitors are hired to work in agriculture, construction, and the service industries. Willing to work cheaply, they help keep costs down for a variety of public commodities including meals in restaurants and even new homes. However, since these people earn a marginal income, they often put a strain on public services as well as the public schools. Importantly, because our borders are porous and we have no real way of blocking illegal immigrants, this creates vulnerability for national security (Radelat, 2004a).

We send out mixed messages, both to the illegal immigrants and those who hire them. One of President Bush's recent nominations for head of Homeland Security had to step down after he realized that his use of an illegal immigrant in his home as a housekeeper would become public. Breaking the law tends to lead to more law-breaking; it isn't possible to pay employment taxes on someone who is living and working illegally. In the case of the nominee his situation was particularly embarrassing because as head of Homeland Security he would have been expected to enforce immigration laws and help find ways for immigration laws to be enforced more effectively (Sanchez, 2004).

CURRENT PUBLIC POLICY

At the federal level, we are unprepared to deal with illegal immigrants. The federal government has space to house only about 19,500 illegal immigrants, with every space occupied. A law passed by congress in an attempt to help future terrorism attacks passed, and this law should expand capacity, but it's not clear how quickly or completely this can be done. (Johnson, 2005) In addition, much of the information held by the United States government on illegal immigrants is out of date. So, while immigration officials estimate that there are about 400,000 illegals in the country, they can't be sure. They don't know whether that number is accurate or not (Johnson, 2005).

Because we have no way to hold all the illegal immigrants caught, the government has taken a "catch and release" approach, sort of like being released on one's own recognance after being arrested for some crimes. The problem is that most people who are released on their own recognance have roots in the community, a fairly permanent address and a job. If they don't report back to the court as required to, the court knows where to find them. The situation for illegal immigrants, however, is quite different. But since the government is out of space to hold them, they have no choice.

Many illegal immigrants know this. As soon as they have crossed the border, they present themselves to the Border Police, knowing that they will be released if they agree to appear in court. However, five out of six skip their court dates and become fugitives. However, they are fugitives in a system that has little capability to trace their location (Johnson, 2005).

POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS

Federal

Recognizing that we don't know who is here illegally but that many illegal immigrants hold jobs, President Bush has proposed giving legal status as "guest workers" to those already here and employed. This would at least identify some of these unknown residents and provide some sort of accurate information about where they are. However, many people are opposed to this policy. They see it as rewarding people for sneaking into the country.

Another option is the "Real ID Act. This law attempts to maintain the country's willingness to welcome people from other countries while watching out for the nation's security. The law would use driver's licenses, asylum laws, a border fence south of San Diego and increased deportation. This law's supporters believe that the combination of open borders and failure to enforce immigration laws make it far too easy for terrorists to enter the country and then disappear. The law would require substantial evidence of both identity and immigration status before issuing either driver's licenses or state identity cards. The cards themselves would be made harder to forge.

The "Real ID" bill would: Establish rigorous proof of identity and immigration status requirements for all applicants for driver's licenses and state- issued identity cards, as well as strong security requirements for all cards issued (CHP, 2005). It would toughen requests for asylum, accelerate construction of a border fence between southern California and Mexico, which has run into opposition from environmental concerns, and strengthen authority to deport those suspected of being terrorists (CHP, 2005).

State

Individual states have taken steps to curb illegal immigration as well. Arizona, like California, shares a border with Mexico, and feels that its agencies and finances have been unduly impacted by the needs of people who entered the country illegally. Arizona now requires proof that an immigrant is in the country legally before the person and his or her family can receive some government services. It requires proof of citizenship in order to vote. In addition, the government workers who enforce this law are subject to fine and/or jail time if they do not report illegal immigrants who attempt to get state services (Shoren, 2004). This initiative is known as "Proposition 200." California, Colorado, Idaho and Georgia are all considering similar laws (Radelat, 2004b).

Other states are frustrated that the federal government provides inadequate support for dealing with the ever-growing numbers of illegal aliens. The National Immigration Forum says that the numbers of illegal immigrants is in the millions, and that states must find solutions to cope with the high numbers (Radelat, 2004b). Both Florida and Alabama have initiated programs that allow their local authorities to enforce federal immigration laws. Virginia and Arkansas may follow in their footsteps (Radelat, 2004b).

While some states, such as Arizona, have passed laws intended to discourage illegal immigration, other states have taken a different approach. These states have decided that many undocumented immigrants can make a contribution to society, and that some federal restrictions should be loosened (Radelat, 2004b).

Since our government reserves some areas for federal law and some are turned over to states for administration and enforcement, some friction has developed particularly around the issue of driver's license. Ten states currently allow illegal immigrants to get driver's licenses, although Tennessee marks such licenses "for driving purposes only." (Radelat, 2004b) Illinois may soon allow illegal immigrants to acquire driver's license as well, because both the insurance industry and immigration advocates have convinced the legislature of Illinois that it's much safer to make sure that people who drive have passed a driving test and are competent to do so. However, critics recognize the driver's license as an important piece of personal identification and do not think those who are here illegally should be able to acquire one (Radelat, 2004b).

Eight states go much further. They provide tuition rebates to the children of illegal immigrants who attend state colleges and universities, even though this means they lose some federal education funds because of it (Radelat, 2004b). Those states include California, Illinois, Kansas, New York, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah and Washington (Radelat, 2004b). This type of approach recognizes that the illegal immigrants and their children are here, and tries to provide a path to help them become more productive members of society.

PROPOSED CHANGES

President Bush's proposal, to give legal status to illegal immigrants already here, has an economic goal, to match the "guest worker" with employers willing to hire them (Dobbs, 2005). However, critics argue that such a program will simply increase the number of people who want to come to the United States using illegal means if necessary. In addition, illegal workers need no federal program to find willing employers. The United States has used undocumented immigrants for decades in such jobs as low-level service and in agriculture. It seems unlikely that Bush's proposal will do anything to solve the problem. Illegal immigrants know that they can be deported at any time and may be reluctant to participate in such a program, particularly since they don't need that program to accomplish their goal -- get a job in the United States.

Instead, some feel that Congress needs to focus on stemming the tide of illegal immigrants through the approach of controlling the issuance of driver's licenses, tightening asylum laws, fencing part of the border with Mexico, and increased use of deportation. These critics feel that illegal immigrants take advantage of our country's compassionate nature and support the idea of the "Real ID." They see the current rules regarding asylum as "bizarre" (CHP, 2005). The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, located in San Francisco, has granted asylum to applicants who state that they face political persecution at home because their home country believes them to be terrorists. This stand, that a person should be given entry to the United States because he or she is suspected of being a terrorist, is troubling to those who see our immigration problems as a national security threat as well as an economic and social problem. Critics of this asylum policy argue that asylum law is being used as a way for terrorists to enter the United States.

These people also support increased controls on the issuance of state drivers licenses and identity cards, making the cards more tamper-proof and forge-resistant, and elimination of "negotiated rules" for acquisition of these identity documents for illegal immigrants. They support the bill saying that those who are aligned in any way with terrorist organizations will be barred from entering the United States. This includes people who have funded terrorist organizations "if they knew, or reasonably should have known, that they were contributing to a terrorist organization" (CHP, 2005). If such people are already in the country, they are to be deported.

Some members of Congress intend to use amendments to bills currently up for approval to achieve some goals regarding immigration law. They intend to add an amendment that would effectively block states from issuing drivers licenses to illegal aliens by requiring that all aliens hold documents demonstrating their legal right to be in the United States. This would amount to a national identification card for aliens (U.S. Newswire, 2005). However, this approach also has critics. The critic point out that such a policy might well undermine national security, because it ignores the need to focus assets (both financial and personnel) at people most likely to represent a real thret to our country, and the fact that such a document would have high commercial value on the black market. They point out that our country already holds 13 million illegal aliens (U.S. Newswire, 2005), demonstrating that our borders are not secure. By not allowing illegal aliens to get driver's licenses, they argue, otherwise law-abiding aliens are now included with those who may be terrorists. Instead of defining and narrowing the list of possible terrorists, the category becomes cluttered with many people who should not be looked at in that way. In addition there is no guarantee that government workers could know with confidence who should and should not be issued such identification papers. Since those who are not approved would probably be deported, it would be hard to gain the cooperation of the target group of illegal immigrants. Critics argue that any solution must take the "porous" nature of our borders (U.S. Newswire, 2005). They argue that any plan put into action should encourage illegal aliens to participate, not put them at a perceived higher risk of being forced back to their country of origin.

Homeland Security

However, critics argue that we are already looking for needles in haystacks when we attempt to determine which illegal aliens are a threat to natural security. The approach of requiring identity documents would "guarantee a larger haystack in which terrorists can hide" (U.S. Newswire, 2005) instead of separating out those who are threat from those who, while here illegally, are not here to participate in terrorist plots. High numbers of people classified as "of concern" to national security works in favor of terrorists and interferes with our ability to identify those people who are a true threat. In addition, the critics point out, we're already unable to cope with what information we do have on illegal aliens. Adding a new layer of rules, regulations and documents will stretch what is already an inadequate number of people trying to accomplish the complex job of dealing with illegal immigration.

Critics are also concerned about the tremendous financial incentive there would be to produce fraudulent identity papers. We know that people can already go to the black market to get false birth certificates, false social security cards, false driver's licenses, and even our most secure document -- passports. A terrorist in possession of all those documents plus false immigration status papers would find it easier, not harder, to avoid detection.

Critics are particularly concerned about the restrictions that may be placed on driver's licenses. Having either a driver's license or a state identity card that is the equivalent of a driver's license is crucial to living in the United States. People cannot write or cash checks without such a card. They can't rent a hotel room or get on a train or plane without one. There is tremendous motivation for illegal aliens to get a driver's license or substitute identity card, and when they do so, we then have some firm data on the person and where he or she lives. If we need to find this person, we have a starting point. If we make it harder to get these documents legitimately, the people who need them may well go to the black market to get fraudulent ones. No personal information will be recorded anywhere, and even if they are pulled over for a traffic violation, it is likely that the information on the card will be false. Those opposed to increased restrictions on driver's licenses believe that such restrictions would be counter-productive.

In fact, encouraging illegal aliens to get legitimate state identity (driver's license or non-driver's identification card) could markedly increase our ability to spot those who are of more concern, because those would be the people with counterfeited licenses.

Allowing illegal aliens to acquire driver's licenses could also have an economic benefit, because most states require drivers to have proof of auto insurance as well as requiring them to meet minim standards for driving skill as well as vision. Everyone benefits when drivers are insured. Since we do have many illegal aliens within our borders, it makes sense to encourage them to live here in a law-abiding way. Again, this could be one more way to separate those who are here illegally but who wish our country no harm from those who are here for terrorist purposes (U.S. Newswire, 2005).

However, anyone who considers these issues must realize that emotions often run strongly regarding illegal immigrants. Many people believe that they take jobs from legitimate residents of the United States in spite of the fact that few people who are well-established here are willing to work, for instance, as migrant workers, traveling from farm to pick beans, fruit and vegetables. This is an entry-level job for immigrants but a job not sought out by other people. Without immigrants, many of them here illegally, our agriculture industry would have a hard time getting their produce to market, and the price of food would rise substantially. In spite of the high emotionalism of this issue, the designation to deny driver's licenses to illegal aliens was removed from the counter-terrorism bill it was part of. Many experts believe that it should remain out of federal legislation as counter-productive to national security (U.S. Newswire, 2005).

When a plane carrying illegal immigrants was forced down earlier this month (Badger, 2005), the registration of the plain was traced. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) records shows the that plane was co-owned by two people, Afzal Hameed and Alyce S. Taylor. However, there was no address for Taylor, and the plane's registration had expired over one year before this incident. The agency mailed registration forms to Hameed at his listed address but the forms were not returned (Badger, 2005). These facts demonstrate that our problems with record-keeping as related to illegal immigration involve many policies and agencies, not just immigration and state driver's license bureaus. Even our passport system isn't secure; at least two of the terrorists who participated in the September 11, 2001 attacks entered the United States on fraudulent passports (Johnson, 2005).

Department of Homeland Security officials recognize that a more stern approach to illegal aliens probably could not have prevented the September 11 attacks. Most people listed as fugitive illegal immigrants have either made immigration officials aware of their presence by applying for asylum or by committing crimes. However, the September 11 terrorists were smart enough to keep a low profile and to draw no attention to themselves (Johnson, 2005).

WHAT DOES THE PUBLIC WANT?

Public views on the problem of illegal aliens are wide-ranging. Farmers need migrant workers to pick and process their crops. Many small businesses hire illegal aliens and find it a win/win situation for both them and the illegal aliens they hire, and would much prefer that the practice was legal. Even individuals sometimes hire illegal aliens either as day laborers, or as housekeepers or nannies for their children. While they are breaking the law when they do not pay social security taxes on these employees, the desire for illegal aliens to remain as unobtrusive as possible means that they do not always welcome such "benefits." Without a social security card, they will not be able to draw social security, but such documentation will make them more visible.

However, most people believe that we need to control the flow of both people and goods across our borders. Most people recognize that it was illegal aliens who flew planes into the World Trade Centers and the Pentagon, and they know that a porous border contributes to drug trafficking. In addition, many people resent the burden that the children of illegal immigrants place on our schools, and are angry if they believe that people who entered the country illegally are getting welfare benefits paid from the tax dollars of people who live here legitimately. While people worry about terrorism, they realize that terrorists represent a very small number of illegal aliens. They resent the financial burden they believe illegal aliens represent.