OPINION & EDITORIAL
Legal migration deserves reform
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by David Lapidus:
- Balance market, government roles (January 21, 2008)
Related Stories:
- Obama's charisma essential to victory (January 29, 2007)
- Barack Obama: Political St. Nick (October 15, 2007)
- I'll take a female president, just not her (December 3, 2007)
- Dems field diverse candidates (February 7, 2007)
- Obama: Visionary, not fraudulent (September 19, 2007)
by David Lapidus
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
The San Francisco Chronicle reported Monday that Sen. Barack
Obama has been highlighting his campaign’s support of driver’s licenses for
undocumented immigrants. I do not question Mr. Obama’s sincerity on this issue.
Unlike Sen. Hillary Clinton, he has not waffled on being for or against the
idea in public. Rather, what makes me distraught is the actual policy he
supports, not to mention his lack of political solutions to the issue of
illegal immigration.
Illegal immigration’s significance results first from its scale. According to a
2006 Pew Hispanic Center study, the estimated population of undocumented
immigrants living in the U.S. ranged from 11.5 to 12 million people. The rate
of illegal immigration is not insubstantial, either. The U.S. Government Accountability
Office estimated in 2006 that “between 400,000 and 700,000 illegal immigrants
have entered the United States each year since 1992.”
Second, illegal immigration affects us through its problematic relevance to a
wide array of domestic policy areas: economics, security, equality before the
law, human rights, education, health care, crime, and fiscal policy.
Unfortunately, political solutions to illegal immigration typically attack its
symptoms, as epitomized in the areas above, but not its cause. Policies like
Mr. Obama’s or Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner’s, R-WI, makes illegal immigration
a criminal offense and legal immigration more difficult to obtain. As a result,
such solutions can even exacerbate the problem. In Mr. Obama’s case, it can do
so by encouraging further illegal immigration; whereas in Mr. Sensenbrenner’s,
it can do so by creating an overwhelming fiscal, logistical and legal
obligation for the federal government.
Now it is necessary to ask what causes illegal immigration to occur in the United
States. For most undocumented immigrants, the answer is illegal immigration’s
net benefit relative to the legal alternative. For many, immigrating illegally
— even with all its risks — is worth it for being cheaper, faster and without
paperwork.
So how can we tip the incentives in favor of legal immigration? The answer is
to make legal immigration as easy and cheap as possible — without foregoing
national security precautions — and to make illegal immigration as difficult as
possible, without having the required enforcement mechanisms overwhelm our law
enforcement and justice system.
For most would-be undocumented immigrants — driven to immigrate to the U.S. by
poverty or a lack of economic mobility in their home country — the current U.S.
immigration visas are not practically attainable. The legal and logistical
exceptions to this rule are few: An immigrant’s family or employer is able to
help him or her with the fees and legal work required, and/or the immigrant has
at least an undergraduate education — an educational level not attained by most
would-be undocumented immigrants.
Visa reform is required to remove these obstacles to legal immigration.
Otherwise, the visa system will continue to possess barriers that reward
illegal immigration and are unfair to those who immigrate legally. Moreover,
illegal immigration can have its incentives deconstructed through the expansion
and improvement of border security, along U.S. borders and coasts.
Simultaneously, outside of violent criminals or potential terrorists who are
undocumented immigrants, it makes more sense to focus law enforcement on border
security rather than deportation.
After all, tipping the incentives in favor of legal immigration for new
immigrants is a lot easier than kicking out millions of undocumented immigrants
already here. Then, once the border is something closer to “sealed” by these
forces, we can focus on those undocumented immigrants still residing in the
United States. In this manner, we can avoid the mistakes of the 1986 amnesty
provision by attacking the cause of the problem first and then the leftover
side effects.
Unfortunately, the alternatives to this approach are variations of failure
comparable to the disastrous status quo. The hundreds of thousands of new,
undocumented immigrants entering the United States every year constitute a
security, economic, humanitarian, fiscal and law enforcement crisis. Comparable
crises would continue under the Obama approach of rewarding illegal immigration
with policies like allowing driver’s licenses for undocumented immigrants, or
the Sensenbrenner approach of making legal immigration more difficult while
overwhelming the U.S. legal system with criminalized illegal immigration.
Instead, in order to solve one of the greatest policy challenges of our time,
it is preferable to attack illegal immigration’s cause, not its symptoms.
David Lapidus (dlapidus@badgerherald.com) is a junior majoring in
economics and mathematics.
Anonymous (January 30, 2008 @ 7:20am):
Most of the people we count as illegal immigrants entered the country legally but overstayed their visas. How are we supposed to counter that?
Anonymous (January 30, 2008 @ 9:33am):
Bring the troops home from Germany, Korea and Japan, and put them to guarding our own borders. Concertina wire isn't that expensive.
BTW, this is much more a "Great Wall of China" to keep invaders out and has absolutely no relation to a Berlin Wall to keep citizens in.
Anonymous (January 30, 2008 @ 1:01pm):
"the Obama approach of rewarding illegal immigration with policies like allowing driverâs licenses for undocumented immigrants"
That's not true. It's not "rewarding," it's just a safety issue. I think your plan is great, and it's similar to McCain-Kennedy from a few years ago and Bush's plan, which is the only thing Bush has ever done right.
But what do you mean when you say "we can focus on those undocumented immigrants still residing in the United States"? You already said deportation is not the answer, so what is a possible solution? I'd say a path to citizenship, but I know a lot of people would be against that.
Anonymous (January 30, 2008 @ 2:43pm):
Yeah, the best way to deal with undocumented workers is by keeping them undocumented.
Anonymous (January 30, 2008 @ 4:41pm):
undocumented worker = ILLEGAL ALIEN = CRIMINAL
The best way to deal with them is deportation.
They are "undocumented workers" in the exact same way that bank robbers are "undocumented undepositors".
Anonymous (January 30, 2008 @ 5:44pm):
"Most of the people we count as illegal immigrants entered the country legally but overstayed their visas. How are we supposed to counter that?"
Your fact is wrong (see below), but you still make a valid point.
http://pewhispanic.org/files/factsheets/19.pdf
The Pew Hispanic Center estimates that in 2006 6 to 7 million of the total 11.5 to 12 million undocumented immigrants in the United States entered the country illegally and without inspection.
That is at least 50% of undocumented immigrants and this number has trended higher and higher over the years.
This doesn't mean we can't understate the other 50%, but the legal immigration precription isn't really that different between the two populations. Dealing with this demographic in a "sealing the border" manner requires making legal immigration - once someone is in the country - easier.
-David Lapidus
Anonymous (January 30, 2008 @ 6:09pm):
"Bring the troops home from Germany, Korea and Japan, and put them to guarding our own borders. Concertina wire isn't that expensive.
BTW, this is much more a "Great Wall of China" to keep invaders out and has absolutely no relation to a Berlin Wall to keep citizens in."
I'd rather we spent less money and effort and were instead more effectively attacking the problem's cause and not its symptoms.
"Yeah, the best way to deal with undocumented workers is by keeping them undocumented."
The best way of dealing with them is making it so they have no reason to immigrant illegally when they immigrate. Those already here we can deal with after âsealingâ the border.
âThat's not true. It's not "rewarding," it's just a safety issue.â
I believe that making government privileges âincluding driverâs licenses â available to undocumented immigrants gives incentive to immigrate illegally and that this outweighs any net-safety benefits. So we'll just have to agree to disagree on the driver's license issue.
âI think your plan is great, and it's similar to McCain-Kennedy from a few years ago and Bush's plan, which is the only thing Bush has ever done right.â
But what do you mean when you say "we can focus on those undocumented immigrants still residing in the United States"? You already said deportation is not the answer, so what is a possible solution? I'd say a path to citizenship, but I know a lot of people would be against that.â
Deportation or a path to citizenship could be the answer when we get to this point, but "sealing" the border is a far higher priority for now. Dividing and conquering the problem is preferable to juggling every aspect of illegal immigration at once.
"undocumented worker = ILLEGAL ALIEN = CRIMINAL
The best way to deal with them is deportation.
They are "undocumented workers" in the exact same way that bank robbers are "undocumented undepositors"."
Mass deportation right now means depleting our law enforcement resources â to solve a problem that won't be going away â since we aren't solving the problem, only its outcomes, with your policy. Iâd rather we divided the issue into those entering the US and those already here and conquered each aspect one at a time. Due to the fact that the former makes more sense to deal with first we should deal with it first.
In short: what you are advocating is overwhelming our ability to deal with illegal immigration by attacking every symptom and cause at once. Instead, I am recommending a more strategic divide and conquer approach.
-David Lapidus
Add a comment
We welcome your thoughts, but please keep your feedback thoughtful, on-topic and respectful. Offensive language, personal attacks, or irrelevant comments may be deleted.
Login...
Not registered? Sign up now.
It's quick, free, and the email address you provide will not be sold or solicited.
