This blog contains an updated and revised version of my book Illegal Immigration -- The Myths and the Reality (available from Amazon.com). This blog version of the book will always be a work in progress with periodic updatings.
CONTENTS
Preface
Illegal Immigration Myths
Introduction
A Brief History of U.S. Legal Immigration
Reasons Illegal Immigrants Come to the United States
Birthright Citizenship
The United States – The Free HMO to the World
Illegal Border Crossings
Visa Overstays
The Diversity Visa Lottery
Temporary Guest Worker Programs for Low-Skilled Labor
Gaming the Asylum System
Current Estimated Illegal Immigrant Population
Reservoir of Potential Illegal Immigrants
The Absence of Immigration Law Enforcement
Immigration Law Enforcement Under President Obama
We Discourage the Immigration of the Best and the Brightest
The Economic Beneficiaries of Our Illegal Immigration
Americans Most Harmed by Current Immigration Policies
Some Consequences of Our Illegal Immigration
Undermining the Rule of Law
Health Issues
Our Illegal Immigrants – Most Are a Fiscal Net Loss
Illegal Immigrant Impact on U.S. Labor Markets
Subsidizing the Employers of Illegal Immigrants
Illegal Immigrant Labor in Agriculture
A Brief Review of History of Amnesties
Problems with Any New Amnesty
The Status Quo is a De Facto Amnesty for Many
Pressure on State and Local Governments to Act
The Evolving Democratic Party Approach to Immigration
Congressional Actions on Immigration 2005-2006
Congressional Actions on Immigration May-June 2007
President Obama's Immigration Legislation Objectives
Four Reasons Why the Impact of Our Illegal Immigration Is, Has Been, and Will Be Greater than Might Be Expected
Conclusion
Proposals for Minimizing Future Illegal Immigration
Endnotes
Appendixes:
A) Details Related to Arizona's SB1070
B) Immigration Background of the 2010 Times Square Bomber
C) Illegal Immigrants Access Welfare Via IRS
D) 11 Percent of Current Population Traced to Illegal Immigration
E) Asylum Cases of President Obama's Aunt and Uncle
F) Illegal Immigrants Receive Billions of Dollars More from the IRS than They Pay in
PREFACE
Others, such as Vernon M. Briggs, Jr. of Cornell University, author of Mass Immigration and the National Interest, have written excellent books which put our immigration situation of today into historical perspective. It is not intended that this book add to their work. Rather the goal here is to provide the reader with insights into what is going on currently and what might be done to improve the situation for our citizens.
ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION MYTHS
There are many misconceptions concerning illegal immigration. The ones cited below as “myths” are among those many believe to be true. More information is provided regarding these in later sections of the book.
• Myth 1 – Illegal immigrants are only taking jobs that Americans do not want to do.
In the words of Michael S. Dukakis (former U.S. Senator from Massachusetts and the 1988 Democratic nominee for President) and Daniel J.B. Mitchell:
It is nonsense to say, as President Bush did recently, that these jobs are filled by illegal immigrants because Americans won’t do them. Before we had mass illegal immigration in this country, hotel beds were made, office floors were cleaned, restaurant dishes were washed and crops were picked – by Americans. Americans will work at jobs that are risky, dirty or unpleasant so long as they provide decent wages and working conditions, especially if employers also provide health insurance. Plenty of Americans now work in such jobs, from mining coal to picking up the garbage. The difference is that they are paid a decent wage and provided benefits for their labor.1
In short, our legal and illegal immigration of predominately little-educated individuals is taking jobs away from some American citizens who have little education and reducing the wages and benefits of many others. Even so, many American-born citizens still work at jobs which are favored by immigrants and supposedly shunned by Americans. For example, publicly available data for the United States for the second quarter of 2010 show that American-born workers still constituted 71 percent of janitors and building cleaners, 50 percent of maids and housekeeping cleaners, 61 percent of grounds maintenance workers, 52 percent of micscellaneous agricultural workers, 59 percent of construction laborers, and 58 percent of dishwashers.1a And if there were no little-educated legal or illegal immigrant workers in our work force, there are many millions of unemployed Americans who might well be interested in their jobs. Indeed, 11.5 million individuals or 84 percent of our current total unemployed of 13.7 million have not graduated from a four-year college, and therefore have significant educational constraints on the kinds of jobs available to them.1b
• Myth 2 – The federal government is doing something to limit illegal immigration.
Federal government actions – border enforcement and a handful of employer prosecutions – are not discouraging illegal immigration. Indeed, federal actions are very much encouraging illegal immigrants of little education from all over the world. With no penalty for attempting an unauthorized crossing of the border, crossers keep trying as many times as necessary to make a successful crossing. Moreover, a significant fraction of our illegal immigrants do not even enter by crossing our Mexican border. They arrive at U.S. airports legally on visas from all over the world for such purposes as tourism, visiting relatives, pursuing an education, or conducting business. After arriving in the United States, they overstay the time limits on their visas, find employment, and establish themselves as residents of our country. Illegal immigrants fully understand our current federal government policy: get past the border and you can stay indefinitely unless convicted of a significant crime here. This knowledge gets communicated to friends and relatives in their native lands.
• Myth 3 – Securing our Mexican border is all we have to do to eliminate most illegal immigration.
Securing the Mexican border will be helpful in slowing illegal immigration from Mexico. Anything which increases the cost and difficulty of illegal entry will tend to diminish immigration numbers. Unfortunately our government does not have the resolve to do what is necessary to come close to sealing the border. Despite new fencing, substantial numbers of immigrants on their own and with the aid of immigrant smugglers are continuing to make illegal entries into the United States. However, it must be remembered that sealing the border is only part of a larger picture of what needs to be done to bring illegal immigration to a halt. Even if we could find the will and means to completely seal the Mexican border, motivated immigrants and immigrant smugglers will employ alternatives to gain entry into the United States. They could shift to trying to enter the United States legally on a visa or flying commercially to Canada and crossing our open and much harder to defend northern border.
• Myth 4 – Illegal immigrants do not collect welfare payments.
The children of illegal immigrants born in the United States are automatically given U.S. citizenship. Through their citizen children and their low incomes, illegal immigrants can and do access various welfare programs. Moreover, there are indications that at least some welfare programs are not insisting on proof of citizenship for participants. One study shows that over 50% of illegal immigrants from Mexico make use of at least one welfare program, with 44% accessing a form of food assistance and 31% accessing Medicaid.1c It should also be noted that millions of illegal immigrants filing for tax refunds under ITINs have collected billions of dollars from the Internal Revenue Service from the Additional Child Tax Credit which can be interpreted as a form of welfare because the credits are refundable to low income families with no income tax liability.1d
• Myth 5 – Illegal immigrants pay taxes which exceed their use of government services.
In reality, immigrant use of public services exceeds their tax payments. At the head of the list of public services used are emergency health care and children’s education (at $8,000 per pupil per year national average cost). Taxes paid are low because our illegal immigrants typically arrive with poor educations and generally work in low paying jobs. Moreover, an estimated 50 percent work “off the books” and therefore pay no income or social security taxes. It should also be noted that increasingly, immigrants are bringing poor elderly relatives into the United States who do not work and who can be expected to incur substantial unpaid medical expenses. With regards to federal income taxes, there are data from the IRS which show that in the last six years illegal immigrants have received billions of dollars more from the IRS than they have paid in.1e
• Myth 6 – American citizens of Hispanic ethnicity overwhelmingly favor illegal immigration.
This myth is used by politicians and Hispanic lobbying groups to justify not enforcing our immigration laws with the implied threat of a significant backlash at the ballot box. However, there is good evidence that the majority of Hispanic voters, especially those born in the United States, favor enforcing our immigration laws. This is to be expected since they know as well as any group of voters about the downside of unrestrained illegal immigration, including depressed wages and fewer available jobs in unskilled occupations. A nationwide survey conducted by the Pew Hispanic Center found that 70 percent of Latinos born in the United States, all U.S. citizens by definition, believed that our government should create a legal worker database and require all employers to use it.1f
• Myth 7 – It is hypocritical for the United States to turn away today’s poor illegal immigrants because we are a nation of immigrants with nearly all of us being descendants of earlier immigrants.
Our country has changed greatly since the days of the earlier mass immigrations when we had a large need for unskilled laborers. The earlier periods of immigration helped us to become the great nation that we are today and were based on legal immigration. For a number of reasons new federal laws were passed in the 1920s to much restrict legal immigration. Moreover, most of our jobs now require higher levels of education and skills than in the past. Absorbing large numbers of poor and little-educated immigrants into our society today is more burdensome and disruptive than it was in the past when our public benefits were much smaller, the standard of living and average education of our citizens was much lower, and most jobs required unskilled labor. We are making great and costly efforts to eliminate poverty in the United States and we are importing much more poverty at the same time.
• Myth 8 – Guest worker programs for unskilled foreign workers reduce illegal immigration and are beneficial to our country.
The theory here is that if we bring in legal guest workers, this will reduce the number of jobs available to illegal immigrants and thereby reduce the number of illegal immigrants. In fact the unskilled guest worker programs take jobs away from some unskilled Americans and keep wages and benefits down for others in exactly the same way that the inflow of illegal immigrants does. Such guest worker programs represent nothing more than politicians voting to enrich their business constituents who have demands for inexpensive, unskilled labor. Over time many guest workers either become illegal immigrants by walking away from their guest worker jobs (which limit their incomes and freedom to find different jobs or employers) or become legal permanent residents by marrying a citizen or other means. Meanwhile, the incentives to become illegal immigrants are still there for all those who wish to come here who are not guest workers.
• Myth 9 – Illegal immigrant farm workers or immigrant guest farm workers are necessary to keep down the cost of food for Americans.
Grain agriculture is highly mechanized, employs few illegal immigrants, and is little affected by agricultural labor costs. By contrast, fruit, vegetable, and greenhouse agriculture, which represents only 20% of the nation’s agricultural sales, is more labor intensive and employs most of our agricultural workers. However, the agricultural labor component of the retail prices of fruits and vegetables is very small, being overwhelmed by all of the other costs that go into producing and bringing fruit and vegetables to market. The result is that large increases in the cost of agricultural labor which would result from the absence of immigrant farm labor would have a very small impact on the fruit and vegetable prices paid by consumers.
INTRODUCTION
"...the problem is one of the U.S.’s own making. The government doesn’t want to fix it, and politicians, as usual are dodging the issue, even though public-opinion polls show that Americans overwhelmingly favor a crackdown on illegal immigration."2 Donald L. Barlett and James B. Steele
Pulitzer Prize winning reporters
Our nation of today would never approve unlimited immigration at the ballot box. Indeed, a recent nationwide poll found that 61 percent of Americans (and 64 percent of registered voters) supported the new Arizona immigration law which was strongly condemned by President Obama and other Democratic Party politicians.2a Nevertheless, permitting unlimited immigration has been the unspoken policy of our national government for many years. We have ineffective border enforcement, no monitoring of visa overstays, and workplace enforcement that is close to being nonexistent.
Once inside our country, illegal immigrants find that they can get jobs and housing and generally take up a normal life here. Free education is available for their children, free high quality health care is available for the uninsured who cannot afford to pay, and welfare is available through our income tax system as well as their American born children who are given automatic citizenship. An immigrant path to citizenship has been made available via periodic amnesties, and between amnesties immigrants are able to gain citizenship in other ways facilitated by being here illegally. The immigrants are left alone to live and work in the United States as long as they are not convicted of a crime.
Our immigration policies are discouraging the best and brightest potential immigrants who have good alternatives to living in the United States. The highly educated and skilled are reluctant to violate our immigration laws, take the low paying jobs most available to illegal immigrants, or wait many years to immigrate legally. The immigrants that are illegally living in the United States are primarily ones that are poor and poorly educated who have nothing to lose and much to gain by coming here and accepting the low-paying jobs that are readily available to them. These poor immigrants are communicating the many advantages of living here to their friends and relatives living all over the world.
There is no upper limit to the number of illegal immigrants that may enter our country. Even if the United States is in a recession and jobs are more difficult to find, immigrants who are unemployed in their economically distressed home countries will continue to come here. Most are able to stay with friends or relatives until they get established, and thereby enjoy the benefits of living in the United States whether or not they have regular employment. Given the ease of entry, the incentives to take up life here, and the knowledge of our lack of immigration law enforcement, it is not surprising that their numbers have been increasing over the years. Indeed, illegal immigration from all over the world since the 1980s now accounts for at least 11 percent of our nation’s current population.3 This includes today’s illegal immigrant population and their children, plus past illegal immigrants that have been given legal status and their children, and the foreign relatives of those given legal status that have been sponsored for legal immigration and their children. The sheer number of the new immigrants and their children puts pressures on our public services, reducing the availability and quality of these to our citizens.
Some factors which contribute to a lack of political will on the part of our federal government to enforce our immigration laws are:
• Many businesses and individuals have become accustomed to hiring and benefiting from inexpensive immigrant labor.
• Many of our elected officials are quick to champion the immigrant labor needs of their business constituents.
• Immigration attorneys and lobbyists that represent those favoring the continuation of large-scale immigration have significant influence in Washington.
• Under the banner of humanitarian concerns, immigrant causes are often championed by Hispanic organizations, church groups led by the Catholic Church, and the leaders of countries with many illegal immigrants in the United States.4
• The press is generally sympathetic to illegal immigration.5
• Some members of Congress may fear that immigration law enforcement will alienate most Hispanic voters despite some evidence to the contrary.5a
• Some Democrats in Congress may see advantages in unofficially promoting low-income legal and illegal immigration which will likely lead to future low-income voters who tend to favor Democratic candidates. Moreover, because illegal immigrants tend to live in heavily Democratic districts of heavily Democratic states like California and New York, these states get immediate extra Democratic representation in Congress because our national census does not distinguish between legal and illegal residents. Similarly, the census statistics help Democrats dominate the state legislatures of states with large illegal immigrant populations.
The little-organized majority of voters who consistently favor curtailing illegal immigration have been no match for the vocal and influential immigration advocates. Despite the will of the majority and the law of the land, it has been the immigration policy of recent Presidents to order very little enforcement of the country’s immigration laws other than the token enforcement at our southern border.
Many Americans have sympathy for and wish to help the poor and downtrodden of the world. However, helping the world’s disadvantaged by admitting them to our country has limitations and drawbacks. Although there are some benefits to us from taking in limited numbers of the hardworking poor of the world, there are also significant costs which cannot be ignored.
The benefits of our illegal immigration mostly accrue to those Americans or American companies that directly or indirectly employ immigrants at low wages. The benefiting employers and company owners tend to be in the middle and upper income brackets.
Our own lower-income and little-educated citizens directly bear costs from our illegal immigration. It is they who must compete with the immigrants for jobs. And in this competition, it is they that suffer reduced job availability and lower wages and benefits. Moreover, the benefits of our various social safety net programs for own lower-income citizens are diluted by the addition of large numbers of poor immigrants to our country. In short, it is contradictory policy to make great and costly efforts to eradicate poverty in our country and simultaneously permit large numbers of disadvantaged immigrants to take up residence here.
Most of our illegal immigrants are good people who are willing to work hard. However, it would be of greater benefit to all existing American citizens for our government to select a smaller number of more educated and skilled immigrants as needed, rather than let our illegal immigrants select themselves without limit. The more educated and skilled immigrants would add more to the economic output of the country, pay more in taxes, and use a smaller amount of public services than do our typical illegal immigrants. With their socio-economic status being closer to the U.S. average, the better educated and more skilled immigrants and their children would also assimilate more easily on the average.
If we prevented low-skilled illegal immigration, we would have to do more of our own house and yard work possibly with the help of our children (who would also have new opportunities for part-time and summer jobs) or alternatively, we would have to pay more for these types of services. Paying more would benefit our country’s low income citizens who would have more job opportunities at higher wages. Similarly, the absence of low-skilled illegal immigration would also result in higher wages and new job opportunities for our low income citizens in labor intensive businesses such as those involved with fruit and vegetable agriculture, construction, restaurants, or hotels and motels.
A BRIEF HISTORY OF U.S. LEGAL IMMIGRATION
Prior to the 1920s legal immigration into the United States was little restricted with two major exceptions: immigration from China was barred after 1882 and immigration from Japan was barred after 1908. New federal laws introduced in the early 1920s significantly restricted all legal immigration with annual limitations set far below what would have prevailed if the earlier immigration policies had been allowed to continue.
The push for the 1920s immigration restrictions came from widely different groups. Some had religious prejudices, some focused on assimilation problems, and some were concerned that radical immigrants would destabilize the labor force. Also at that time, many labor unionists and others believed that unbridled immigration was having a negative effect on wages, job availability, and union organizing.
Beginning in the 1960s, modifications were made to the 1920s immigration laws which have increased the annual number and diversity of legal immigrants. In addition, large numbers of political refugees from Cuba, Southeast Asia, Nicaragua, Russia, Haiti and other countries were allowed to become legal permanent residents of the United States. Concurrently there has been a surge in the illegal immigration of economic refugees, those that come here seeking jobs and a higher standard of living. If they had gone through our official channels, most of these economic refugees would have had to wait for many years before it would be their turn to take up legal residence in the United States due to the existing annual ceilings for legal immigration. Rather than wait their turn, they chose to enter this country and take up residence here in violation of our federal immigration laws in order to improve their lives sooner rather than later. This illegal immigration surge has completely overwhelmed our meager manpower and systems assigned to contain it.
Our present legal immigration system discourages the immigration of individuals with advanced educational backgrounds and skills that would benefit our country. Instead of giving preferences to the best and brightest immigrants whose talents are in short supply here, since 1965 our legal immigration system gives most preferences to the close relatives of citizens. Since it is the recently legalized citizens, including many millions of formerly illegal immigrants legalized by amnesties and other means, who have by far the largest number of close relatives living outside the United States, the typical characteristics of our legal immigrants are now mirroring that of our illegal immigrants – poor, low-skilled, and little educated. Moreover, the amount of permitted legal immigration, including the admission of refugees and asylum seekers who also tend to be poor and unskilled, has been trending up over time and is now running about twice the level it had been prior to the 1990s.
By today’s immigration laws, citizens who are at least 21 years old are entitled to sponsor parents, siblings and their families, and married children as future legal immigrants, subject to annual limitations on category totals. This can be the start of an extended chain of legal immigration with the spouses of siblings or spouses of married children having entirely different families of their own that they will be able in turn to bring into the United States, all subject to annual limitations. The annual limits on some categories of family-sponsored preferences has led to a current immigration waitlist of an estimated eight million “overseas” relatives of American citizens, many of whom are living in the U.S. illegally today rather than wait outside the country for what is likely to be many years before it will be their turn to enter legally.5b
Legal immigration has been subject to large-scale fraud as shown by DNA testing. In August 2008 a humanitarian program to allow the reuniting of thousands of African refugees with relatives living in the United States was suspended after it was discovered through DNA tests that a "large portion" of the the "relatives" from Kenya, Ethiopia, Uganda, Guinea, and Ghana were not the blood relatives that they claimed to be. "We had high rates of fraud everywhere, except the Ivory Coast," said a State Department official.5c
Who knows how much past legal immigration has been fraudulent? In addition to the possibility of false claims of being blood relatives, it is well known that many immigrants gain legal residence here through fraudulent marriages to American citizens, sometimes referred to as "green-card marriages." Some Americans participate in green-card marriages out of sympathy for the foreigner, some do it for money, and some are deceived into thinking the foreigner is in love with them. In most of the green-card marriage cases the foreigner is already living illegally in the U.S. when the plan is conceived and executed.
During the 2006-2008 period, our government designated between 1 million and 1.3 million new legal permanent residents for each year, about two-thirds of whom were classified as receiving family-sponsored preferences. Many of these new family-sponsored immigrants were poor and desperate to gain legal entry to the United States. It is possible that there were many fraudulent cases among these.
That part of the Department of Homeland Security that handles legal immigration applications and applications of foreigners to work in the United States is called the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). It does not have the staff to properly examine and process in a timely way the millions of applications it receives every year. With various political pressures to expedite the processing and approve applicants, the culture of the organization has developed into one that emphasizes and rewards the speed of processing rather than careful review to determine the validity of the various applications. Consequently, many fraudulent applicants have been approved to work and live in the United States.5d
REASONS ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS COME TO THE UNITED STATES
Most of our illegal immigrants come here for the employment opportunities, the lowest paying of which enable them to earn many multiples of what they could earn in their home countries, if they could find employment there at all. They can easily obtain jobs by using social security numbers that are not theirs or they can work “off the books.” Burdened by pervasive corruption, lawlessness, and institutional deficiencies, Mexico and many other Latin American countries have been unable to provide adequate employment opportunities for their citizens. The combined unemployment rate and underemployment rate in Mexico is currently estimated at around 28 percent,6 a level which the United States has not seen since the Great Depression. And this high unemployment level is after many millions of Mexicans have emigrated to the United States! In fact, 60 percent of the Mexican population now has relatives in the United States, providing an added incentive for many Mexicans to come to this country.7 Widespread poverty and unemployment in Asian and African countries has also led many to come here from these continents in order to start a new life here as illegal immigrants.
To head off possible political unrest and reduce government expenses such as public health and education expenditures or public assistance, Mexico and other high-unemployment Central and South American countries have not discouraged, and perhaps have even encouraged, the emigration of their poor and unemployed to the United States. Moreover, through emigration these countries are able to benefit from remittances, the tens of billions of dollars earned here by immigrants, which are sent to their relatives living mostly in poverty throughout Latin America.
Illegal immigrants also come for a better quality of life and government benefits that are unheard of in their home countries. In addition to our political stability, good law enforcement, and relative lack of corruption, we offer automatic citizenship for children of illegal immigrants born here (we are one of the few developed countries that follow this practice), free education for children of illegal immigrants as required by Supreme Court decision,8 and health care services through emergency room and hospital treatment as required by federal law.9
Through their American born children, illegal immigrant parents with low incomes are eligible for various federal welfare benefits such as food stamps, public housing, and Medicaid. Additionally, there is some evidence that welfare authorities do not always ask about citizenship status or verify whether assertions of, or documents submitted by, welfare applicants are truthful regarding citizenship status. In some instances state officials may even be forbidden to inquire about the applicants’ citizenship status.10 As noted in the Myth 4, a study has found that more than 50% of illegal immigrants access at least one major welfare program and this does not include those obtaining welfare-like payments from our income tax system as discussed in the next paragraph.
Beyond receiving welfare directly, illegal immigrants have been obtaining billions of dollars of welfare-oriented payments from our income tax system. They do this by filing for income tax refunds with ITIN numbers and claiming credits under the Additional Child Tax Credit which leads to a refund payment when zero income taxes are due. Using ITINs Illegal immigrants filing 1.2 million tax returns with no tax liability collected $1.8 billion in checks from the IRS from the Additional Child Tax Credit in the 2007 tax year.10a
BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP
Birthright citizenship is the term given to the automatic citizenship granted to children born in the United States. This policy has been applied to the children of illegal immigrant parents here more by historical accident in executive branch policy than by any specific language in the constitution or enacted federal legislation. Until mass illegal immigration began in the 1970's and 1980's, whether or not birthright citizenship was authorized by the federal government was of little consequence and received little attention from federal legislators. Surveys show that most Americans are opposed to the automatic granting of citizenship to children born here whose parents are both illegal immigrants.
The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution which was enacted shortly after the Civil War in order to make it difficult for the South to ever again deprive blacks of their citizenship rights. It has a clause that states "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside." Whether or not this applies to the children illegal immigrant parents turns on what is meant by the clause "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." Examination of the entire Fourteenth Amendment and the intent of its authors does not lead one to conclude that birthright citizenship for the children of illegal immigrant parents was ever an intended result of the authors.10b
As applied to the children of illegal immigrants, birthright citizenship has no logical justification – why should children born of parents who are in this country in violation of our laws be rewarded only because their parents are illegally in the country? This practice encourages illegal immigration since it offers foreigners an opportunity to obtain a very valuable life benefit for their newborn children. And under our present immigration law, the children can return the favor when they are 21 and sponsor their parents for citizenship if they have not already become citizens by amnesty or other means. Moreover, birthright citizenship rewards the poor illegal immigrant parents since it enables them to immediately obtain some welfare benefits through their American born children. These benefits along with high quality medical care through hospital emergency rooms and free education for children further encourage illegal immigration and giving birth to children in the United States. In addition, many illegal immigrants believe that having American born children will provide them with some protection against deportation on the grounds that immigration judges will be reluctant to issue rulings which might break up families.11 All of the above may contribute to the finding that for Mexican immigrants (legal and illegal) in the United States, fertility averages 3.5 children per woman compared with 2.4 children per woman in Mexico and 2.0 for all Americans.12
Of all countries with advanced economies, today only the United States and Canada award birthright citizenship to children whose parents are both illegal immigrants.12a Great Britain eliminated this practice effective 1983. Australia significantly restricted it effective 1986.13 Ireland eliminated it effective 2005, followed by New Zealand effective 2006.
Some legal scholars14 believe that all that is required to eliminate birthright citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants in the United States is an act of Congress which would essentially clarify Congress’s interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment. It is believed that the wording of the Fourteenth Amendment, the announced intent of the Amendment’s authors, and the “plenary” authority of Congress over naturalization issues argue for the success of such a course of action. Such legislation has been proposed from time to time, but none has advanced. For example, Rep. Deal (R-Ga.) with 95 co-sponsors at the time of writing have proposed a bill which would limit automatic citizenship to those cases where at least one parent was a citizen or a legal permanent resident.15 If such legislation gets enough support to become law, its validity would eventually be argued before the Supreme Court. Then the Supreme Court would either approve it or possibly rule that a new Constitutional amendment would be required to change the present practice of granting automatic citizenship to the children of illegal immigrant parents.
THE UNITED STATES – THE FREE HMO TO THE WORLD
By federal law, illegal immigrants (and uninsured citizens) cannot be denied hospital “emergency” medical care and few are insured. In practice, this has meant that hospitals, fearing lawsuits, examine and treat nearly all who enter their emergency rooms and admit them to the hospital if necessary whether or not they have any ability to pay for the services rendered. In some cases the required hospital care can cost millions of dollars and can go on for years.
Many illegal immigrants go to hospital emergency rooms when they have any medical needs, including childbirth. Indeed, some who are pregnant enter this country for the principal purpose of giving birth here, gaining free16 high-quality medical care for the childbirth and any complications as well as automatic U.S. citizenship for their newborn. In California, births and associated expenses of illegal immigrant women currently account for $400 million of the nearly $1 billion that the state Medi-Cal program spends on healthcare for illegal immigrants each year.17 For 2002, illegal immigrant births were estimated to number 380,000 nationwide, or about 10 percent of all births in the United States.18 With the continued growth of the illegal immigrant population since 2002, both of these birth statistics will likely be significantly higher for 2007.
The availability of no-cost high-quality “emergency” care can also be the primary reason that some foreigners with serious medical conditions enter the United States. Indeed, our present system sets us up to be the free HMO for the world. The more expensive the necessary drugs and treatments are, the more attractive it is for ill foreigners with poor medical options in their own countries to gain entry to the U.S. and present themselves to a hospital emergency room.19 Moreover, immigrants are increasingly bringing to the United States their elderly relatives who can be expected to incur substantial unpaid medical expenses in their remaining years.
Substantial illegal immigrant emergency room usage has contributed to overcrowding and financial burdens at many hospitals and some closures, all to the detriment of the communities that are dependent upon them. In California during 2005, hospitals spent at least $1 billion on health care for illegal immigrants that was not reimbursed by federal or state programs, according to federal government estimates.20 Hospital officials there have said that the health care system was being pushed to its limit. “Emergency rooms and hospital doctors are forced to subsidize the lack of immigration enforcement by the federal government,” said C. Duane Dauner, president of the California Hospital Association. California received $66 million in federal money in 2005, the first year of a four-year national program to help pay for emergency care for illegal immigrants. But it was “not even a down payment” on the total cost according to Mr. Dauner.21
Chris Van Gorder, president and chief executive of Scripps Health in San Diego County, California wrote in an op-ed in The San Diego Union – Tribune:
"And make no mistake, it is a broken system. Hospitals and physicians have been living with the effects of this crisis for some time now demonstrated by hospital closures …. in the past decade, more than 65 emergency rooms and more than 70 acute care hospitals have closed statewide…. care for the uninsured and underinsured comes at a price for all of us. When medical bills go unpaid, hospitals must shift the costs onto those who can [pay] – those with health insurance. This hidden tax – in the form of higher-priced premiums, deductibles and co-pays – costs each insured Californian $455 a year, according to a study released in December by the New America Foundation."22
A 2006 study ordered by the commissioners in Harris County, Texas which includes Houston, found that their patients who were immigrants without documents, most from Mexico, increased by 44 percent over the last three years, making such patients about 20 percent of all patients in their health system.23 Los Angeles County estimates that 30 percent of those treated by its health system are illegal immigrants who are costing the county $360 million per year.24
In a widely watched case, on July 27, 2009 a jury in Stuart, Florida found that a local hospital, Martin Memorial Medical Center (located in Martin County, Florida), did not act unreasonably when it chartered a plane at a cost of $30,000 and sent a seriously brain-damaged illegal-immigrant Guatemalan patient to a medical facility in his home country in 2003 after treating him from 2001 to 2003 at a cost of $1.5 million. The jury reached its decision in about one day of deliberations following a three week trial in which Martin Memorial was the defendant in a civil case. This case highlights the Catch-22 problem hospitals have with those indigent patients for whom hospitals receive little or no reimbursement for medical expenses: they cannot legally discharge the patient if the patient still needs medical care and there is no rehab facility or other hospital facility in this country or in the patient’s home country who will agree to take the patient. This Martin Memorial case may be the first to test the legality of cross-border transfers without the consent of patients or their guardians.
Following the jury’s decision the hospital’s chief executive praised the decision and decried the failure of politicians to provide reimbursement to hospitals for unpaid immigrant medical care. Moreover, he noted that: “Unfortunately none of the proposed national health care reform bills currently being debated in Washington address the issue.”24a
The following is from the April, 2009 testimony of a representative of Martin Memorial given before a committee of the Florida legislature:
“I am Carol Plato. I am from Martin County, and I am Director of Corporate Business Services for Martin Memorial Medical Center. I just have a brief couple of stories to tell you about. In 2001 we had a Guatemalan, an illegal patient, in our hospital. He was there from 2001 until 2003. He had over $1.5 million in healthcare services. We forcibly returned him to his home country of Guatemala at our own cost of $30,000. You ask why am I telling you about a case that happened in 2003? Because today that case is not over; we have spent and are spending up to a quarter of a million dollars in legal fees because his family here in the United States is suing us because they think it was inappropriate for us to return this illegal patient to his home country. Currently, as of today, I have a patient from Mexico who has been in my hospital for 760 days. He has severe brain damage, he has no family, no friends. His charges to date for almost 2 years is $1.5 million and we have contacted the Mexican Consulate four times; we have contacted Immigration, and nobody will help us return this patient to Mexico. We are even willing to spend our own $30,000 to return this patient. We can’t get anyone to help us with that. . . . One of the major problems that healthcare institutions have today that you need to be aware of is ongoing care. If somebody comes into our emergency rooms, we don’t turn them away, but if somebody comes into our emergency room and they have renal failure, and they require dialysis -- right now I have six patients, illegal, undocumented patients that we are seeing every 3 days for renal dialysis. For all of this that I’ve talked to you about, we have received no reimbursement. This obviously affects all of us in this room, our healthcare costs are severely affected by this. I also would like to end with pointing out that a large percentage of the babies born in our facility are from illegal parents.”
Chairman:
“Thank you. I do have one quick question from Representative (?)”
Representative:
“Sorry, I know there are a lot of speakers. Ma’am, when you know that they are illegal and come to your hospital, do you report them to the federal authorities to come get them?”
Carol Plato:
“We have tried and we have been told on numerous occasions that they are only interested if a crime has been committed. And from what I understand it seems like they are not even interested then.”
Representative:
“So the fact that they are illegal is not enough crime.”
Carol Plato:
“Correct”
ILLEGAL BORDER CROSSINGS
Mexicans cannot use passports alone to enter the U.S. They need a visa, that is advance approval of the U.S. State Department (see next chapter), or special documents such as those for working in the United States. For Mexicans who cannot or do not obtain advance approval to enter the U.S. legally, there is the alternative of trying an illegal border crossing. Such unauthorized crossings constitute one of the two principal sources of our illegal immigration.
Known terrorists or sympathizers from terrorist countries similarly have a motive to enter the United States by crossing the Mexican border. Every year hundreds from terrorist countries are caught by the Border Patrol. Some have even learned Spanish so the can more easily mix in with the many illegal crossers from Mexico.
Among unauthorized crossers are those who have been deported earlier for criminal activity in the United States. They try for an illegal crossing because it is difficult for them to enter the U.S. legally in some way. There is evidence that the number of criminal crossers is not insignificant. For example, it has been reported that approximately 17 percent of those arrested by the Border Patrol in its Tucson Sector have criminal records in the United States.24b In 2006, the sheriff of Los Angeles County indicated that 40 percent of those in his jails were illegal immigrants and of those 70 percent had been previously deported.24c
Our border enforcement is little more than a revolving door with about 95 percent of those stopped being Mexicans who are quickly returned to Mexico, only to try and try again until they elude the Border Patrol. It has been estimated that for every person that the Border Patrol picks up, three get by them.25 Between the numbers of crossers (about one million per year have been picked up by the Border Patrol in recent years) and the length of the border (about 2,000 miles) there are limitations on how effective the Border Patrol can be.
Upgrading the security along sections of our southern border and increasing our Border Patrol force will make clandestine entry into the United States more difficult and more expensive. This should reduce the number of crossers. However, most desiring to enter illegally will find routes that work.26 More will pay smugglers and some alternatives like the Canadian border or obtaining a legal visa.
It is generally agreed that the San Diego border fence, sometimes referred to as the gold standard for border fences, has been effective in drastically cutting smuggling and crossings by illegal immigrants in the San Diego area. Much of the reduction in illegal crossings in the San Diego area has been offset by increases in other border areas, many in Arizona. The Secure Fence Act which was passed by Congress and signed by President Bush in late 2006 calls for about 700 linear miles of fencing. By 2010 most of this fencing was supposed was to be in place. Whatever the current state of the fencing, it is clear from the current problems of border states like Arizona that we are still likely many years away from gaining effective control of our southern border.
Beginning in 2006, the Border Patrol began holding in detention non-Mexicans caught crossing the southern border and sending them back to their countries of origin. This is an enforcement improvement, since non-Mexicans caught making illegal border crossings before 2006 were released into the United States! In the recent past, however, only 5 percent of the border crossers have been non-Mexicans. Moreover, even after being sent back to their countries of origin, there is only the financial cost to discourage the non-Mexicans from trying again to enter the United States in some way.
VISA OVERSTAYS
The other principal source of our illegal immigration which receives far less publicity is the large-scale illegal immigration from many different countries all over the world by people who enter the United States legally for such purposes as tourism, visiting relatives, business, education, or temporary work using visas which are subsequently overstayed. Since there is no system in place at this time that reconciles the legal entries with corresponding exits, there is no precise measure of overstays, but it is generally agreed to be a substantial part of our total illegal immigration with estimates generally pegged in the range of 35 percent to 50 percent of the total.
A visa to enter the United States is applied for at an American embassy or consulate in the country of origin. The State Department faces conflicting goals in administering the visa procedure. On the one hand, we have the statement that President Bush made when he signed the Border Security and Visa Entry Act. This statement was shown on a State Department visa homepage:
"America is not a fortress; no we never want to be a fortress. We’re a free country; we’re an open society. And we must always protect the rights... of law-abiding citizens from around the world who come here to conduct business or study or to spend time with their family."27
On the other hand, a different State Department visa web site states in bold letters:
"The presumption in the law is that every visitor visa applicant is an intending immigrant. Therefore, applicants for visitor visas must overcome this presumption …."28
In practice, the applicant has to somehow convince a State Department employee-interviewer that the applicant has a residence and other “binding ties” in his home country which will ensure his or her return after visiting the United States. This is at best a very subjective judgment in the case of many applicants, especially those from poor countries or countries with political unrest.
A former State Department official who has interviewed thousands of visa applicants in different countries, has recently authored a paper which details how the visa application process actually works.29 His conclusion is that different aspects of the visa interview process put substantial pressures on those conducting the interviews to approve most visa applications. In addition, he believes that many entering the U.S. on visas make the decision to overstay their visa and become illegal residents of the United States after they find that they like living in the United States and learn how easy it is to blend into American life without legal status. He further states: “Many who arrive as ‘tourists’ also are stunned to learn how easy it is to remain in the United States legally via marriage to an American citizen, finding an American company to sponsor a work visa, or by claiming asylum.”30
Being poor is not an insurmountable obstacle to coming here by airplane. The poor can possibly scrape together the funds to buy a discount airline ticket, perhaps with the help of friends or relatives some of whom may be already living in the United States. Another option is signing on with human smugglers who for a fee will work out the details, possibly including entry documents somehow obtained. The fee may be payable in advance or out of future earnings in the United States or some combination of the two. It could be a few thousand dollars, or sometimes tens of thousands of dollars which would require many years of hard work in the United States to repay.31
The world-wide nature of our visa overstays was recently highlighted by a tragic fire in New York City. In March, 2007 a fire swept through a four-story row house in the Bronx, resulting in injuries and nine deaths for two Malian families. As described in a related New York Times article “Few places on earth are poorer than Mali, ...where 90 percent of the population earns less than $2 per day.” This article also provided information regarding the immigration status of the Malians:
And there is the tricky business of immigration status: Many Malians are here illegally even as they raise children who become the newest generation of New Yorkers…. Roughly 3,500 Malians enter the United States each year on temporary visas.
The article further stated:
Tragedy has drawn a city’s eyes to this little-known corner of the West African immigrant diaspora…. [whose] members have established enclaves [in New York City] known as “Little Senegal” and “Little Guinea.” … The West Africans – who number about 50,000 [in New York City include] 6,000 to 10,000 Malians…. Poverty now fuels that diaspora.32
In “Immigration and Terrorism,” a review of the immigration histories of 94 terrorists in this country between the early 1990s and 2004, it is noted that 18 had entered the United States on student visas and 17 others had entered on tourist or business visas.33 Of these 35, at least 13 had overstayed their temporary visas and could have been deported if there had been follow-up on visa overstays.
There are currently 36 countries on the State Department’s visa waiver list.34 A visitor from these countries does not need to apply in advance for a visa to come to the United States. Only a valid passport from the waiver country is needed to enter the United States for up to three months, and this method of entry can also be used by those intending to become illegal immigrants. Two terrorists are known to have used the visa waiver program and at least three others tried to use false passports from visa waiver countries.35
Congress, at the Bush administration’s urging, has recently authorized an increase in the number of countries that are eligible for visa waiver status. Among the resulting newly eligible countries is Brazil.36 Adding Brazil to the list of visa waiver countries would open the floodgates of Brazilian illegal immigration. Brazil is a country with nearly twice the population of Mexico and a GDP (a measure of national output) per capita of 18 percent below that of Mexico. Unemployment is high and poverty is widespread in Brazil. Moreover, Brazilians have already established illegal immigration beachheads here and even now Brazil is a distant second to Mexico in total remittance money received.37
The tourism industry lobby has strongly endorsed adding more countries to the visa waiver list, regarding this as an effective way to increase the number of visitors to the United States. The tourism industry is also likely to lobby against most efforts to tighten up the visa procedure since such actions would likely reduce the numbers of visitors to America and have an adverse effect on their businesses.
SECONDARY SOURCE OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION: THE DIVERSITY VISA LOTTERY
Illegal immigration from countries that have not been well represented here in the past has been given a boost by the “Diversity Visa Lottery.” This is a little-known U.S. government program in effect since 1990 that annually selects 50,000 “winners” chosen at random from around the world who get free air fare here, and legal permanent resident status which allows the winners plus their spouses and minor children to legally work and live in the United States and start the path to citizenship. The program has rules which are designed to insure that citizens of countries that send many legal immigrants to the United States do not participate. There were 13.6 million qualified entries for the 2010 Diversity Visa Lottery. The six countries with the most 2010 winners were Nigeria, Bangladesh, Ukraine, Egypt, Sierra Leone, and Cameroon.38
The legal immigrants under the Diversity Visa Lottery likely become the nucleus of U.S. communities which attract extended chains of friends and relatives to take up residence in the United States as illegal immigrants. Moreover, the program and its unsophisticated participants are subject to various frauds. The Diversity Visa Lottery imposes an unnecessary administrative burden on our government for no obvious purpose as the United States has no obligation whatsoever to mirror the world’s population makeup.
Three cases are known of terrorists using the Diversity Visa Lottery to enter or maintain residence in the United States. In one case, the wife of an Egyptian terrorist living in the United States with her husband won the lottery which stopped deportation hearings against the terrorist who was living here as an illegal immigrant whose application for asylum had been denied. Both he and his wife used the lottery win to become legal permanent residents. In addition, two terrorists from Morocco used their wins in the Diversity Visa Lottery to enter the United States and become part of a terrorist sleeper cell in Michigan.39
SECONDARY SOURCE OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION: TEMPORARY GUEST WORKER PROGRAMS FOR LOW-SKILLED LABOR (H2A, H2B, J1)
"All employers need to do to secure federal permission to hire foreign workers under the H2A and H2B programs is provide proof that no American wants the job. Once [their] request is granted, companies rely on recruiters to do the rest, and the U.S. government stands back."40
These are questionable low-skilled labor programs because rather than pay what they have to in the open market to get the quality of employees they want, companies can just say that they are not getting enough qualified employees at some wage that they would like to pay, which by definition would be a below market wage, and the U.S. government can approve the request on that basis.41 There is no compelling reason why businesses should not pay market wages for their labor needs, no matter how seasonal or otherwise temporary. Low-skilled guest worker programs deprive Americans at the lower end of the labor pool of employment opportunities and higher wages. Moreover, when foreign recruiters are used to line up the temporary workers in other countries, they may extort fees from the foreign workers who want to sign up for the temporary programs.42
These guest worker programs are an off-budget government handout to the employers involved, just as beneficial to them as giving them money grants or contracts out of the federal budget. Politicians may find advancing the guest worker needs of constituents easier than trying to obtain grants or contracts for them as there is little or no Congressional funding required for a new guest worker program or expanding an existing one.
In addition to the above flaws, these programs are not in the public interest because they are also a source of illegal immigrants. There is usually nothing to prevent participants from melting into the general population at any time they are working in the United States and many do.43
There was a 66,000 person cap on H2B (seasonal non-agricultural) visas for 2004. For 2005 this cap was reached in January which gave rise to a movement in Congress to raise the cap in some way. It was done by passing legislation to “temporarily” exclude returning H2B workers from the cap. For 2007, the returning workers excluded from the cap outnumbered the 66,000 annual cap on new hires.44 The "temporary" exclusion of returning H2B workers was still in effect for 2010. In addition, a limited number of guest workers is allowed in agriculture under H2A visas. For 2006 there were about 72,000 such guest workers.45
Temporary workers also include those in the Summer Work-Travel program of the State Department (J1 visas). Eastern European countries have dominated the senders for this program whose only requirement is that the participant be a postsecondary student and most are in their twenties. For 2007, the State Department expects to have 140,000 to 150,000 participants.46 The holders of J1 visas can apply for and work at almost any job in the United States provided they work for no more than four months. This time limit usually results in their obtaining seasonal work in competition with American students for such jobs as camp counselors or resort workers. In addition to this program, many foreign students come to work in the United States illegally.47
In summary, the words of Professor Briggs:
"Both CIR [U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform] in 1997 and the earlier findings of the Select Commission on Immigration and Refugee Policy in 1981 stated unequivocally that there should not be anymore guest worker programs for unskilled workers. Their views reflected those of virtually every scholar who has studied the issue both in the United States and elsewhere. Such programs have uniformly proven to be administratively difficult to enforce; hard to stop once enacted; depress wages for those employed in impacted occupations; stigmatize certain jobs as being only for foreigners; and inevitably generate more illegal immigration."48
SECONDARY SOURCE OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION: GAMING THE ASYLUM SYSTEM
A qualifying asylum seeker is “unable or unwilling to return to his/her country of origin due to persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution.”49 The processing of asylum requests takes time and involves some subjective judgment on the part of asylum officers or immigration judges.50 Beyond the many abusers of our asylum system, asylum applicants are a potential weakness of our present immigration system since we can only be the home for a small percentage of all people living under harsh political regimes who can legitimately claim some form of persecution.
In the past, most applicants have not been granted asylum.51 However, the asylum plea may help them avoid immediate deportation on arrival in the United States52 as well as deportation up to the point of time that a final ruling is made on their case for asylum which may be years later, especially if appeals are filed. Nearly all who are denied asylum cannot be located at the time of denial and officially become illegal immigrants at that point in time.53 It was noted in “Immigration and Terrorism,” that of the 94 terrorist cases in the U.S. that were reviewed, 17 involved terrorists who claimed to lack proper travel documents and who made applications for asylum in the United States.54
One asylum case that has received a little media attention since President Obama ran for president involves his aunt Zeituni Onyango, Kenyan half sister of his father. She initially filed for asylum in 2002. Her request was denied and she was ordered deported in 2004 following a series of appeals, but never left the country. She was ultimately granted asylum in 2010. President Obama's uncle (Kenyan half-brother of his father) Oyango Obama became a subject of news stories in August, 2011 following a DUI arrest in Massachusetts. It was reported that there was an existing court order for his deportation (perhaps following a denial of asylum) that has been ignored by him. Also it appears that he has held a "valid" Social Security card for 19 years. See Appendix E for more information related to these cases which seem typical of how deportation orders are ignored and/or contested.
Two examples of newly considered areas of persecution which foreign women can use as a basis for successful asylum claims relate to 1) being victims or potential victims of female genital mutilation (FGM) and 2) being victims of domestic violence.
Amnesty International estimates 130 million woman worldwide have had some form of FGM, with more than 2 million new cases occurring per year primarily in Africa.55 For the purpose of asylum claims, FGM is now classified as a form of persecution. Recent U.S. court decisions are pointing toward allowing women who have been victims of FGM as well as women who fear becoming victims of FGM to use FGM as a key part of a successful asylum claim.56 It remains to be seen how many future asylum claims contain some aspect of FGM as a part of the case.
The Obama administration recently took steps to make it easier for battered women to gain asylum in the United States. The qualifying conditions include 1) treatment as inferiors, little better than property 2) living in a country where domestic abuse is common and tolerated 3) must be able to show that protection could not be obtained through resort to existing institutions in their country or by moving to another place in their country.57 There are many countries in the world where women are routinely treated poorly and abused. How many of such women will be able to reach the United States and make a plea for asylum also remains to be seen.
This movement to expand asylum options was recently pushed further along by the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, a court well-known for its liberal tendencies. The Ninth, which is based in San Francisco, overturned the deportation orders of two immigration courts and ordered immigration judges to reconsider granting asylum to an illegal immigrant from Guatamala based on the high murder rate of women in Guatamala. "Most important, the court ordered the Board of Immigration to determine whether all Guatamalan woman can qualify -- a decision that could open the door to similar claims from other countries such as El Salvador, Honduras, and others with histories of widespread gender abuse."57a
ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT POPULATION ESTIMATES
No U.S. government survey directly asks about citizenship status. Even if there was such a survey, its reliability would be doubtful since most illegal immigrants do not want to call attention to their status. Based in part on inferences from government surveys, the typical number for the current population of illegal immigrants used in the media and generally accepted by mainstream researchers for 2007 was about 12 million. This number, of course, did not include the 6 million immigrants legalized in seven amnesties since 1986. Nor did it include many others who while here illegally used or abused our immigration system to gain legal status in other ways. The high end of recent illegal immigrant population estimates stands at 20 million.58 The annual inflow at 2007 was been estimated at from 400,000 to as high as 3 million.59 By contrast legal immigration from all sources was 1.26 million for fiscal 2006.60
That the growth of the illegal immigrant population was significant in the 2004-2006 period can be deduced from the 50% increase in remittances that Latin American and Carribean immigrants sent from the United States to their relatives in their home countries in that time period. In dollars, such remittances rose from about $30 billion in 2004 to $45 billion in 2006 according to the Inter-American Development Bank.61 Unfortunately, it is not easy to use remittance data to arrive at firm numbers for the changes in the illegal immigrant population due to variations in the percentage of the illegal immigrant population sending remittances, the average amount sent, and other factors. Nevertheless it is reasonable to conclude that the percentage increase in illegal immigrants during this time period was substantial.
Remittances to Latin America and the Carribean rose by a further 10% from 2006 to 2007, and were essentially unchanged from 2007 to 2008 as the effects of the world's financial distresses began to weigh on wages and employment. The year 2009 showed a decline of 15% in remittances, the first decline since these numbers started being tabulated in 2000. The Inter-American Development Bank believes these remittance numbers should "stabilize" in 2010.62
On February 9, 2010 the Department of Homeland Security released a study of indirect data which showed that the illegal immigrant population declined by about 1 million in the two years from January 2007 to January 2009.63 However, it should be noted that there are some strong motivations for the Obama administration to underestimate the extent of the illegal immigration problem. Understating the extent of illegal immigration helps to convey the impression that the administration is enforcing our immigrations laws when in fact the opposite is true. The administration believes that appearing tough on immigration would help further its effort to get Congress and the public go along with a major administration objective of an amnesty for nearly all of today’s illegal immigrants.
It is no doubt true that the current rate of illegal immigration inflow is lower than it has been because jobs are scarcer due to the severity of the economic downturn. However there is no logical reason to expect that the reduced availability of jobs will cause many illegal immigrants to give up all the advantages of living in the U.S. and return to their native countries where the job prospects are even worse than in the U.S., where corruption and crime are rampant, where public services are poor or are absent, where public welfare is very limited or unavailable, and where public education and the life prospects for children are poor.
If anything, the reduced availability of jobs is pressuring some illegal immigrants to move to those sections of our country where there are fewer competing illegal immigrants in order to obtain low-end jobs. For those immigrants who are temporarily out of work, there is also the possibility of doubling up in living space with their many friends and relatives also living here. In either case, more immigrants would be on the move but they would not be moving out of the country!
To quote from a March, 2009 publication of The Inter-American Development entitled "Remittances in times of financial instability": "Evidence from focus groups and surveys commissioned by the MIF [Multilateral Investment Fund] and the Inter-American Dialogue suggest that immigrants are extremely capable of coping with adversity. These coping strategies include reducing the amount of money they spend on themselves, working longer hours or multiple jobs in the face of decreasing wages, shifting sectors because of declines in sectors such as manufacturing and construction, moving to areas with higher labor demand.... migrants, especially the undocumented, move from one state to another in response to local enforcement measures. Despite the cumulative effects of the economic, housing, and credit crises, it is only as a last resort that immigrants will return to their home countries. They will first exhaust all other options."
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) created the nine-digit Individual Tax Identification Number (ITIN) in 1996 for foreigners, such as foreign investors, who were required to file U.S. income tax forms and who did not have a social security number. However, it is widely believed that most people using the ITINs today are in the United States illegally. Illegal immigrants working “on the books” use ITINs for the primary purpose of filing income tax forms in order to obtain tax refunds.64
The IRS issued 1.5 million new ITINs in 2006, a 36 percent increase from the number issued the previous year. For 2007 the number of new ITINs issued rose another 20 percent to more than 1.8 million. Affected by the slowing economy, the number of newly issued ITINs fell in 2008 to a level comparable to that of 2006.65
Although there are various problems related to trying to draw conclusions from the ITIN and remittance data, they seem to indicate that illegal immigrant net inflows have significantly exceeded the 400,000 to 500,000 per year that are cited by the Department of Homeland Security and some researchers for recent years prior to 2008. A high rate of illegal immigration in the 2004-2008 period is consistent with increased immigrant motivation triggered by talk of amnesty beginning with the Bush administration in early 2004.66 The interest of potential illegal immigrants has been further stoked by all of the subsequent amnesty proposals and the Obama administration's decision not to deport any illegal immigrants unless they committed a serious crime in the United States. If rates of net new illegal immigration have been underestimated, that would imply that the widely used 12 million, now reduced to 11 million by the Obama administration, estimate for the current illegal immigrant population is a considerable understatement.
RESERVOIR OF POTENTIAL ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS
While illegal immigrants can and do come from all over the world, in recent years Mexico has been the largest single source of our illegal immigrants, now accounting for an estimated 57 percent of our current total illegal immigrant population with other Latin American countries contributing about 24 percent.67 The Pew Hispanic Center estimated that in 2005 out of all living people who were born in Mexico, one out of eight now lives in the United States, some legally and some illegally.68 There is every reason to expect that Mexico, with its chronic lack of jobs and current population of 107 million, will continue to be a major source of illegal immigrants in the future. Surveys of Mexican citizens in Mexico conducted in 2005 by the Pew Hispanic Center “show that a wide swath of the adult population in Mexico … has some inclination or desire to migrate to the United States.”69 About 43 percent of those surveyed were willing to go right away if they could.70
The rest of the world has billions of poor and oppressed who have even greater motivations to come here. Of the world’s population, an estimated 4.6 billion people live in families that earn less, in most cases far less, than what an average Mexican family earns. Thus for economic reasons alone there is a limitless worldwide reservoir of potential illegal immigrants to the United States and, not surprisingly, increasing numbers of our illegal immigrants are coming from Asia and Africa.
THE ABSENCE OF IMMIGRATION LAW ENFORCEMENT
Prior to March, 2003 federal responsibilities related to immigration law enforcement were handled by the INS (Immigration and Naturalization Service). Beginning in March, 2003 these responsibilities were broken up and incorporated into the Department of Homeland Security.
Today, when illegal immigrants achieve entry to the United States by evading the Border Patrol, by overstaying a legal entry, or to a lesser extent by using false documents, it becomes the responsibility of the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to find them in our cities and towns and remove them. The ICE which is woefully underfunded and understaffed at about 3,000 agents nationwide has concentrated on removals of illegal immigrants convicted of crimes and it has done almost nothing to slow the growth of the illegal immigrant population.71
As things stand in our national laws, illegal immigrants caught within 14 days of arriving in the United States or 100 miles of our national border are subject to "expedited removal."72 That is how the Border Patrol is able to return large numbers of illegal immigrants to their home countries without getting bogged down in a legal morass. It is a different story for "law-abiding" illegal immigrants apprehended by ICE agents since these immigrants are usually not subject to "expedited removal" which means that they are entitled to a possibly lengthy legal proceeding if they do not voluntarily agree to leave the country.73 If not charged with a crime they have usually been released and told to appear in court at a later date at which time most cannot be located. Those who wish to use the courts to delay deportation can extend the process to as long as five years with appeals.
Of the 12 to 20 million illegal immigrants now in the country, about 632,000 have received final deportation orders including criminals and many who had made asylum claims which were rejected.74 Whether or not most of the 632,000 are difficult to locate, it appears that ICE makes no effort to find them unless they have been convicted of crimes in the United States. Even if located, there may still be problems involved in effecting deportations.
China is very reluctant to take back illegal immigrants as long as we harbor dissidents that they want. Other countries such as Nigeria have refused to take back criminals that we are trying to deport. We cannot deport if the deportees are refused by their home country. Most of these delayed deportees are allowed to roam free in the United States since we have limited detention facilities, and in any event the government is limited to six months of detention pending deportation. For fiscal 2005, there were a total of 42,316 people deported75 of which a significant percentage were convicted of criminal activity in the United States. Most of the criminals were deported on completion of their sentences.
With our porous borders and lack of enforcement, deportation of criminals is for many just an inconvenience and they are soon back on the streets of our cities. Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca has testified that of those illegal immigrants in Los Angeles County jails, 70 percent had been previously deported but illegally returned to the United States and are now accused of or have committed another crime.76
In an unusually frank review of how the ICE works, a report of Office of Inspector General of The Department of Homeland Security on visa overstays found that “the actual removal of visa violators … is miniscule.” Out of 301,046 leads received in 2004 regarding overstays, just 4,164 were pursued resulting in 671 apprehensions. Even then, the report said “very few” of those will be deported “unless they also have a criminal history and are detained.”77 Another way of looking at the situation can be summed up in a 2005 quote from a spokesman for ICE: "The nation’s immigration system is largely based on personal integrity. We have seen that the honor system does not work."78
When the government has raided employers of illegal immigrants in recent years, there are usually protests from a wide spectrum of interested parties, such as Hispanic groups, community organizations, church groups, politicians at all levels, and the employers involved. In an effort to step up enforcement during 1998-1999, the predecessor to ICE, the INS, launched an aggressive campaign against onion growers in Georgia and Nebraska’s meat-packing industry, both large scale employers of illegal immigrants. The INS viewed Nebraska as just a first step as there were plans in the works to broaden the campaign to meat packers in other states. But the outcry and the resulting pressure from the Georgia and Nebraska congressional delegations led to the INS’s backing off.79 It is worth noting regarding the INS’s actions against the Nebraska meatpackers that Nebraska’s members of Congress at first called for tougher enforcement, according to Mark Reed, then INS director of operations. But when the result shut down some plants, “all hell broke loose,” he said.80 Our government lacked the leadership at the top with the political will to persist in efforts to enforce the immigration laws and explain to all why doing so was in the best interests of the country.
Between 1999 and 2003, work-site enforcement operations were scaled back 95 percent by the Immigration and Naturalization Service. The number of employers prosecuted for unlawfully employing immigrants dropped from a modest 182 in 1999 to four in 2003.81
This was followed in 2004 with only three employers nationwide paying fines for violating the law against employing illegal immigrants.82 President Clinton would not take a firm stand on illegal immigration and President George W. Bush was openly opposed to taking action against illegal immigrants. So even though illegal immigration is unlawful, past U.S. Presidents have used their discretion to minimize enforcement.
A total of 4,077 illegal immigrants were arrested for immigration violations during federal worksite enforcement actions nationally in the year ended September 30, 2007 when the Bush administration made a token increase in enforcement in order to provide some political cover to increase the odds of passage for amnesty legislation.83 This enforcement, while greater than in previous Bush years, was still nothing more than a deception as it was inconsequential compared with the many millions here illegally. However, the public loses perspective on such a tiny federal worksite enforcement effort because each such enforcement action receives much press and generates much negative local reaction from politicians, employers, church groups, and other interested parties.
President George W. Bush avoided the “tough approach” to illegal immigration advocated by most Republicans and tended to side with the more lenient approach espoused by Democrats, likely reflecting both an effort to steer more of the Hispanic vote towards Republicans as well as President Bush’s personal sympathies for the illegal immigrants. In its unwillingness to take action against illegal immigration, the George W. Bush Administration expanded upon the lax enforcement policies of its immediate predecessors of both parties.
Bush likely has sympathies for illegal immigrants which originated in his family life. Bush was raised in part by a woman whom he came to regard as a second mother “who came up from Mexico to work in our house.”84 For his own household, Bush hired another woman of Mexican origin, Maria Galvin, to assist in raising his own children. When governor of Texas, he tried to persuade his housekeeper to become a U.S. citizen. White House aides would not comment on how she entered the country and her legal status at that time.85 President Bush’s brother, former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, is married to a Mexican woman he met in Mexico while teaching English as an exchange student.
The Bush Administration had some success in trying to increase its appeal to Hispanic voters: 44 percent of Hispanics cast votes for President Bush in 2004, up from 35 percent in 2000, and 21 percent who voted for Bob Dole in 1996.86
IMMIGRATION LAW ENFORCEMENT UNDER PRESIDENT OBAMA
All pretense of prosecuting and deporting "law-abiding" illegal immigrants has vanished under the Obama adminstration's approach to illegal immigration. However, the administration has taken some disingenous actions to make it seem like it was interested in enforcement in order to help lay the groundwork for amnesty legislation. These include taking action against employers of illegal immigrants and approving the use of an E-verify requirement for Federal contractors. E-verify is a government data base which can be used by businesses to verify whether or not employees are eligible to work in the United States.
The appearance is contained in the crackdown on larger employers of illegal immigrants. A small percentage of these employers will be prosecuted as the larger employers of illegal immigrants generally rely on false documents supplied by the hirees. Even more of a farce is the fact that any immigrants caught working illegally will not be prosecuted since the Obama administration has in effect decriminalized the act of illegal immigration and all related identity theft and falsifying of declarations and papers. Indeed, to avoid the appearance of impropriety, the employer audits have been conducted at night in order that the ICE agents will not come in direct contact with any illegal immigrant employees.87 The only resident illegal immigrants that are now deported are those convicted of “significant” crimes while living and working here.
Nearly all illegal immigrants who lose a job as a consequence of any employer crackdown will not voluntarily return to their home countries where jobs are scarce and low-paying, corruption and crime are rampant, public healthcare is poor or nonexistent, and the education and future prospects for their children are poor. They will remain here and work for small employers or join many of their brethren in our vast underground economy by working off the books or as independent contractors who do not report their income.
It has been estimated that one-half of today’s illegal immigrants are already working off the books at small employers or are working as independent contractors for purposes such as laborers, gardeners, nannies, or maids and therefore will not be reached by any employer crackdown. Both small-business employers and employees benefit from off the books work since various tax and other financial obligations can be avoided in this way by both employer and employee.
Even larger employers using today's federal E-Verify system may end up with significant numbers of illegal immigrants on their books as noted in a Wall Street Journal editorial: "A bigger problem with the E-Verify system is that it doesn't catch identity fraud. An illegal alien using legitimate documents that don't belong to him can go undetected.... Several government raids on businesses in recent years have resulted in the arrests of thousands of illegal workers whom E-Verify had approved."88 As part of its show of immigrant toughness, the Obama administration wants to make the use of E-Verify required for federal contractors, even though it is known that many illegal immigrants can falsely qualify as hirable under today's E-Verify.
WE DISCOURAGE THE IMMIGRATION OF THE BEST AND THE BRIGHTEST
Currently only 7.6 percent of persons granted U.S. permanent residence visas receive them on the basis of education or skill level.89 This is a consequence of our present system of legal immigration which emphasizes preferences for the close relatives of those here legally. As noted earlier since it is the recently legalized citizens, including many millions of formerly illegal immigrants legalized by amnesties and other means, who have by far the largest number of close relatives living outside the United States, the typical characteristics of our legal immigrants are now mirroring that of our illegal immigrants – poor, low-skilled, and little educated.
Long waits discourage many potential legal immigrants who are highly educated and skilled and who are generally reluctant to immigrate here illegally. They do not want to buy false identification and they do not want to work at the low-level labor intensive jobs that are easiest for illegal immigrants with false identification to obtain. Moreover, they are more likely to have viable alternatives to illegally immigrating – they can either live comfortably in their home country or immigrate to other advanced countries which seek their immigration. In this vein, Bill Gates has recently testified before a Senate committee on how a “lack of skilled workers imperils the U.S. economy,” and how U.S. immigration policy drives away the “best and brightest.” 90
Back in the early 1960s, President John F. Kennedy strongly recommended replacing the then existing national origins immigration system with one which would give “the highest priority” to “the skills of the immigrant and their relationship to our need.”91 Unfortunately, President Kennedy died before he was able to accomplish his desired immigration policy changes. During Johnson’s presidency Congress did eliminate the national origins system, but replaced it with one that gave immigration priority to the foreign close relatives of citizens. This has been the basis of our legal immigration system since that time.
THE ECONOMIC BENEFICIARIES OF OUR ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION
The principal beneficiaries of our illegal immigration are the illegal immigrants themselves who obtain employment opportunities, levels of income, and public benefits which are not available to them in their home countries. In addition, the home-country relatives of the illegal immigrants directly benefit from the remittances sent to them. The home countries generally benefit from the remittances which increase income levels and economic activity and are a major source of foreign exchange. By having a reduced population of little-educated unemployed and underemployed, the home countries also benefit by having a lower level of public expenditures and a lower probability of political instability.
Those Americans who are the primary beneficiaries of illegal immigration are the employers of illegal immigrants who obtain labor at lower cost than they otherwise would. The most significant of these are the middle and upper income families who employ them directly, principally as maids and gardeners, and those businesses that are unskilled-labor intensive such as those involved with motels and hotels, construction, vegetable and fruit agriculture, and restaurants. With access to illegal immigrant employees, the labor-intensive business owners are able to achieve higher profits than they otherwise would and in some cases are able to stay in business when they otherwise would fail without cheap labor. To some extent (very difficult to quantify) these business employers would also charge lower prices to their customers, who would thereby indirectly benefit from illegal immigrant labor.
The labor intensive businesses or their shareholders also tend to be owned by middle and upper income individuals. In short, it is the middle and upper income part of our population that most benefits from our illegal immigration.
AMERICANS MOST HARMED BY CURRENT IMMIGRATION POLICIES
Illegal immigration most directly hurts our own little-educated citizens who must compete with the immigrants for jobs. In this competition it is they who suffer reduced job availability and lower compensation. Moreover, the benefits of our various social safety net and education programs for our own lower-income citizens are diluted by the addition of large numbers of poor immigrants and their children.
It is a myth that our new immigrants are only taking jobs that Americans won’t do. Prior to the large scale immigration of recent years, it was American citizens who made hotel beds, cleaned office buildings, washed restaurant dishes, labored at construction sites, and provided maid and yard labor for homeowners. As time has passed many immigrants have learned to speak English enabling them to find new work opportunities such as serving as retail clerks and truck drivers.
Americans with little education and students seeking part-time or summer work are having increasing difficulty competing with immigrants for low level jobs.91a Our immigrants will work harder under worse working conditions and for lower compensation than Americans because the immigrants find the income to be much better than what they could earn in their home countries if they could find employment there at all. Also as noted in a case cited in the next chapter, continual entry of low-level immigrants makes it more difficult for the earlier immigrants to advance. In the absence of low wage immigrants, American employers of little educated workers would be forced to pay more in order to obtain needed employees and our low income citizens would thereby be better off with the availability of more job opportunities at higher compensation.91b
An example of social benefits being diluted by immigrants may be found in public housing. It occurs when immigrants occupy such housing units thereby decreasing the availability to citizens. Certain states and municipalities have gone out of their way to protect illegal immigrants from discovery and have offered them social benefits such as public housing without regard to their illegal presence.92
Another example of diluted social benefits is to be found in public education. In cities where there has been a significant influx of poor immigrants and their children, many of whom do not speak English fluently, their presence has reduced the quality of public education for the Americans who attend the same schools. In general, a disproportionate amount of teacher time and school resources are devoted to these immigrant students. Moreover, the addition of disadvantaged immigrant children to special programs to help disadvantaged children dilutes the resources available to help the children of the disadvantaged segment of our citizen population. The effectiveness of public schools has sometimes been further handicapped by factors such as the high teen pregnancy rates, high dropout rates, and gang activities which too often characterize the immigrant children of today. Those citizens who can afford to send their children to private schools or live in areas with the better public schools may escape the negative consequences of an influx of immigrant children into a school system. Our poorer citizens usually do not have these options.
In sum, we are making great efforts and spending large amounts of money to eliminate poverty in this country and at the same time we are importing much more poverty which makes it more difficult for our existing low income citizens to improve their lot. It would be good public policy to reduce future legal and illegal immigration by the unskilled and little educated. Such reductions constitute one of the best ways to help our own disadvantaged citizens improve their lives. This is all the more important in times like the present when a serious recession has reduced the availability of all jobs.
One of the reasons that this situation is allowed to persist may be due to the fact that that the poor have the least amount of direct political influence, in part because as a group they have the lowest voting rate. They also tend to vote Democratic no matter what is going on in their job markets and Democratic politicians may console themselves with the thought that welfare benefits of different kinds will take care of the poor that might be economically harmed by immigration.
We have seen that professional groups such as computer programmers and engineers may be partly responsible for limitations on skilled guest worker programs due to their political influence through their professional associations. If the country were being flooded with job-competing professionals of different types through illegal immigration, it is very likely that much more would be done to stop illegal immigration!
Beyond directly harming our poor citizens, illegal immigration imposes financial and other costs on all citizens as discussed in other sections of this book.
SOME CONSEQUENCES OF OUR ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION
By permitting illegal immigration we are not maximizing the benefit of immigration to our existing citizenry. Instead of controlling our own destiny, we are leaving the results of immigration policy to the illegal immigrants who self-select, and most are poor and poorly educated with about half not having graduated high school. Existing American citizens would be better off if we admitted a smaller number of more educated and skilled immigrants as needed. Such immigrants would contribute more to our society economically and assimilate more easily.
Overall, the present policy of permitting millions of poverty stricken, little-educated legal and illegal immigrants to enter our labor force is having an adverse effect on the distribution of income in our country. The Democrats, who are very concerned about inequalities in the distribution of income in this country, ignore the fact that our legal and illegal immigration is increasing the gap between the country’s poor and better off. This is despite the fact that President Clinton’s Council of Economic Advisors found that “immigration has increased the relative supply of less educated labor and appears to have contributed to the increasing inequality of income within the nation.”93
As Professor Borjas of Harvard University observes: "The kinds of immigration policy we have been pursuing … lead to an economic outcome where those on the low end of the labor market are suffering and all that extra wealth is being redistributed to the employers…. So what immigration is doing is pouring more poor people into the U.S. and making the poor who are already here even poorer." 94
Our goal of helping the world’s billions of poor and less educated could be better achieved through direct medical and economic assistance in their home countries rather than by granting millions of them admission to the United States. If we do not change our present policies, our systems of social support, criminal justice, health, and education will become increasingly taxed by the continued immigration of large numbers of the world’s poor and uneducated. Moreover, continually adding large numbers of immigrants to our population will put increasing pressures on our public infrastructure and natural resources.
In testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, Los Angeles County Supervisor Michael Antonovich’s notes that Los Angeles County is home to almost 12 percent of our country’s illegal immigrant population. He goes on to observe:
…in public safety, healthcare, social services and education, illegals cost Los Angeles County taxpayers nearly $1 billion per year…. The cost to our county’s justice system is $150 million a year which includes incarceration, prosecution, defense, and probation. Our health care delivery system has become the HMO for the world. Within our health care delivery system approximately 30 percent are illegals who are being treated annually at a cost of roughly $360 million. … every child born to an illegal alien is entitled to a variety of social services, including welfare…. This costs Los Angeles County nearly $276 million annually in Cal Works payments (formerly called aid to families of dependent children.) This does not include the costs of food stamps and child care services…. The Los Angeles Unified School District has the highest percentage of non-English speakers of all school districts in the country – nearly half of all students do not speak English. Just 44 percent of Los Angeles Unified students receive a high school diploma, making the 727,000 student district’s graduation rate among the lowest in the country.95
Beyond these direct dollar costs of illegal immigrants, there are the costs to existing citizens, especially the poor, who suffer a diminution of money and services available for them. It is unavoidable that the quality of education for the children of citizens be negatively impacted in school districts with a significant influx of children whose knowledge of English is limited or non-existent. In addition, health, welfare, and law enforcement services for citizens, especially the poor, are all diminished as a result of the increased burdens due to illegal immigration. At the same time, our lower income citizens face reduced job availability and lower wages and benefits due to the competition of immigrants for jobs.
Earlier immigrants, most of whom are poor, are also hurt by the decline in the funding and quality of needed public services due to ongoing large-scale illegal immigration. Moreover, continued illegal immigration makes it difficult for earlier immigrants to improve their financial situation. These results are highlighted in the comments of an extended immigrant family from Mexico covered as a human interest story by the Los Angeles Times in 2006. Two sisters of the Mexican family covered in the story came illegally to Los Angeles in 1984 to work and send money home. They were followed by eight siblings over the years.
In 1998, one of the sisters moved to Kentucky, “where a friend said there was more work and … fewer Mexican immigrants bidding down the wages for unskilled jobs.” In addition, she and her husband wanted better schools for their children. Over the years, that sister found Kentucky to be her promised land and she invited her siblings to join her. The family now talks about California the way they used to talk about Mexico:
"What we weren’t able to do in many years in California, we’ve done quickly here. We’re in a state where there is nothing but Americans. The police control the streets. It’s clean, no gangs. California now resembles Mexico – everyone thinks like in Mexico. California’s broken."96
If the illegal immigration spigot remains wide open, other cities of the country will increasingly take on the negative aspects of today’s Los Angeles.
UNDERMINING THE RULE OF LAW
In addition to living and working here unlawfully, illegal immigrants contribute to the undermining of the rule of law in this country in other ways. For example, they often drive without valid driver’s licenses or the minimum required insurance, use false documentation or false or stolen social security numbers to obtain employment, or live in overcrowded conditions not permitted by local law. Then too, immigrants who come here illegally are vulnerable to being exploited by employers and others including those who smuggle immigrants into the United States.
The extent to which the widespread availability of false documents used by illegal immigrants is undermining various laws in this country cannot be overstated. Counterfeit birth certificates or copies of genuine ones can be bought on the street and used to apply for social security numbers, driver’s licenses, passports and other secondary forms of identification. Unless our government puts systems into place which are able to reliably detect birth certificate fraud, illegal immigrants may be able to go undetected indefinitely. An example of what our government is up against is outlined in a 2006 news article which describes the activities of a gang based in Guadalajara, whose leader was the subject of a federal grand jury indictment in Denver. The gang was described as engaging in the nationwide manufacture and distribution of fake immigration and identification documents such as:
"‘high quality’ Social Security cards, resident alien and Mexican matricula consular ID cards, driver’s licenses, birth certificates, marriage licenses, work authorization papers, vehicle insurance cards, temporary vehicle registration documents, and utility bills.... Millions of phony documents were sent [by this one gang] to illegal aliens in the United States in the past five years, the indictment said, including 3 million to the Los Angeles area alone available on the street for $80 to $300." 97
An estimated 50 percent of illegal immigrants participate in the underground economy by working as independent contractors who do not pay income or self-employment taxes or as “off the books” employees who along with their employers violate various laws such as those related to income and social security taxes. While it is difficult to obtain hard data on the percentage of illegal immigrants “working off the books,” a discussion of how a 50 percent figure can be arrived at has been published.98
Mexicans are very familiar with the concept of “working off the books” as that practice is the backbone of their economy’s “informal sector.” A description of the “informal sector” was given in a Washington Post article: “It [the informal sector] consists of thousands of small firms – street vendors, repair shops, tiny manufacturers – that theoretically aren’t legal, because they haven’t registered with the government and often don’t pay taxes or comply with regulations on wages and hiring and firing. Almost two-thirds of Mexico’s workers may be employed in the informal sector, according to one rough estimate by the International Monetary Fund. The sector’s size might suggest great entrepreneurial vitality. The trouble is that these firms are small and inefficient. Because they’re technically illegal, they can’t easily get bank loans and can’t grow too large without being forced to pay taxes or comply with government regulations.”99
Beyond the violations of law stemming from working "off the books" or not reporting independent contractor income, since 1986 employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants are also in violation of the law. Competition puts pressure on honest employers, especially small businesses, to join their low-cost competitors in the hiring of illegal immigrants. Indeed, there is evidence that President Eisenhower was concerned about just such pressures on both business and government ethics. Included in an op-ed by John Dillin, former managing editor of the Christian Science Monitor, is an account of a factor which likely played a role in Eisenhower’s decision to take strong action against illegal immigration more than 50 years ago – a paragraph from a New York Times article that had caught Eisenhower’s attention: “The rise in illegal border-crossing by Mexican ‘wetbacks’ to a current rate of 1,000,000 cases a year has been accompanied by a curious relaxation in ethical standards extending all the way from the farmer-exploiters of this contraband labor to the highest levels of the Federal Government.”100
Another significant rule of law difficulty with our current immigration policy is the inflow of a criminal element mixed in with those seeking jobs for honest labor. For example, the Los Angeles County Sheriff has estimated that 40 percent of all those incarcerated in his jails are not legal residents of the United States.101 Non-citizens constitute 19 percent of the federal prison population.102 In many major and even lesser metropolitan areas, gang activity and drug dealing by illegal immigrants or their children are serious problems.103
HEALTH ISSUES
Unlike legal immigrants who must undergo health examinations before being admitted to the United States, illegal immigrants enter this country unscreened for diseases. Some may bring into this country diseases which are rare here. For example, estimates vary from 100,000 to 500,000 for the number of people in the United States who now have Chagas disease, a little-known and potentially deadly parasitic disease native to Mexico, Central, and South America. Chagas can be transmitted in blood transfusions so it is a concern of blood banks. For more details on Chagas see footnote 104.
For a discussion of other parasitic diseases that are common in countries that are a source of illegal immigration to the United States see New York Times op-ed of Peter J. Hotez, a professor at George Washington University and the president of the Sabin Vaccine Institute.104a
There is also evidence that the number of tuberculosis cases in the United States is related to immigration. Dr. Kenneth Castro of the tuberculosis division of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention stated in 2005: “More than half the cases in the United States were in people born overseas and probably first infected there.”105
As noted in the earlier Chapter entitled "The United States -- The Free HMO to the World" our national policies of providing free "emergency" health benefits to illegal immigrants makes us a magnet for the chronically ill from all over the world.
OUR ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS -- MOST ARE A FISCAL NET LOSS
". . .Mexico’s public schools are an abomination – to the point that the overwhelming majority of middle-class parents make whatever sacrifices are necessary to enroll their youngsters in private schools where the tuition may equal $11,000 to $12,000 annually."106
Professor George W. Grayson
College of William and Mary
An estimated 60 percent of our illegal immigrants have not graduated high school, and of these most did not finish the ninth grade.107 What education the Mexican immigrants come with is very poor in part because the public schools in Mexico are controlled by a “hugely corrupt” union.108 In addition to limited education, our illegal immigrants usually have little command of English (at least initially), few employment options, and not many opportunities for advancement. As a result, the earnings of most of our illegal immigrants are limited. Nearly all of the estimated 50 percent of illegal immigrants who work “off the books” pay nothing in income or social security taxes.109 Of the 50 percent that work “on the books,” most have low incomes and consequently pay little in income taxes and social security taxes. Sales taxes paid are limited by low discretionary income (all the lower after sending part of their income back to relatives in their countries of origin) and the sales tax exemption of supermarket food purchases by most states. Property taxes paid indirectly through immigrant rent do not amount to much as immigrant laborers typically live in low-rent residences and very often share residences with other immigrants.
The public cost of illegal immigrant family use of public services (such as health, education, law enforcement, and welfare partly through citizen babies born here) is greater than the little taxes that these low income and “off the books” earners pay.110 An IRS report shows that the Child Tax Credit and the Additional Child Tax Credit were directly responsible for $1.45 billion of tax refunds received by illegal immigrants in the 2008 tax year.111 Both of the tax credits were designed as financial assistance for low income citizens. The largest public expense incurred by many illegal immigrant families is the free public education of their children, the cost of which nationally averages about $8,000 per year per student without special needs.
To an increasing extent, immigrants are bringing elderly relatives into this country who contribute nothing to the economy and who can be expected to incur significant medical expenses which are in one way or another paid for by our hospitals and directly or indirectly by U.S. citizens.
ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT IMPACT ON U.S. LABOR MARKETS
A review of government survey data reveals that among American citizens there was a significant contraction of employment of the young and the less educated in recent years concurrent with a steady inflow of new immigrants.112 The conclusion advanced in a number of academic studies of the data and backed by anecdotal evidence, is that the American laborers had difficulty competing with the new immigrants for jobs.113 In other words, the “no Americans would take these jobs” statement is not valid – many employers just preferred immigrants because in general they would do more for less compensation.
Our lowest paying jobs in businesses such as restaurants or motels are very appealing to immigrants who find the pay is six to ten times what they could earn in their home countries if they were able to find any employment there at all. Thus the immigrants will do whatever it takes, including working for less and “off the books” in order to obtain low paying American jobs. Moreover, employers can save substantial money beyond lower wages if they hired the immigrant employees “off the books.” Illegal immigrants, seeking to maintain a low profile, usually agree to such employment if it is offered, especially since in other countries such as Mexico working “off the books” is a widespread practice. Employees also often like working “off the books” because they can thereby avoid paying state and federal income taxes as well as social security taxes. In addition, they can thereby avoid having to come up with a social security number that is not theirs since illegal immigrants cannot legally obtain one and employers must provide one for all employees on their payrolls.
By hiring “off the books,” an employer can save on the employer’s share of Social Security and Medicare taxes, and federal and state unemployment insurance taxes as well as workers compensation insurance. The employer also saves on any employer contribution to health insurance as well as vacation, holiday, and sick pay that would otherwise be made to an “on the books” employee. The “off the books” employer may also benefit by being able to ignore laws which protect workers in different ways such as laws related to overtime, the minimum wage, the workplace environment, hiring and firing. Many employers have both “on the books” and “off the books” employees, and those who do hire “off the books” tend to be smaller businesses.
The honest employers can be doubly penalized by 1) only hiring their employees “on the books,” and 2) only hiring employees who can legally work here (more expensive and perhaps less productive than illegal immigrant alternatives). For many small businesses, the choice is to violate the various laws as their competitors are doing or go out of business. Thus illegal immigration is contributing to a significant growth of our “underground economy.”114 Labor force data suggest that in the absence of illegal immigration there would be enough interested Americans available to satisfy the demand for low-level employees if there were improvements in wages, benefits, and working conditions. This result is consistent with academic studies that have found that illegal immigration depresses real wages in the types of work typically done by the immigrants.
SUBSIDIZING THE EMPLOYERS OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS
There is no compelling reason to satisfy labor-intensive industry’s demand for inexpensive immigrant workers by permitting large-scale illegal immigration as our government has done for many years. By gaining the benefits of inexpensive immigrant labor and not paying the associated costs or a higher wage to American citizen employees, employers of illegal immigrants are essentially being subsidized and are beneficiaries of our current immigration policy. Beyond the lost income and job opportunities for our poor, including blacks115 and earlier Hispanic immigrants, there are the associated costs of poor illegal immigrant employees and their families that are borne directly by various public entities which pay related health, education, welfare, and law enforcement expenses. There also are costs to our citizens, especially the poor, resulting from the diminution of public services and public funds available for them. These are all associated costs of illegal immigrant labor not borne by their employers.
Instead of being allowed access to illegal immigrant labor, why shouldn’t these employers pay higher wages to citizens when faced with labor shortages? In the absence of competing illegal immigrants, the lower end of the American labor force would do the labor intensive work at the higher wages that employers would have to pay. Higher wages would improve the lot of our low-income citizen workers and would result in some productivity improvements from increased mechanization and better utilization of employees.
In addition to providing incentives for increasing productivity, the higher wages which would result from a significant reduction in our illegal immigration would also lead to some production being shifted to other countries where wages were lower. To the extent the latter occurs, both our country and the low-wage countries would benefit from increased trade. The United States would be specializing in the production of what it does best such as high technology and highly mechanized agriculture and trading for the more labor intensive output. In essence, through trade we would be benefiting from the low-cost foreign labor without the laborers coming here and the foreign labors would also benefit from our increased demand for their output. Today, when we purchase the many, many goods in our stores which are produced in foreign countries, both America and the goods-supplying countries are benefiting from trade.
In the past the scenario of rising wages has played out in labor intensive industries in the United States such as the manufacture of shoes and clothing, ending with most production moving out of the country. These industries were not protected by the availability of illegal immigrant labor or special quota immigrant labor and our country has benefited by trading for these labor intensive items instead of producing them. If politicians feel justified in awarding special assistance to fruit and vegetable agriculture, the hospitality industry, meat packers, or any other labor-intensive business they should do it through some form of explicit subsidy (or perhaps tariff, if possible, in the case of agricultural products), not by permitting increased immigration of low-cost laborers which has various hidden costs and consequences not borne by the businesses which are benefiting.
By choosing to not enforce the immigration laws, our government is increasing the profitability of the business employers of illegal immigrants. Like legislating guest worker programs, this is an off-budget way of helping these employers.
If a business that has not employed many citizens in recent years suddenly wanted to assemble an American-only work force, not only would it have to pay more on an ongoing basis to attract Americans, market forces would probably require it to pay an extra amount in what might be called a “transition premium” compensation package until our labor market recognized that the new employment opportunity was a permanent one. Raise the wages high enough and not only would businesses get a sufficient number of citizen workers, but they will be able to choose among the applicants.
Of course, from the viewpoint of business, it is a much easier and a much more profitable solution to continue to obtain cheap foreign labor through illegal immigration or guest worker programs. And as we have seen, elected officials are often willing to “go to bat” for their business constituents (completely disregarding their poor laborer constituents) when called on with requests for guest workers or for applying political pressure to have immigration law enforcement deflected.
ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT LABOR IN AGRICULTURE
Agricultural interests for many years have had a disproportionate influence on federal legislation which might impact them. This power was recently demonstrated in the beating back of Congressional attempts to reign in various federal agricultural programs that benefit prosperous individual and corporate farmers. The political power of the agricultural interests has also made its mark in immigration and guest worker legislation in ways that have benefitted them. Additionally, agricultural interests likely have been behind some of the political forces opposed to enforcing our immigration laws.
Today and for many years in the past, fruit and vegetable agriculture in this country has relied heavily on inexpensive illegal immigrant labor, primarily from Mexico. The work is sufficiently grueling for the pay that there is turnover and most new illegal immigrants now bypass it for other types of low-level jobs in the United States that pay at least as much and which have become increasingly available to them. Consequently, labor intensive agriculture now has some difficulty obtaining the immigrant labor it needs at the wages it wants to pay despite the presence of millions of illegal immigrants in this country and others arriving daily.116
Overall, it is estimated that only 3% to 8% (with seasonal variation) of our illegal immigrant work force is currently employed in agriculture today. Immigrant farm labor is concentrated in labor-intensive vegetable, fruit and greenhouse agriculture representing about 20% of the nation’s agricultural sales. The vast majority of our agricultural output, the other 80%, is highly mechanized and involves little immigrant labor. It consists primarily of the cultivation of grains and the raising of livestock.
Again, there is no compelling reason for continuing to satisfy labor-intensive agriculture’s demand for cheap labor with immigrant labor, either by looking the other way with illegal immigrants or by having special immigrant quotas just for agriculture. In the absence of competing new immigrants, the lower end of the American labor force, including earlier Hispanic immigrants, would do the agricultural work at and benefit from the higher wages that employers would have to pay. President Kennedy believed this in the early 1960s when he started the closing down the Bracero program on the grounds that the inexpensive Mexican labor was adversely affecting the wages, working conditions, and employment opportunities of our own agricultural workers. Closing down access to illegal immigrant laborers was a key part of Cesar Chavez’s plan to improve conditions for farm workers through the United Farm Workers union. His advances for farm workers were subsequently undone by illegal immigration.117
The impact on consumers resulting from cutting off agriculture’s continuous supply of cheap immigrant labor would be surprisingly small! The agricultural labor part of the supermarket price of fresh fruits and vegetables is so little that a 40 percent wage increase for agricultural workers would lead to only a $10 per year increase that an average family would spend on all fresh fruits and vegetables according to Philip L. Martin, Professor of Agricultural Economics at University of California, Davis.118 The higher fruit and vegetable prices in the absence of illegal immigration would also be limited by some productivity improvements and some production being shifted to other countries where wages were lower. Again, to the extent the latter occurs, both our country and the low-wage countries would benefit from increased trade. Even now we purchase large quantities of various fruits and vegetables, some seasonally, from many other countries. The 80% of our agricultural output that employs few laborers would be unaffected by the absence of cheap immigrant labor.
A BRIEF REVIEW OF OUR HISTORY OF AMNESTIES
Our first amnesty for illegal immigrants, The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA), was a general amnesty for nearly all illegal immigrants who could prove that they had lived in the United States continuously since January 1, 1982. In addition, as a concession to agricultural interests, the same Act contained an amnesty for those who had worked in perishable agriculture for at least 90 days in the year ended May 1, 1986.119 IRCA was the subject of massive fraud, especially the agricultural worker component which had an application total that was many times what had been expected.120 It has been estimated that 70 percent of the approximately three million who were amnestied under ICRA had applications which were fraudulent in one way or another.121 Three terrorists are known to have successfully used IRCA to establish legal residence in the United States under the agricultural worker provision!122
Many in Congress reluctantly agreed to IRCA only because increased enforcement was promised in the form of the first ever penalties on the employers of illegal immigrants. The increased enforcement never happened. Neither President Reagan on whose watch IRCA became law, nor any President since then has had the political will to step up enforcement. With no effective enforcement, the annual inflow of illegal immigrants has risen dramatically since 1986. Moreover, as noted in a Time magazine article: "The moment newly legalized farmworkers realized they had better options, they left for the cities instead of staying in low-paying agricultural jobs. Their exodus from the fields opened the door to an even larger wave of illegal immigration."123
During the Clinton presidency, a series of limited amnesties were approved (they only applied to subsets of our illegal immigrant population) which legalized another 3 million illegal immigrants.124 Because these limited amnesties received little publicity at the times they were enacted, they might be best labeled “stealth” amnesties.
PROBLEMS WITH ANY NEW AMNESTY
It is difficult to justify using an amnesty to both reward people who have broken a number of our laws and give them priority ahead of those who are going through the process of obtaining legal immigration papers while living in their countries of origin as required by American law. In addition, our amnesties have been subject to large scale fraud since the number of applicants is usually far too great for our government bureaucracy to verify in a reasonable amount of time that the applicants meet the terms of the amnesty.124a For example, if a new amnesty is proposed which would apply only to illegal immigrants who have been living here for at least five years, the five year requirement would be almost impossible to enforce. As past experience has shown, non-qualifying illegal immigrants would be able to easily purchase widely available fake documents to prove prior residency which never occurred.
Any future amnesty will continue our now established pattern of periodic amnesties. Especially when combined with very limited enforcement of immigration laws within the United States, amnesties only serve to encourage future illegal immigration which anticipates the next amnesty. And the more potential illegal immigrants that believe there will be another amnesty, the more likely a burgeoning illegal immigrant population will make that a self-fulfilling prophecy.
An estimated 80 percent of our current illegal immigrant population is Hispanic with limited education, an estimated 60 percent not having graduated high school. Calling on the work of a number of different researchers, Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation has gone to some lengths to document the ways in which our illegal immigrant population and their offspring are likely to impose significant costs on our society over many years if a general amnesty were enacted.125 Many of the costs are cited above in the section “Our Illegal Immigrants - Most are a Fiscal Net Loss,” which continue on after amnesty. It is expected that government costs of all types over the lifetimes of amnestied immigrants will be substantially in excess of taxes paid.126
Once amnestied, low-income immigrants can eventually qualify for citizenship127 and thereby access welfare programs that are unavailable to them as illegal immigrants. The fact that Hispanics in the United States have had a history of high welfare use128 contributes to the expectation that Hispanic immigrants legalized by a future amnesty will also come to be characterized as having high welfare usage. The extent of welfare usage of Hispanics in the United States has been attributed to: persistent low incomes related to low educational attainment, high teen birthrates, high rates of births out of wedlock,129 and cultural factors.130 Also once legalized and possessing a social security number, many low-income amnestied immigrants who file income tax returns will qualify for the earned income credit,131 a form of welfare not available to them as illegal immigrants.
Although studies of educational levels achieved by second and third generation Mexicans in the United States show improvements over the educational attainments of the immigrants, they also unfortunately show that educational deficiencies still persist with relatively high percentages dropping out of high school and relatively low percentages attaining college degrees.132 This does not auger well for the overall contribution to the economy of the offspring of amnestied immigrants.
Rector also notes that additional societal costs will result if the newly amnestied immigrants and their offspring adopt the cited high crime rate of Hispanics in the United States.133 The fact that most of our Hispanic immigrants come from countries where corruption and lawlessness are widespread may have an influence on their U.S. crime statistics.134 Illegal immigrants themselves do not have above average crime rates – probably due to a combination of appreciation for their improved economic situation and the knowledge that criminal convictions are the one thing that will get them deported. It is an entirely different story for succeeding generations which have a much higher crime rate. There is evidence that a significant number of the descendents of poor Hispanic immigrants are slipping into the same vicious circle that has trapped too many of our poor citizens: the circle of poverty, low educational attainment, drugs, high numbers of teen births out of wedlock, broken families, gangs, crime, and prison time.135
Following an amnesty, newly legalized immigrants will be able to legally bring into the country spouses and unmarried children who are not present for the amnesty. In addition, by today’s immigration laws amnestied illegal immigrants who are at least 21 years old and who become citizens will be entitled to sponsor parents, siblings and their families, and married children as future legal immigrants, subject to annual limitations on category totals. This can be the start of an extended chain of legal immigration with the spouses of siblings or spouses of married children having entirely different families of their own that they will be able in turn to bring into the United States, all subject to restrictive annual limitations. These relatives will typically have the same low education and skill characteristics of the amnestied immigrants. Moreover, the parents sponsored by amnestied immigrants will be eligible after five years for Medicaid at an average cost of $11,000 per year for the elderly.136 The annual limits on some categories of family-sponsored preferences has led to a current immigration waitlist of an estimated eight million “overseas” relatives of American citizens, many of whom are living in the U.S. illegally today rather than wait outside the country for what is likely to be many years before it will be their turn to enter legally.137
THE STATUS QUO IS A DE FACTO AMNESTY FOR MANY
If there is no new amnesty and our government continues to take no action against illegal immigrants living peacefully in the United States, over time many illegal immigrants will gradually find ways to become legal. Living here illegally or as a guest worker makes it easier to find ways to use or abuse the existing system to become legal, such as finding an employer who will declare that a qualified American cannot be located at the prevailing wage to do a certain job that the illegal immigrant is doing or marrying an American citizen.
In the 2009 fiscal year 317,000 people became legal permanent residents through marriage to a citizen compared with 265,000 in fiscal 2008.138 Some of these marriages were sham marriages which may be entered into out of sympathy for the illegal immigrant or they may involve the U.S. citizen taking cash for being part of the sham. Sham or not, being in the country facilitates obtaining legal permanent status through marriage. Of the 94 terrorist cases reviewed in “Immigration and Terrorism,” there were 18 cases where marriage was relied on to apply for legal permanent status or citizenship. At least 10 of those 18 cases involved sham marriages.139 Faisel Shahzad, the 2010 Times Square Bomber, used marriage as his route to U.S. citizenship (See Appendix B after endnotes for details on his immigration history.)
Illegal immigrant parents can have children who are automatically American citizens and the longer the family is living here and the more American children they have, the more sympathetic a hearing the parents may get if ever subject to deportation. Also as noted earlier, American born children of illegal immigrants can initiate the legalization of their parents under current immigration law when they turn 21.
Also, it is interesting to note that when conducting the census which is used every ten years to reapportion the U.S. House of Representatives, the census takers make no attempt whatsoever to distinguish between legal residents and illegal residents of the United States. It is unfair for states with large illegal immigrant populations to have extra representation in Congress due to their illegal inhabitants. Moreover, it is a form of reward for those states which are more accomodative of illegal immigration than are other states.
PRESSURE ON STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO ACT
The near total failure of the federal government to use its existing powers to contain illegal immigration has led to the steadily increasing magnitude of that immigration to all corners of our country from all corners of the world. This in turn has resulted in political battles at the state and local government level concerning proposed laws designed to counter illegal immigration and make it more difficult for illegal immigrants to work, live, or obtain public benefits in their jurisdictions. While the degree to which they can pass laws which might impact illegal immigrants has yet to be resolved in the courts, there is no question that the immigration issue is best dealt with at the federal level. To the extent that state laws are allowed to stand, states that are tough on immigration are going to cause a shift in the illegal immigrant population towards those states that are more lenient. Within states the same will be true of localities, as some cities and counties have passed or are considering laws which would affect illegal immigrants. Generally state and local governments which are predominately Democratic pass laws more sympathetic to illegal immigrants than those which are predominately Republican.
There has been increasing legislative activity at the state level. Between January 1, 2007 and April 13, 2007 a total of 1,169 immigration-related bills have been introduced in all 50 states. By contrast a total of 570 bills were introduced in all of 2006. 140 For the first six months of 2007, 171 were enacted compared to 84 for the first six months of 2006. 141 An immigration specialist of the National Conference of State Legislatures commented: "This is now a 50-state issue. There is a tremendous amount of frustration at the local level now that the federal government has abrogated its responsibility."142
With its long Mexican border, Arizona is on the front lines of illegal immigration-related issues with more people and drugs crossing its border illegally than is the case for any other state. Beyond the problems associated with an influx of poor and poorly educated immigrants, Arizona has become a haven for for drug and immigrant smugglers and many citizens feel powerless to deal with these and other problems that stem from its proximity to Mexico.
On April 13, 2010 the Arizona legislature passed a bill (SB 1070) which would make it a violation of state law to be in Arizona without proper documentation to be in the United States. Police would be authorized to stop and verify the status of anyone suspected of being illegally in the United States and foreign nationals would be required to carry proof of legal residency as federal law requires. Some state legislators had misgivings about parts of the bill but voted for it anyway out of frustration at the absence of effective federal efforts to deal with the immigration problem. This bill received extensive nationwide news coverage.
The bill was signed into law by Governor Jan Brewer, a Republican, on April 23 hours after the bill was denounced by President Obama as "misguided" and threatening to "undermine the basic notion of fairness that we cherish as Americans." Governor Brewer commented that the Arizona law comes after "decades of inaction and misguided policy [on the federal level] have created a dangerous and unacceptable situation."142a It is a certainty that there will be court challenges to the new Arizona law.
The Arizona bill was also demonized by pro-immigrant groups and Cardinal Mahony, head of Los Angeles’ Catholic archdiocese and an outspoken supporter of immigrant rights. The cardinal likened the bill to “German Nazi and Russian Communist techniques” that compelled people to turn each other in.142b It is estimated his archdiocese is nearly 70% Latino.142c Echoing similar sentiments, the Los Angeles City Council banned official travel to Arizona and blocked new contracts with businesses in the state. A few other cities proposed or passed similar legislation.
On April 26, the results of a Rasmussen poll of likely voters conducted on April 22 and April 23 were released showing that 70% of Arizonans favored their new law, while 60% of a nationwide survey favor such a law for their own areas. According to a New York Times/CBS News poll conducted between April 28 and May 2, 51% of the resondents said the Arizona law was "about right" in its approach and 9% said that it did not go far enough.142d Another nationwide survey, a McClatchy-Ipsos poll conducted between May 6-9 found that 61% of Americans and 64% of registered voters favored the Arizona law.142e
On April 30 Governor Brewer signed a follow-on bill to SB 1070 that tried to clarify the original language to send a stronger message that racial profiling will not be tolerated. The revision bill states that immigration status questions by police must follow an officer's stopping, detaining, or arresting a person suspected of violating some other law. The bill also specifies that when police stop, detain, or arrest they cannot procede to the immigration status question using race, ethnicity, or national origin as a factor.142f
Pertinent Details of SB1070 as noted in a press release dated April 29, 2010 of the Center for Immigration Studies may be found in Appendix A following the endnotes.
Of the recent actions by state legislatures, Georgia’s is noteworthy for its restrictiveness. This law, which took effect on July 1, 2007, includes the following features: a) Georgia employers are required to use a federal data base to verify that their workers are legal, b) recipients of state benefits must prove that they are in the country legally, c) jailers must inform federal authorities if anyone incarcerated is in the country illegally, and d) a new criminal offense, human trafficking, was added to the books to prosecute those who bring in groups of illegal immigrants.
In late 2007, another restrictive state law went into effect in Oklahoma. It eliminated public assistance and other tax-paid benefits for illegal immigrants and discouraged employer hiring. Further it barred illegal immigrants from obtaining a driver's license or any form of state identification. More recently additional restrictions were enacted in Oklahoma: Spanish-language drivers' tests were discontinued and a $5 fee was imposed on every overseas money wire transfer. A leading proponent in the Oklahoma state house was quoted as saying: "My idea is to slowly but surely roll down the welcome mat for illegals."142g
As of January 1, 2008 still another restrictive state law is scheduled to go into effect in Arizona. The latter contains requirements not included in Arizona’s Proposition 200 discussed below.
For Georgia and Alabama, both with Republican governors, tough new state laws to combat illegal immigration within those states went into effect in 2011. By contrast, California under newly elected Democratic governor Brown and an overwhelming Democratic legislature enacted new laws favorable to illegal immigrants.
Beyond the current activity in state legislatures, there have been two stand-out propositions that were voted on in state-wide balloting in recent years – Proposition 187 in California and Proposition 200 in Arizona. Both are noteworthy as being indicative of voter sentiment regarding illegal immigration.
Proposition 187 was on the California ballot in November 1994 as a result of a citizen initiated petition. It was supported by Republican Governor Pete Wilson who was reelected in the same election and who used its embrace to climb from an earlier 23 percentage point deficit in public opinion polls to a 15 percent point victory on election day.143 Exit polls showed that the number one reason people voted for Governor Wilson was that he would be tough on illegal immigration.144 The most significant feature of Proposition 187 was barring the public education of children who were illegal immigrants, a challenge to the Plyler v. Doe U.S. Supreme Court ruling of 1982. It denied other public benefits, excepting emergency medical treatment, unless the applicant could prove a legal right to reside in the United States. It also called on law enforcement agents who suspected a person arrested was in violation of immigration laws to check further and if evidence was found of immigration illegality they were to report that to the attorney general of California and to the INS. “Flawed as it was in design, Prop. 187 was increasingly seen by voters as the only option available to Californians to ‘send a signal’ that they were angry at open borders.…”145 Proposition 187 passed by a vote of 59 percent to 41 percent. Court challenges prevented its implementation and an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court was not undertaken by the newly elected Democratic Governor Gray Davis in 1998 (Governor Wilson was barred from running for a third term in 1998) sealing the fate of most of the sections of the Proposition. “Most Hispanic voters favored the measure in early polling, though only 31 percent voted for it after a long campaign in which Hispanic political leaders branded it as ‘anti-Hispanic.’ ”146
Proposition 200 appeared on the Arizona ballot in November 2004. It requires individuals to produce proof of citizenship before they may vote or apply for public benefits. Despite opposition from Republican U.S. Senators McCain and Kyl, and Democratic Governor Janet Napolitano and the Arizona Republican and Democratic parties, it was approved with 56 percent of the vote. Exit polls found that 47 per cent of Latino voters supported the measure.147 Various legal challenges to Proposition 200 are still wending their ways through the court systems.
One source indicates that 40 city or county ordinances seeking to make it more difficult for illegal immigrants to work or live in their jurisdictions have been enacted.147a1
On the local level, an illegal immigrant law passed by the Hazelton, Pennsylvania city government in 2006 received much press. It made it unlawful to rent to illegal immigrants and suspended the business licenses of companies that hired such immigrants. In 2007, a U.S. District judge ruled the measures unconstitutional. Included in the judge's ruling statement was "The city could not enact an ordinance that violates rights the Constitution guarantees to every person in the United States, whether a legal resident or not." The Hazelton mayor vowed to appeal the ruling, but apparently, such appeal was either never made due to cost or other factors or is still wending its way through the court system.147a2
In 2010 another city measure received widespread press coverage. In this case a measure was voted on by the citizens of Fremont, Nebraska which barred landlords from renting to those in the country illegally and required businesses to use a federal database to weed out illegal immigrant employees. Voters approved the measure with a 57% majority despite a vigorous campaign against it which included mention of the fact that defending the law in the courts would be very expensive. The Nebraska branch of the ACLU pledged to file a lawsuit as soon as possible.147a3
THE EVOLVING DEMOCRATIC PARTY APPROACH TO IMMIGRATION
In times past Democrats as a group were generally opposed to any significant immigration (both legal immigration and illegal immigration) of low skilled workers, viewing them as low-wage competitors for the jobs of blue collar Americans, a traditional constituency of the Party. In recent years, most Democrats in the House and Senate are very reluctant to take the strong steps necessary to end illegal immigration or change the emphasis of our legal immigration to the highly educated and highly skilled. This reflects some combination of the view that this is a “humanitarian” issue (How can we turn away the hard-working poor who want a better life?), the desire to avoid legislation which might in some way impinge on individual rights and liberties, and the knowledge that the majority of Hispanic voters tend to vote Democratic. With the arrival of President Obama there seems to be even greater interest on the part of some Democrats for amnesty and increased immigration of the poor and little educated.
As noted in the earlier chapter entitled "Illegal Immigrant Labor in Agriculture" President Kennedy, a Democrat, decided to close down the Bracero program of Mexican guest farm workers in the 1960s since it had negative effects on the employment and wages of U.S. farmworkers. The efforts to pass legislation to fight growing illegal immigration in the 1970's were led by a Democrat, Rep. Rodino (D-N.J.). These were thwarted by Sen. Eastland (D-Miss.) who was known as a champion of agricultural employers. President Carter, a Democrat, was also alarmed at the growth of illegal immigration, leading him to proposed detailed legislation which was not acted on by Congress.147a
Traditional allies of the Democrats are the labor unions which at one time uniformly opposed immigration of the poor as increasing the pool of potential low-wage, non-union workers who would cost some union workers their jobs. Indeed, labor unions played a significant role in the initial strong restrictions on new legal immigration first imposed in the 1920s. The inflow of illegal immigrants was precisely the problem that undermined Cesar Chavez's efforts to improve the farmworker's lot through the United Farm Workers Union in the 1970s and 1980s.
But now after years of shrinking membership, some unions are beginning to become immigrant advocates with the objective of adding immigrants to their membership. “In February 2000, the Executive Council of the AFL-CIO announced it was changing its historic position – it would now support expanded immigration, lenient enforcement of immigration laws and the legislative agenda of immigrant advocacy groups. Subsequently, AFL-CIO officials publicly explained that the organization was ‘championing immigrant rights as a strategic move to make immigrants more enthusiastic about joining unions.’”147b
Black Congresswoman Barbara Jordan, a Democrat from Texas, was chair of the U. S. Commission on Immigration Reform from 1993 until her death in 1996. The Commission made a number of carefully crafted recommendations to reduce illegal immigration and legal immigration of the poor and unskilled. Jordan explained: “In an age in which unskilled workers have far too few opportunities opened to them and in which welfare reform will require thousands more to find jobs, the Commission sees no justification to the continued entry of unskilled foreign workers.”147c Unfortunately, with Jordan’s death in 1996 the Commission lost political influence and its more significant recommendations were never enacted.
Given that American blacks are disproportionately disadvantaged by the addition of large numbers of poor legal and illegal immigrants to our country, why is it that President Obama and his fellow Democrats promote open immigration and do not stand up for the interests of poor blacks and the other poor American citizens? The answer lies in the fact that today’s poor and little educated legal and illegal immigrants are tomorrow’s Democrats. And with every year that passes, the numerical importance of the Latino population grows making their voting impact more of a factor in some elections. Obama and his fellow Democrats can also rationalize that any poor hurt by immigration will be aided by welfare and the promotion of labor unions and will not be converted into Republican voters.
The Obama long-term political goals of leveling incomes and increasing the role of the federal government in our economy are advanced by his doing everything in his power to promote labor unions which reciprocate with votes and union contributions for Democratic political candidates. To the extent that Obama can expand the role of government and grow the number of government employees this becomes a self-reinforcing process. Even today more than half of the nation's union membership is in public employee unions.
Similarly, the Obama political goals are furthered by the legal and illegal immigration of the poor and little educated who will tend to have low incomes, be welfare users, and have other characteristics which will steer the immigrants to align with the Democratic party and labor unions.147d
Moreover, the descendants of our poor, largely Hispanic immigrants also tend to vote for Democratic candidates since their education, income and wealth achievements will also tend to be below average and their use of welfare programs tend to be above average.147e In the words of one researcher: “The undeniable truth is that most Latinos reside in locations that are thoroughly monopolized by Democratic Party operations – places that have been the residence of Democratic voting populations for decades, even generations – typically in dense urban counties….”147f
Long before they can vote, the presence of legal and illegal immigrants is advantageous to the Democratic Party since our census counters are instructed to count all living in the United States including illegal immigrants and legal permanent residents who have not been naturalized (there are no questions regarding citizenship status). The decennial census results are used to allocate the number of representatives in the U.S. House of Representatives among the states, thereby tending to give more representation to Democratic states (which are favored by immigrants as places to settle) in the U.S. House of Representatives than they would otherwise have, as well as more electoral votes in presidential elections than they would otherwise have. Within states, the same census count will result in increased representation in the state houses by Democrats. Even though there is likely some undercounting of illegal immigrants, many millions are included in the census with strong encouragement to participate by immigrant community groups. Additionally, census results will include large numbers of American born children of illegal immigrants who are legally U.S. citizens but who are too young to vote, as well as millions of legal permanent residents who have not yet achieved citizenship status (including the right to vote) as they must be legal residents of the U.S. for at least five years as part of the requirements to obtain citizenship.
Another possible connection with the current policies of the Democratic Party relates to attorneys specializing in immigration law. They are represented by The American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA). This is an influential group which naturally favors and lobbies for more immigration, legal and illegal, which in turn leads to higher volumes of profitable business for them. Since the AILA's objectives now coincide with those of the Democrats, this attorney group is likely to also be contributors to the Democratic Party and its candidates, which could in turn give it some influence with the Democrats in Congress.147g
And so beginning with President Clinton, the role of the Democrats in the immigration issue became completely opposite of what it had been during prior Democratic administrations. Today the Democrats are the champions of the immigration of the poor and little educated and the Republicans (President George W. Bush excepted) are the party opposed to this policy.
CONGRESSIONAL ACTIONS ON IMMIGRATION 2005-2006
During 2005-2006 the House of Representatives and the Senate each passed different immigration reform bills but were then unable to agree on compromise legislation so no bill was sent to President Bush for his approval or veto. The House bill (H.R. 4437) which was passed on December 16, 2005 proposed making illegally immigrating a felony and proposed strengthening the barrier along the Mexican border. It had a Republican vote in favor by a margin of 203-17 while the corresponding Democratic House opposition vote was 36-164. By contrast the Senate bill (S. 2611) favored by President Bush which passed on May 25, 2006 proposed a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants already here, a form of amnesty. It had a Democratic vote in favor by a margin of 38-4 and a corresponding Senate Republican opposition vote of 23-32.
Professsor Briggs did not mince any words in his criticism of S. 2611: "Unfortunately, S.2611 shows no awareness of any of the findings, insights, and recommendations of CIR [U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform chaired by former member of Congress Barbara Jordan from 1993 until her death in 1996]. This despite the fact that its reports are the most politically impartial and carefully researched study of immigration that the nation has ever had. In sharp contrast, S.2611 seems to be the product of the wish list of every pro-immigration special interest group in Washington. None of its major provisions show the slightest awareness of any of the research on what is wrong with the existing immigration system and what can be done to reform it. Concern for the anticipated impact on the income, wages and employment opportunities for American workers of such massive changes in prevailing immigration policy is scant.”148
CONGRESSIONAL ACTIONS ON IMMIGRATION MAY-JUNE 2007
The proposed immigration legislation negotiated in late May, 2007 between the White House and key Senators in essence would have made amnesty available to most existing illegal immigrants and would not have reduced future illegal immigration to a manageable level. Although the proposed further upgrading of Border Patrol manpower and security along sections of our southern border would increase the cost and difficulty for those trying clandestine entry into the United States, most determined to enter in that way would find alternative routes that work. Moreover, there was nothing in the new proposal to effectively curtail visa overstays. With no significant increase in the manpower or budget of ICE, the probability of a “law-abiding” resident illegal immigrant being forced to leave the country would have likely remained near zero.
The proposed legislation required that employers verify that existing employees and prospective employees could legally work in the United States. For some time we have had the ability but not the political will to put such a system in place. Even if we could finally implement such a system in a way that would be effective, it would not reach many illegal immigrants who are self-employed, work as independent contractors, or work “off the books” for small employers or individuals. An estimated one-half of all illegal immigrants now work in such “non-employee” jobs and many more would seek these types of employment if employer verification ever became an enforced law. Other expected consequences of more rigorous employer verification are increased identity theft in order to obtain a name and social security number that match, increases in the number of fraudulent applications for social security numbers, and even possibly illegal immigrant use of the legitimate names and social security numbers of their American born children.149
A proposed guest worker provision for unskilled labor would have done little more than put money in the pockets of the employers of the guest workers. It would have also provided jobs for foreigners to the detriment of American workers. In addition, history has shown that many of the guest workers would have likely become permanent residents of the United States legally or illegally despite return-home requirements.
Since no agreement in Congress could be reached on the proposed bill or modifications, it appears to many that comprehensive immigration legislation is dead until after the next presidential election. If the Bush Administration continues its past policy of very limited enforcement, illegal immigration will continue to increase and the problem will be that much bigger, if not completely overwhelming, when next addressed by Congress.
As noted earlier, the estimate of 12 million for the current illegal immigrant population is likely a significant understatement. Potential illegal immigrants believe that our illegal immigrant population is so high that another amnesty is inevitable and that there is safety in numbers. If they perceive that there will continue to be little enforcement of our immigration laws, they will continue to come here in unprecedented numbers and we could be facing an illegal immigrant population of 20 million to 25 million or more when the issue is next taken up by Congress in 2009.
PRESIDENT OBAMA'S IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION OBJECTIVES
For reasons cited in the prior chapter entitled "The Evolving Democratic Party Approach to Immigration", it was a goal of President Obama to fast-track immigration amnesty legislation while Democrats still had a commanding majority in Congress. However, he and his associates did not realize the percentage of voters opposed to amnesty and open immigration and the depth of their passion. Polls following Obama's condemnation of Arizona's anti-illegal immigrant legislation showed that Obama clearly came down on the wrong side of the issue.149a
The President advanced the Dream Act (amnesty for illegal immigrant students bound for college or the U.S. military) to a vote in his lame duck Congress even though he knew ahead of time that it would not pass. He viewed it as an opportunity to paint the Republicans as anti-Hispanic since the vote was largely along party lines with most Democrats in favor and most Republicans opposed. Presdident Obama knows perfectly well that even if he does nothing legislatively he can continue to encourage poor immigrants from all over the world to illegally take up residence in the United States and he knows he can continue to allow "law-abiding" illegal immigrants to live in the U.S. with no threat of deportation. He knows that even if there is no amnesty, new illegal immigrants will gradually find ways to become legal residents over time and their children born in the United States will become legal residents at birth. In short he knows that his goals can still be achieved even if there is no official amnesty.
FOUR REASONS WHY THE IMPACT OF OUR ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION IS, HAS BEEN, AND WILL CONTINUE TO BE GREATER THAN MIGHT BE EXPECTED
The influence of illegal immigration on our country is much greater than many believe. The author estimates that illegal immigration since the 1980s accounts for at least 11 percent of our nation’s current total population (see Appendix D). If we do not change certain of our immigration-related laws and continue to not enforce those laws presently in effect, our country will undergo significant changes – all without voter approval.
The majority of voters would never approve of 1) allowing unlimited illegal immigration of the poor and little educated into this country, 2) legal immigration laws which give significant legal immigration preferences to the poor and little educated relatives of earlier immigrants who have obtained legal residence status, 3) giving automatic American citizenship to children born here of parents who are both illegally residing here, or 4) a liberalization of the rules regarding what circumstances qualify illegal immigrants for asylum which greatly expands the number of the number of poor and little educated who may qualify.
Despite the opposition of a majority of voters, these four situations accurately describe what is happening in the United States today and they are contributing to and will increasingly contribute to increased poverty and poverty-related problems in our country. These four factors are discussed in more detail below.
As a follow-on observation it should be noted that the distribution of income in this country is made less equal by the low average incomes of our current legal and illegal immigration. Moreover, past history indicates that the offspring of our typical legal and illegal immigrants are expected to be characterized by lower than average educational achievement and income as well (see earlier chapter entitled "Problems with Any New Amnesty"). In general, progressive Democrats such as President Obama do not acknowledge this when they attack our current national distribution of income and conclude that government social engineering through changes in taxation and/or other means is required to make for a more level distribution of income. However, as noted on page 120 of the Economic Report of the President: 1994 (President Clinton): "...immigration has increased the relative supply of less educated labor and appears to have contributed to the increasing inequality of income within the nation." Looked at another way -- it makes no sense to devote significant amounts of energy and resources in an effort to reduce poverty in this country and import much more poverty at the same time.
Reason One – Unlimited Illegal Immigration of the Poor and Little Educated
For many years our national government has elected to not enforce our laws which prohibit illegal immigrants from working and living in the United States. Under President Obama, the enforcement envelope has been pushed back even further with a stated policy of no deportations of “law-abiding” illegal immigrants. In sum, our federal enforcement system has evolved to the point that whoever gets by the Border Patrol or enters the U.S. on passport or visa is allowed to remain here indefinitely unless they are convicted of a serious crime while here.
Three million illegal immigrants were amnestied and made legal permanent residents by the Immigration and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986, a general amnesty in which very large numbers of immigrants fraudulently qualified for the amnesty. In the 1990s another 3 million were amnestied during the Clinton presidency in a series of limited amnesties. The latter amnesties only applied to subsets of our illegal immigrant population, primarily immigrants of certain Latin American countries.
Aside from our periodic amnesties, there has been an ongoing steady stream of our illegal population who have achieved legal permanent residence in other ways such as by marrying a citizen, finding employers who will declare that they cannot find an American to do a particular job (including unskilled jobs) at the "prevailing wage", joining our military, applying for asylum, or some other means. In most instances using these alternative methods of obtaining legal residence status has been facilitated by being here illegally. Over time millions of illegal immigrants have used such routes to citizenship (and in the process they have created increasing business and wealth for thousands of immigration attorneys who through an association lobby for more legal immigration and against effective controls on illegal immigration).
Today our illegal immigrant population is estimated by the media and the federal government at about 11 million to 12 million. Whether or not this number is too low (which it likely is), it greatly understates illegal immigration’s dimensions because it does not include 1)the 6 million previously given amnesty since 1986 and their children , 2)the many millions more who have obtained and continue to obtain legal permanent residence in ways facilitated by living here illegally, 3) the millions of U.S.-born children of illegal immigrant parents, such children being given automatic U.S. citizenship, and 4) the children of those illegal immigrants who have attained legal status.
Thus the true numbers added to our national population by illegal immigration is much larger than any current estimates of our illegal immigrant population. This is all the more the case since our largest class of illegal immigrants, the poor from Latin America, have high birthrates here. Indeed, it has been estimated that in recent years about 10 percent of all new births in this country are to illegal immigrants (not counting the children of illegal immigrants who have obtained legal status in one way or another which would probably more than double the 10 percent).
It should also be noted that over the years the impact of this childbirth is even greater than the high birth rates alone might lead one to expect because many of the Hispanic childbirths are by young mothers, thereby increasing the effect of generational compounding. Indeed, for 2009 the birthrate for Hispanic teens was 70.1 per thousand compared with 59.0 per thousand for non-Hispanic blacks, and 25.6 per thousand for non-Hispanic whites.149b Between high birth rates and rapid generational compounding, our large base of illegal immigrants who are permitted to live here plus those who obtain legal status disproportionately add to our citizen population for many years to come through childbirth.
The inflow of illegal immigrants has likely slowed with the current recession. Nevertheless, their numbers are likely stable or still growing since it is widely perceived by immigrants that no matter how bad things become economically in the United States, wages, job availability, and quality of life will continue to be worse in their home countries. And those already here will continue as a group to have large numbers of children, recession or no. Most of those who are just entering the United States and those who have lost jobs here have many friends and relatives here with whom they can live until their situations improve. Moreover, it is widely perceived by immigrants that an amnesty is coming and that deportations have completely stopped except for those convicted of serious crimes in the United States.
Reason Two – Legal Immigration Which Largely Mirrors Earlier Illegal Immigration
Our present legal immigration system discourages the immigration of individuals with advanced educational backgrounds and skills that would benefit our country. Instead of giving preferences to the best and brightest immigrants whose talents are in short supply here, since 1965 our legal immigration system gives most preferences to the close relatives of citizens. Since it is the recently legalized citizens, including many millions of formerly illegal immigrants legalized by amnesties and other means, who have by far the largest number of close relatives living outside the United States, the typical characteristics of our legal immigrants are now mirroring that of our illegal immigrants – poor, low-skilled, and little educated, with Mexico being the top ranked country of origin for legal immigration in 2009 at more than 2 1/2 times the admissions from the second ranked country of origin for legal immigrants.
Moreover, the amount of permitted legal immigration, including the admission of refugees and asylum seekers who also tend to be poor and unskilled, has been trending up over time and is now running about twice the level it had been prior to the 1990s. During the 2006-2008 period, for each year there were between 1 million and 1.3 million newly designated legal permanent residents, about two-thirds of whom were classified as receiving family-sponsored preferences.
By today’s immigration laws, citizens who are at least 21 years old are entitled to sponsor parents, siblings and their families, and married children as future legal immigrants, subject to annual limitations on category totals. This can be the start of an extended chain of legal immigration with the spouses of siblings or spouses of married children having entirely different families of their own that they will be able in turn to bring into the United States, all subject to restrictive annual limitations. The annual limits on some categories of family-sponsored preferences has led to a current immigration waitlist of an estimated eight million “overseas” relatives of American citizens, many of whom are living in the U.S. illegally today rather than wait outside the country for what is likely to be many years before it will be their turn to enter legally.
The main point here is that illegal immigration of the poor leads to increased legal immigration of the poor under today's legal immigration laws, and in this way illegal immigration leads to an even larger number of poor from the same countries that are supplying most illegal immigrants.
It has also been documented that legal immigration can be subject to large-scale fraud, a form of illegal immigration. In August 2008 a humanitarian program to allow the reuniting of thousands of African refugees with relatives living in the United States was suspended after it was discovered through DNA tests that a "large portion" of the the relatives from Kenya, Ethiopia, Uganda, Guinea, and Ghana were not the blood relatives they claimed to be. "We had high rates of fraud everywhere, except the Ivory Coast," said a State Department official.149c
Who knows how much other legal immigration has been similarly fraudulent? Additionally, it is well known that many immigrants gain legal residence here through fraudulent marriages to American citizens, sometimes referred to as "green-card marriages." Some Americans participate in green-card marriages out of sympathy for the foreigner, some do it for money, and some are deceived into thinking the foreigner is in love with them. In most of the green-card marriage cases the foreigner is already living illegally in the U.S.
Reason Three – Birthright Citizenship
Birthright citizenship is the term given to the automatic citizenship granted to children born in the United States. As applied to the children of illegal immigrants, birthright citizenship has no logical justification – why should children born of parents who are in this country in violation of our laws be rewarded only because their parents are illegally in the country? This practice encourages illegal immigration since it offers foreigners an opportunity to obtain a very valuable life benefit for their newborn children. And under our present immigration law, the children can return the favor when they are 21 and sponsor their parents for citizenship if they have not already become citizens by amnesty or other means. Moreover, birthright citizenship rewards the poor illegal immigrant parents since it enables them to immediately obtain some welfare benefits through their American born children.
As noted earlier, today of all economically advanced countries only the United States and Canada award birthright citizenship to children whose parents are both illegal immigrants. Great Britain eliminated this practice effective 1983. Australia significantly restricted it effective 1986. Ireland eliminated it effective 2005, followed by New Zealand effective 2006.
Reason 4 - Liberalization of Asylum Qualification Rules
Recent changes in the interpretation of the legal language defining who may qualify for asylum open up the possibility of asylum in the United States to hundreds of millions of women in poverty-stricken countries. For more detail please see the earlier chapter entitled: "Secondary Source of Illegal Immigration: Gaming the Asylum System."
CONCLUSION
Even by the most conservative estimates, our recent annual illegal immigrant inflows in the decade prior to 2008 were many times what they were in the 1970s or 1980s. Although there is evidence of a slowdown in illegal immigration with the loss of jobs resulting from the 2008-2010 recession, there is every reason to suspect that this is just a temporary blip in long-term upward trend. If we do not develop the political will to stop them, the annual inflows of poor and little educated illegal immigrants with all of their attendant costs can only further increase in number, so large is the pool of potential immigrants and so powerful are their incentives to come here. Our immigration problems are not going to go away with continual amnesties and non-enforcement of our immigration laws – they will only get steadily worse over time, exactly as they have for more than 40 years.
What is the best way to deal with current immigrant inflows plus the 12 to 20 million illegal immigrants that are here now? An amnesty is not the answer since it would reward those who have not waited in line, lead to significant problems and costs for years to come, and encourage future illegal immigration. Doing nothing would only result in a deterioration of our present unsatisfactory situation with its fiscal and social burdens and millions living in limbo. The alternative of attempting a wholesale deportation of all who are here illegally is simply not feasible. On the other hand, visibly enforcing our immigration laws as applied to U.S. employers as well as the illegal immigrants is an option that would have a powerful deterrent effect – it would both discourage potential newcomers and it would help persuade many who view themselves as here temporarily to voluntarily return to their countries of origin. Perhaps two-thirds of our illegal immigrant population would voluntarily depart the United States eventually.150
A concerted effort on many fronts will be required to both reduce future illegal immigration to a manageable amount and gradually encourage much of our existing illegal immigrant population to depart. The necessary measures are going to be strongly opposed by many parties which have a vested interest in the status quo as well as those who feel that we should not close our door in the face of the world’s impoverished who are desperately trying to gain entry to our country. Some of these measures will be opposed by well-meaning individuals and groups who perceive them as intrusions by the federal government which threaten individual rights. Thus, to make headway we need a President who is willing to provide the leadership and strength of purpose necessary to enforce the nation’s immigration laws backed by a Congress which is willing to provide the funding and legislative changes necessary to improve enforcement.
There are good reasons why our federal immigration laws are in effect and good reasons why the significant majority of Americans would like to see them enforced. Due to the disproportionate influence of business constituents, opportunistic politicians, others in the pro-immigrant lobby, the fear of offending any group, and the lack of organization of those opposed to open immigration, our federal government has not taken a firm stand against illegal immigration. This is not in the best interests of our country and its citizens, especially the poor who are negatively impacted as much as any group.
Below is a list of proposed actions which are intended to limit new illegal immigration and encourage existing illegal immigrants to return to their home countries by making it more difficult for them to live and work here. If these were introduced and phased in over time, many existing illegal immigrants including those who view themselves as here temporarily would gradually return to their home countries and the number of new illegal immigrants would be greatly reduced. To minimize the impact on the American economy and to provide an adjustment period for the immigrants, the United States could provide legal work permits to those illegal immigrants who step forward to be registered under the new biometrically based national ID system proposed below. The permits would have staggered expiration times, say from one year to six years, with the actual time limit for each immigrant being randomly determined.
There is no half-way on stopping illegal immigration – if we do not treat it as a serious offense, it will continue to build and become increasingly difficult to counter. Very limited efforts at enforcement with no meaningful penalties for violators are doomed to failure as illegal immigrants will be as creative and persistent as they have to be to gain entry to the United States and our jobs and communities. At a minimum, repeat violators should be subject to losing their right to ever visit or become legal permanent residents of the United States. Objections will be made to the proposals, but such measures as those below will have to be pursued if we are to keep illegal immigration at bay.
PROPOSALS FOR MINIMIZING FUTURE ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION
• A biometrically based, computer compatible form of a national identification system must be implemented. Such a national ID system would be invaluable in obtaining a quick and reliable citizen status determination which could be used for such purposes as to screen applicants for jobs and determine eligibility to participate in the social security system. The technology and cost makes this feasible today. In the U.S. there is already some acceptance of biometric ID requirements. For example, since 1996 it is California state law that notaries must obtain fingerprints for all documents concerning real property transactions, including deeds of trust. At the federal level, the Department of Homeland Security has fingerprint requirements under its US-VISIT program which applies to a subset of international visitors to the United States. The objective of US-VISIT is to keep immigration violators and criminals from entering the country. India and Nigeria are currently implementing national biometically based ID systems.
In tandem with the national ID system, there is a need to assure the validity of U.S. birth certificates with a biometric way to link them to the individual identified on the birth certificate. A biometically based national ID system is necessary to counter the easy availability of bogus documents which are sold on the street to immigrants(see chapter entitled "Undermining the Rule of Law") including driver's licenses, work authorization papers, Social Security cards, and birth certificates which are counterfeit or valid for a different person.
It is not easy to determine where the line should be drawn on the use of the national ID system. However, ID verification should be required for situations like applying for employment, participating in Social Security, applying for driver’s licenses, and applying for welfare. ID verification could also be a requirement for opening bank accounts, entering into real estate transactions, obtaining passports, using international air travel, and entering into a lease for rental housing and perhaps in other ways that would make it very difficult for illegal immigrants to live and work here. The more of every day necessities that are only available to citizens and other authorized people, the more likely it is that illegal immigrants that are here will self-deport and others will be discouraged from coming to the United States. The needed technology is available today and our citizens would generally willing to prove citizenship when required.150a All that is needed for implementation is a President and Congress that are committed to securing our borders in accordance with the wishes of most citizens.
• Our government should do whatever it takes to eliminate the giving of automatic citizenship to children born in the United States to illegal immigrant parents. This has no logical justification, it encourages illegal immigration, and it enables many illegal immigrants to obtain welfare benefits through their American born children.
• The United States should require all entering the country legally on a visa or passport to be biometrically documented. (This process would have the collateral benefit of immediately identifying people with reasons to be prohibited from freely entering the United States such as outstanding arrest warrants or past deportation orders.) Those who enter and do not depart within their visa or passport time limits would be entered into a national data base as immigration violators.151 It is hard to believe that there is no reconcilliation of entrances and departures by visa and passport holders today.
• Even though widespread use of the national ID system will make it difficult for illegal immigrants to work and live here and therefore likely to self-deport, it would still be useful to end the present policy of deporting only illegal immigrants convicted of significant crimes here. "Law abiding" illegal immigrants found in workplace raids or by local police when making police stops for violation of traffic laws and other local police business should be detained and entered into the deportation process. Such actions would be part of the message that would get back to prospective illegal immigrants indicating that the United States will no longer be an easy target for their objectives.
• Since most illegal immigrants found living or working here are entitled to a court proceeding before deportation is possible, it is expedient to waive penalties if they agree to voluntarily leave the United States. For those who legally contest their deportation, the court proceeding should be streamlined so that an immigrant’s legal status can be determined within a short detention period. The appeals process has to somehow be limited so that our court system is not completely overwhelmed with immigration cases. Immigrants ordered deported cannot be allowed to remain in the U.S. indefinitely while they file appeal after appeal. To deter repeat violations, second offenses (or non-departure by those agreeing to leave voluntarily) might trigger the permanent loss of the right to visit the United States or legally immigrate here.
• Review ways illegal immigrants and prospective immigrants game the system in their search to become legal residents. Tighten up the rules on the use of paths to citizenship like marriage, asylum, and employer certification that the employer cannot find an American to do a specified job.
• The Social Security Administration and the IRS should be required to share enough information with ICE for it to be able to identify likely illegal immigrants for follow-up investigation.
• Help Mexico in whatever way feasible so that it can provide more jobs for its citizens and reduce the pressure to emigrate to the United States.
• Give ICE and the Border Patrol the funding, staffing, and resources necessary to effectively carry out their missions of enforcing the nation’s immigration laws. This would include the means to more effectively guard our border with Mexico. They are presently no match for the jobs assigned to them. Tightening up on the border and on the ability of people to work and live in the country illegally should also pay dividends in the form of making it more difficult for terrorists and criminal gang members from other countries to operate here.
• Close down the Diversity Visa Lottery. It leads to new beachheads for illegal immigration, especially since some of the poorest countries in the world send the most winners here every year and the incentives for their friends and relatives to come here illegally are overwhelming.
Endnotes
1 Michael S. Dukakis and Daniel J.B. Mitchell, “Raise Wages, Not Walls [op-ed],” New York Times, July 25, 2006.
1a See Steven A. Camarota, "From Bad to Worse: Unemployument and Underemployment Among Less-Educated U.S.-Born Workers, 2007 to 2010," Memorandum, Center for Immigration Studies, (August, 2010), Tables 5 and 6. This data is based on the Center's analysis of public-use data for the April, May, and June 2010 Current Population Surveys. The CPS is done monthly by the Bureau of the Census for the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
1b See Steven A. Camarota, Memorandum, "A Bleak Employment Picture for the Young," Center for Immigration Studies, (September, 2011), Table 1 which also has as its source the monthly CPS (see endnote 1a immediately above).
1c "Senate Amnesty Could Strain Welfare System," Center for Immigration Studies, Announcement June,2007, Table entitled "Use of Welfare Programs Based on Nativity of Household Head."
1d See Appendix C following the endnotes.
1e See "Illegal Immigrants Receive Billions of Dollars More from the IRS than They Pay in," Memorandum, Center for Immigration Studies (September, 2011). This Memorandum may be found at http://cis.org/child-tax-credits-2011 and in Appendix F following the endnotes.
1f The survey of a nationwide representative sample found that 70 percent of Latinos born in the United States, all U.S. citizens by definition, believed that our government should create a database of all legal workers and require employers to verify employees before hiring them. From Robert Suro and Gabriel Escobar, “2006 National Survey of Latinos: The Immigration Debate,” Pew Hispanic Center, July 13, 2006. It is likely that as a group U.S. citizens of Hispanic ancestry know as well as any the downsides of uncontrolled illegal immigration including the negative impact on the wages and employment available to unskilled workers. Related to this see the quotations of the two sisters who moved from Mexico to the United States included towards the end of a chapter of this book entitled “Some Consequences of Our Illegal Immigration.” Also, as noted in the Chapter entitled "Pressure on State and Local Governments to Act" an exit poll found that 47 percent of Latino voters in Arizona voted for Proposition 200 which was on the ballot in 2004 and which contained restrictions on illegal immigrants in the state (see footnote 147 for citation).
2 Donald L. Barlett and James B. Steele, “Who Left the Door Open?” Time, September 20, 2004.
2a Marget Talev (McClatchy Newspapers), "Most Americans approve of Arizona law," Tribune (San Luis Obispo), May 13, 2010. This article refers to an McClatchy-Ipsos poll of May 6-9 that found that 61 percent of the population and 64 percent of registered voters favor the Arizona law. The same poll also found that 46 percent of Democrats favored the law for Arizona and 49 of Democrats said that they would favor the Arizona law for their own states. About 69 percent of those polled said they wouldn't mind if police officers stopped to ask them for proof of citizenship or legal right to be in the country. Further the poll found that two-thirds of Americans said that illegal immigration was a real problem that hurt the country.
3 See Appendix D following the endnotes.
4 It is to be expected that the Catholic Church in the United States would be sympathetic to the current illegal immigration which is predominately Catholic with an estimated 80 percent of our illegal immigrants coming from largely Catholic Latin America. The 80 percent estimate is from Jeffrey S. Passel, “Unauthorized Migrants: Numbers and Characteristics,” Pew Hispanic Center, June 14, 2005. The following quote is from Rachel Zoll (Associated Press) as published in “GOP, Catholics are split on immigration reform,” St. Louis Post-Dispatch, April 23, 2006: “Successive popes, including John Paul II, have stressed that nations with the resources to accommodate people fleeing from persecution and economic hardship have a moral obligation to do so – regardless of legal status. About 30 percent of the nearly 65 million U.S. Catholics are Hispanic, and the church has an extensive social service network for immigrants.”
5 “Whether or not the bias is ‘liberal,’ groupthink is a powerful force in journalism. Immigration is considered noble. People who critically examine its value or worry about its social effects are subtly considered small-minded, stupid or bigoted. The result is selective journalism that reflects poorly on our craft and detracts from democratic dialogue.” Quote from Robert J. Samuelson, “What You Don’t Know About the Immigration Bill,” Washington Post, May 31, 2006.
5a See footnote 1b
5b Mark Krikorian, “Limit Relatives Rights,” USA Today, June 18, 2007 mentions the eight million estimate. This article also mentions that the failed immigration bill of May/June 2007 proposed to eliminate extended family categories of legal immigration as a tradeoff for amnesty, but only after admitting the millions on the waiting list over the next eight or ten years. Senator Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.), a staunch immigrant advocate, is quoted as saying of this proposal: “The day it passes, we’re going to put in legislation to try to fix it [restore extended family preferences in legal immigration].” As part of its recommendations, the Jordan Commission proposed that the level of legal immigration be reduced by eliminating some of the family preferences which can give rise to extended chains of legal immigration.
5c Miriam Jordan, "Refugee Program Halted As DNA Tests Show Fraud," The Wall Street Journal, August 20, 2008.
5d For more detail related to how USCIS works see Mark Krikorian, The New Case Against Immigration, (New York: Sentinel), pp. 121-127.
6 This is a 2006 estimate from the Central Intelligence Agency’s World Factbook page for Mexico as found on the CIA website. This is in contrast to Mexico’s “official” unemployment number which counts as employed those workers who were paid for as little as one hour of work in the week prior to the survey. The official unemployment rate has been in the 3 percent range in recent years.
7 From the research of Wayne Cornelius, Director of the University of California at San Diego’s Center for Comparative Immigration Studies as mentioned in Washington Wire, Wall Street Journal on line, August 15, 2006.
8 By the 1982 Supreme Court decision in Plyler v. Doe.
9 By the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Health Care Act of 1985.
10 See Appendix E.
10a See Appendix C.
10b Jon Feere, "Birthright Citizenship in the United States -- A Global Comparison," Backgrounder, Center for Immigration Studies, August 2010. This piece is an excellent overview of the birthright citizenship issue.
11 “As U.S. citizens, these children can remain permanently, and their citizenship can effectively prevent a parent’s deportation.” Quote from Steven A. Camarota, “Birthrates Among Immigrants in America,” Center for Immigration Studies, October 2005. There is no American legal impediment to deportees taking their American born children with them when deported. Illegal immigrants convicted of crimes have been deported without regard to whether or not they have U.S. born children as was the case of Elvira Arellano, a minor cause célèbre in 2007.
12 All fertility data cited here are from Steven A. Camarota, “Birthrates Among Immigrants in America,” Center for Immigration Studies, October 2005. Camarota observes that for Hispanics, the fertility rate of illegal immigrants is very similar to the rate of legal Hispanic immigrants.
12a Jon Feere, "Birthright Citizenship in the United States -- A Global Comparison," Backgrounder, Center for Immigration Studies, August 2010.
13 At least one parent must be an Australian citizen or permanent resident for a newborn to receive automatic citizenship. If neither parent qualifies, then the child will receive citizenship on his or her tenth birthday if the child lives in Australia until age 10.
14 John C. Eastman, Professor of Law at Chapman University School of Law and Director of The Claremont Institute Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, “From Feudalism to Consent: Rethinking Birthright Citizenship,” Legal Memorandum No. 18 of the Heritage Foundation, March 30, 2006. Also, Charles Wood, “Losing Control of America’s Future – The Census, Birthright Citizenship, and Illegal Aliens,” Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, 22, Spring 1999.
15 H.R. 1940, Birthright Citizenship Act of 2007. This bill would also award citizenship to a child born in the United States if one parent was an alien performing active service in the armed forces.
16 As noted in Brian Grow and Robert Berner, “Fresh Pain for the Uninsured,” BusinessWeek, December 3, 2007: “When they don’t get paid immediately, hospitals typically recover around 10 cents on the dollar owed, even when they hire collection specialists.” The underlying theme of this article as suggested by its title is that “a growing number of hospitals, working with a range of financial companies, are squeezing revenue from patients with little or no health insurance.” Thus uninsured or underinsured American citizens may have to pay hospitals something after using hospital services depending on their ability to pay. In the cases of illegal immigrants who have no financial resources or who give hospitals fictitious names and addresses, hospitals are not likely to recover any money at all for services rendered.
17 Evelyn Larrubia, “Delivering dual benefits; Medi-Cal spends about $400 million a year on birth-related care for illegal immigrants,” Los Angeles Times, December 23, 2006.
18 Steven A. Camarota, “Birthrates Among Immigrants in America,” Center for Immigration Studies, October 2005.
19 Mexican ambulances containing people who are seriously injured have shown up at border crossings requesting “compassionate entry” and after they are waved through an American hospital is compelled to treat the injured. From Donald L. Bartlett and James B. Steele, “Who Left the Door Open?” Time, September 20, 2004.
20 Julia Preston, “Texas Hospitals’ Separate Paths Reflect the Debate on Immigration,” New York Times, July 18, 2006.
21 Ibid.
22 From an op-ed written by Chris Van Gorder, “Health Care – The Governor’s Plan,” San Diego Union - Tribune, March 2, 2007.
23 Julia Preston, “Texas Hospitals’ Separate Paths Reflect the Debate on Immigration.”
24 Michael Antonovich, Los Angeles County Supervisor, Testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary, August 2, 2006.
24a Details related to this case and some general comments about similar hospital cases may be found in Deborah Sontag, “Immigrants Facing Deportation by U.S. Hospitals,” New York Times (August 3, 2008) and Deborah Sontag, “Jury Rules for Hospital That Deported Patient,” New York Times (July 28, 2009).
24b See "Center for Immigration Studies on the New Arizona Immigration Law, SB1070," Center for Immigration Studies, April 29, 2010. Part is reprinted in Appendix A below. In footnote 6 of this study, the source is given as "The Krentz Bonfire: Will the murder of a respected Cochise County rancher change anything on our border?" Tucson Weekly, April 29, 2010.
24c Leroy Baca, Sheriff of Los Angeles County, Testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary, August 2, 2006 and “House hearings on immigration provided insights,” Daily Breeze (Torrance), July 13, 2006.
25 Not all are new illegal immigrants. Many are illegal immigrants with established residences in the United States returning from visits with family in Mexico. A source for the three to one ratio is Donald L. Bartlett and James B. Steele, “Who Left the Door Open?” Time, September 20, 2004.
26 According to research of Wayne Cornelius, Director of the University of California at San Diego’s Center for Comparative Immigration Studies, tougher border enforcement does little to discourage illegal entry. He found that after being apprehended by the Border Patrol, at least 92% of illegal crossers try again until they make it across. See Washington Wire, Wall Street Journal on line, August 15, 2006.
27 Found at unitedstatesvisas.gov.
28 Found at travel.state.gov/visa/temp/types/types_1262.html.
29 David Seminara, “No Coyote Needed,” Center for Immigration Studies Backgrounder, March 2008.
30 Ibid., 5.
31 This exploitation is sometimes cruel and extreme. For example, the following is cited in Steven Greenhouse, “Where Delivery Is a Mainstay, a Rebellion Over Pay,” New York Times, April 15, 2007: “…illegal immigrants from China often find themselves in a vise, sometimes trying to pay off $50,000 or more in smugglers’ fees….”
32 Michael Powell and Nina Bernstein, “A Glimpse Into Malian Life, and Tensions Between Old World and New,” New York Times, March 10, 2007. This article also mentions that “Polygamy is common in Mali and throughout West Africa” as the primary religion there, Islam, allows men to have four wives. This was cited in connection with the fact that one of the Malians living in the building that burned had two wives each living on a different floor, one with seven children and the other with four children. Also see Timothy Williams and Manny Fernandez, “Horrific Blaze Unites Cultures in Rituals of Grief,” New York Times, March 10, 2007.
33 Janice L. Kephart, “Immigration and Terrorism,” Center for Immigration Studies, September 2005.
34 In 2007 there were 27 countries on the visa waiver list: Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brunei, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Monaco, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, San Marino, Singapore, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom. President Bush has been pushing to expand the number of visa waiver countries as noted in Mimi Hall, “Bush wants more countries in visa-waiver program; Critics: Plan expands loophole for terrorists,” USA Today, November 29, 2006. By April, 2010 nine additional countries were added to the visa waiver list: Czech Republic, Estonia, Greece, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Slovakia, and South Korea.
35 Shoe-bomber Richard Reid and 9/11 conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui used the program. For further information on the users of false passports see Steven A. Camarota, “The Open Door – How Militant Islamic Terrorists Entered and Remained in the United States, 1993-2001,” Center for Immigration Studies, Center Paper 21.
36 From Wall Street Journal, “Coming to America,” July 30, 2007 the newly eligible countries are Argentina, Brazil, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Greece, Israel, Malta, Slovakia, South Korea, Taiwan, and Uruguay. This editorial notes that Congress is using the visa-waiver program as a reward for some of America’s “partners in the war on terror.” For a country to be eligible for the visa waiver list under the new law, the visa refusal rate must be less than 10 percent. This is up from the less than 3 percent that was necessary to be eligible for the old visa waiver list.
37 Regarding earlier Brazilian illegal immigration through Mexico see Chris Kraul and Nicole Gaouette, “The World; No-Visa Agreement Backfired on Mexico; A policy exploited by thousands of visitors, especially Brazilians, to illegally enter U.S. ends next month,” Los Angeles Times, September 14, 2005; and Paulo Winterstein, “Brazilians rush to take Mexican route to U.S.: Starting Monday, visa rules will make illegal immigration harder,” Chicago Sun-Times, October 23, 2005. Data released by the Inter-American Development Bank show for 2006 Brazil received a total of $7.3 billion of remittances compared to Mexico’s $23.1 billion received.
38 The data source is “Diversity Visa Lottery 2010 Results,” found at travel.state.gov/visa/immigrants/types/types_4574.html.
39 Steven A. Camarota, “Threats to National Security: The Asylum System, The Visa Lottery, and 245(i),” Testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims, October 9, 2002.
40 Traci Carl (Associated Press), “U.S. Temporary Worker Program – Poor Migrants Often Extorted by Criminal Network of Recruiters,” Tribune (San Luis Obispo), May 27, 2007.
41 When an employer has customarily hired illegal immigrants or immigrants under temporary guest worker programs, it cannot be expected that many American citizen employees will suddenly appear when the employer places ads in newspapers to prove that “no Americans will do the work.” Certainly not at the wages offered to the immigrant laborers. Beyond having to offer a better compensation package to attract American workers, the employer may have to offer still more in terms of what might be called a “transition premium” until the labor community believes that the employer is serious about hiring only Americans and that the jobs can be counted on in the future.
42 See Traci Carl (Associated Press), “U.S. Temporary Worker Program – Poor Migrants Often Extorted by Criminal Network of Recruiters,” Tribune (San Luis Obispo), May 27, 2007; and Nathan Thornburgh/Vass, “How Not to Treat the Guests,” Time, June 4, 2007. For a more recent example of likely extortion of guest workers from India see Julia Preston, "Suit Points to Guest Worker Program Flaws," New York Times, February 2, 2010.
43 From Nathan Thornburgh/Vass, “How Not to Treat the Guests,” Time, June 4, 2007: Quoting an employee of a company that hires crab-meat picking guest workers in North Carolina: “If you want to talk about illegals, there’s the border, and then there’s this foot in the door called a guest-worker program.”
44 June Kronholz, “Why Filling Summer Jobs is Tougher and Tougher,” Wall Street Journal, July 6, 2007.
45 Barbara Barrett, “Wanted legal workers who will labor for less,” News & Observer (Raleigh), June 25, 2007.
46 Anne Ravana, “Eastern Europeans predominate in State Department program,” Bangor Daily News, June 23, 2007.
47 Ibid.
48 Vernon M. Briggs, Jr., “Real Immigration Reform: The Path to Credibility,” Statement before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, May 3, 2007. The U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform was chaired by former member of Congress Barbara Jordan from 1993 until her death in 1996. None of the major recommendations of the Jordan commission were ever acted upon. “Had the major recommendations of the Jordan Commission been accepted, the immigration mess that [the] nation has today could have been largely avoided.” The latter quote is found in Vernon M. Briggs, “Immigration Reform and the U.S. Labor Force: The Questionable “Wisdom” of S.2611, Statement before the House of Representative Committee on the Judiciary, August 29, 2006.
49 Kelly Jeffries, “Refugees and Asylees: 2005,” Annual Flow Report, (May, 2006), Office of Immigration Statistics, U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
50 Julia Preston, “Wide Disparities Found in Judging of Asylum Cases,” New York Times, May 31, 2007.
51 From Julia Preston, “Wide Disparities Found in Judging of Asylum Cases”: In 2005, 13 percent of those who appealed with lawyers won their cases. From Vernon M. Briggs, Jr., Mass Immigration and the National Interest, 3rd ed. (Armonk: M.E. Sharpe, 2003), 170: “The vast preponderance of the individuals who file asylee applications never show up for their scheduled interviews with INS officials. They simply fade into the local communities and become illegal immigrants.” Also see footnote 10.
52 From Don Barnett, “The Coming Conflict Over Asylum,” Center for Immigration Studies, March 2002: “About a quarter of asylum petitions are made by those who arrive at a U.S. port of entry without valid documents.”
53 A 2003 study found that only 3 percent of those denied asylum were removed: “The Immigration and Naturalization Service’s Removal of Aliens Issued Final Orders,” Report Number I-2003-004, Office of the Inspector General, U.S. Department of Justice, February 2003.
54 Janice L. Kephart, “Immigration and Terrorism,” Center for Immigration Studies, September 2005.
55 Wikipedia.
56 “A Victory for Women,” (editorial) New York Times, June 22, 2008.
57 Julia Preston, “New Policy Permits Asylum for Battered Women,” New York Times, July 15, 2009. Also see Jon Feere, "Open-Border Asylum: How the Newfound Category of 'Spousal Abuse Asylum' Raises More Questions than It Answers," Center for Immigration Studies, July, 2010.
57a Quote from NationRoundup, San Francisco, The Tribune (San Luis Obispo), July 13, 2010.
58 Robert Justich and Betty Ng, “The Underground Labor Force is Rising to the Surface,” Bear Stearns Asset Management, January 3, 2005.
59 The 3 million inflow is an estimate of investigative reporters Donald L. Barlett and James B. Steele, “Who Left the Door Open?” Time, September 20, 2004.
60 Kelly Jefferys, “U.S. Legal Permanent Residents: 2006,” Annual Flow Report (March, 2007), Office of Immigration Statistics, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Table 2. The U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform, Chaired by Barbara Jordan, recommended that the level of legal immigration be cut back to its pre-1990 level of about 550,000 persons a year including refugees.
61 “Migrant remittances from the United States to Latin America reach $45 billion in 2006, says IDB,” press release of the Inter-American Development Bank, October 18, 2006.
62 The data in this paragraph are from Meins and Robert Wilke, "Remittances in times of financial instability," Inter-American Development Bank, March 2009 and "Remittances to Latin America stabilizing after 15% drop last year -- MIF [Multilateral Investment Fund], a news release of Inter-American Development Bank, March 4, 2010.
63 Office of Immigration Statistics, "Estimates of the Unauthorized Immigrant Population Residing in the United States: January 2009."
64 Eunice Moscoso, “More illegal immigrants file tax returns: Taxes a possible boost to future legalization,” Atlanta Journal-Constitution, April 17, 2007. ITIN data source is cited as the Internal Revenue Service. A table in this article shows the total number of ITINs issued from the inception in 1996 through October 2006 to be 10.4 million. In this article the Internal Revenue Service is cited as the source of the following: “The total refunds given to ITIN filers from 1996 to 2003 totaled $23 billion.” The article goes on to quote Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies commenting on the requests for ITINs: “[The illegal immigrants are] not trying to pay taxes; they’re trying to get a refund.” Also see footnote 1a of this book which indicates that much of all of the refunds for ITIN filers is related to the Child Tax Credit and Additional Child Tax Credit.
65 See table in "Actions Are Needed to Ensure Proper Use of Individual Taxpayer Identification Numbers and to Verify or Limit Refundable Credit Claims," Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration, March 31, 2009 (Reference Number 2009-40-057).
66 From Donald L. Barlett and James B. Steele, “Who Left the Door Open?” Time, September 20, 2004: “In a speech on immigration policy last January [2004], George W. Bush proposed ‘a new temporary worker program that will match willing foreign workers with willing American employers when no Americans can be found to fill the jobs.’ The President said his program would give three-year, renewable visas ‘to the millions of undocumented men and women now employed in the United States.’ In Mexico that statement was widely interpreted to mean that once Mexican citizens cross illegally into the U.S., they would be able to stay and eventually gain permanent residence. Even though the legislation shows no signs of getting through Congress this year, a run to the border has begun. Ranchers, local law officers and others say that is the story that they have heard over and over from border crossers. Rancher George Morin, who operates a 12,000 acre spread a few miles from the border, tells Time, ‘All these people say they are coming for the amnesty program.’ ”
67 Jeffrey S. Passel, “Unauthorized Migrants: Numbers and Characteristics,” Pew Hispanic Center, June 14,2005.
68 Robert Suro and Gabriel Escobar, “Survey of Mexicans Living in the U.S. on Absentee Voting in Mexican Elections,” Pew Hispanic Center, February 22, 2006.
69 Robert Suro, “Attitudes toward Immigrants and Immigration Policy: Surveys among Latinos in the U.S. and Mexico,” Pew Hispanic Center, August 16, 2005.
70 Ibid. Two 2005 Pew Hispanic Center surveys, one in February and one in May, of a representative sample of adults from the 106 million Mexicans then living in Mexico found that 41 percent and 46 percent responded yes to the survey question “If at this moment you had the means and opportunity to go live in the United States, would you go?”
71 Michael W. Cutler, “Past Present and Future: A Historic and Personal Reflection on American Immigration,” Statement before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law, March 30, 2007.
72 Authorized under Section 235(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act as applied to aliens apprehended within 100 miles of the border and within 14 days of entry as cited in the ICE Annual Report 2006.
73 Those illegal immigrants not subject to expedited removal often agree to pay their way home after brief immigration court hearings. By leaving voluntarily, they can usually retain the right to return to the United States legally at some future time. However, many do not leave the United States even though they agree voluntarily to do so. For the latter point see “Fact Sheet: Improving Border Security and Immigration Within Existing Law,” press release of the Department of Homeland Security, August 10, 2007.
74 Evan Perez, “U.S. Intensifies Immigrant Raids,” Wall Street Journal, June 20, 2007.
75 From “Removals,” Fiscal Year 2006, Immigration Monthly Statistical Report – May 2006 Year End Report, Department of Homeland Security, prepared by the Office of Immigration Statistics, June 30, 2006.
76 “House hearings on immigration provided insights,” Daily Breeze (Torrance), July 13, 2006.
77 From “Review of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Compliance Enforcement Unit (OIG-05-50),” Office of Inspector General, Department of Homeland Security, September 2005.
78 From Anna Gorman, “Suspects Chafing in Ankle Monitors,” Los Angeles Times, June 21, 2005.
79 See for example, Spencer S. Hsu and Kari Lydersen, “Illegal Hiring is Rarely Penalized; Politics, 9/11 Cited in Lax Enforcement,” Washington Post, June 19, 2006.
80 Ibid.
81 Ibid.
82 Eduardo Porter, “The Search for Illegal Immigrants Stops at the Workplace,” New York Times, March 5, 2006.
83 Miriam Jordan, “Crackdown on Illegal Immigrants Spurs Backlash Among Locals,” Wall Street Journal, April 17, 2008.
84 From an earlier interview with Hispanic Magazine quoted in Richard Wolffe, Holly Bailey, and Evan Thomas, “Bush’s Spanish Lessons,” Newsweek, May 29, 2006.
85 Ibid.
86 See Dan Gilgoff, “Border War,” U. S. News and World Report, April 10, 2006 and “Immigration and the GOP,” Wall Street Journal, June 27, 2007.
87 Mark Krikorian, How Obama Is Transforming America Through Immigration, (New York: Encounter Books), 6.
88 "Blame the Employers," Review and Outlook, Wall Street Journal, July 16,2009.
89 Robert Rector, “Amnesty and Continued Low Skill Immigration Will Substantially Raise Welfare Costs and Poverty,” Testimony before The U.S. House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary, August 2, 2006.
90 John Godfrey, “Gates Asks U.S. Senate Panel To Ease Skilled-Worker Visas,” Wall Street Journal, March 7, 2007.
91 John F. Kennedy, A Nation of Immigrants, rev. ed. with introduction by Robert F. Kennedy (New York: Harper and Row, 1964), 103.
91a Steven A. Camarota and Karen Jensenius, "A Drought of Summer Jobs: Immigration and the Long-Term Decline in Employment Among U.S.-Born Teenagers," Center for Immigration Studies, May, 2010.
91b For more discussion of the immigrant impact on wages and job availability see Mark Krikorian, The New Case Against Immigration, (New York: Sentinel), pp. 138-143.
92 See footnote 10.
93 From Council of Economic Advisors, Economic Report of the President: 1994, (Washington, D.C. Government Printing Office, 1994), 120 as noted in Vernon M. Briggs, Jr., “Immigration Reform and the U.S. Labor Force: The Questionable “Wisdom” of S.2611, Statement before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary, April 29, 2006.
94 George Borjas as quoted in Karen Tumulty, “Should They Stay or Should They Go?” Time, April 10, 2006.
95 Michael Antonovich, Los Angeles County Supervisor, Testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary, August 2, 2006.
96 Sam Quinones, “6 + 4 = 1 Tenuous Existence; An illegal immigrant couple with six children were already living in poverty. Then quadruplets arrived. They’re still in a daze,” Los Angeles Times, July 28, 2006.
97 Jerry Seper, “Forgery gang suspect arrested; Fugitive sought on document fraud charges,” Washington Times, June 21, 2006. Also see Stephen Magagnini (The Sacramento Bee)"4 accused of making fake IDs," The Tribune (San Luis Obispo, November 21, 2010. The latter article mentions that $120 could purchase a counterfeit green card, Social Security card, or California driver's license from a group of illegal immigrants who ran "high-tech" document mills out of their residences and cars in the Sacramento area. "Thousands" of these documents were sold to illegal immigrants.
98 Steven A. Camarota, “The High Cost of Cheap Labor,” Center for Immigration Studies, August 2004. Additional discussion on "off the books" hiring can be found in a later chapter in this book entitled "Illegal Immigrant Impact on U.S. Labor Markets."
99 Robert J. Samuelson, “Mexico’s Missing Prosperity,” Washington Post, June 28, 2006.
100 John Dillin, “How Eisenhower solved illegal border crossings from Mexico,” Christian Science Monitor, July 6, 2006.
101 Leroy Baca, Sheriff of Los Angeles County, Testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary, August 2, 2006. As noted earlier (in footnote 76), of the 40 percent, 70 percent had been previously deported but illegally returned to the U.S. and are now accused of or have committed another crime.
102 F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., Chairman of the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary, Opening Statement, August 2, 2006.
103 A sidelight of the immigrant crime picture is contained in Jacques Billeaud (Associated Press), “Smuggler kidnappings sneak across the border,” Tribune (San Luis Obispo), January 12, 2008. This article states that on the American side of the border, drug and immigrant smugglers “and their family members are being kidnapped by fellow criminals and held for six-figure ransoms,” sometimes leading to killings. “Phoenix had more than 340 reported such kidnappings last year, but police said the real number is much higher because many cases go unreported. The San Diego area has also seen a rise in kidnappings. . . .” The article goes on to note that “kidnappings are common in Mexico. . . .”
104 Los Angeles Times, “Latin American bug surfaces as a threat in the United States,” March 17, 2007. The disease can be passed through blood transfusions, but not through casual contact. From the Los Angeles Times article: “Using an experimental test, the American Red Cross found that one in 9,850 blood donors in the L.A. area tested positive for the parasite, Trypanosoma cruzi, in 1996. Two years later, it was one in 5,400. By 2006, according to a more refined test, it was one in 3,800.” Donald G. McNeil, Jr., “Blood Banks Get New Test to Reveal Fatal Parasite,” New York Times, (December 14, 2006), states “the American Red Cross estimated that in the Los Angeles area, the “chance of getting a unit of potentially infected blood at one in 2,000.” In contrast to the estimate of 100,000 cases of Chagas in the United States mentioned in both the cited Los Angeles Times and New York Times articles, the online Medline Plus Medical Encyclopedia, a service of the U.S. National Library of Medicine and National Institutes of Health, states “Due to immigration, approximately 500,000 people in the United States are believed to be infected.” The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention fact sheet on Chagas states “It is estimated that 8 to 11 million people in Mexico, Central America, and South America have Chagas disease, most of whom do not know that they are infected.” Both of the latter two online sites contain more details on Chagas
disease.
104a Peter J. Hotez, "Parasites in Paradise," op-ed in New York Times, May 14, 2010.
105 Donald G. McNeil Jr., “TB Declines, but Not in Immigrants,” New York Times, March 22, 2005.
106 George W. Grayson, “Jimmy Hoffa in a Dress” (subtitled “Union Boss’s Stranglehold on Mexican Education Creates Immigration Fallout”), Center for Immigration Studies, April 2008.
107 The estimate of Steven A. Camarota as cited in his “Immigration’s Impact on Public Coffers,” Testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Ways and Means, July 26, 2006. In Jeffrey S. Passel, “Unauthorized Migrants: Numbers and Characteristics,” Pew Hispanic Center, June 14, 2005, the estimate is 49 percent have not graduated high school of which almost two-thirds have not graduated ninth grade.
108 George W. Grayson, “Jimmy Hoffa in a Dress” (subtitled “Union Boss’s Stranglehold on Mexican Education Creates Immigration Fallout”), Center for Immigration Studies, April 2008.
109 See footnote 98.
110 Considering only the net fiscal impact on the federal budget, Steven A. Camarota concludes that illegal immigrants had a negative impact of $10.4 billion on the federal budget in 2002. If they should become legalized, the negative impact on the federal budget would increase to $29 billion with the resulting use of more government benefit programs (those available to citizens only) more than offsetting increases in tax collections (due to a reduction in working “off the books”). See Steven A. Camarota, “Immigration’s Impact on Public Coffers,” Testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives Ways and Means Committee, July 26, 2006; and Steven A. Camarota “The High Cost of Cheap Labor,” Center for Immigration Studies, August 2004. As can be deduced from the earlier cited testimony of Los Angeles County Supervisor Michael Antonovich (in earlier chapter entitled "Some Consequence of Our Illegal Immigration"), illegal immigrants are expected to have a negative effect on combined state and local government finances.
111 See footnote 1a.
112 A large part of the net impact was reflected in the many competing Americans who dropped out of the labor force entirely, i.e. they stopped seeking work according to government survey responses. Those not seeking work are not counted as unemployed in our unemployment statistics. Possible activities of competing Americans who dropped out of the labor force include: switching to full or part-time work “off the books,” engaging in criminal activities or serving time in jail, or increased welfare dependence.
113 Andrew Sum, Paul Harrington, and Ishwar Khatiwada, “The Impact of New Immigrants on Young Native-Born Workers, 2000-2005,” Center for Immigration Studies, (September, 2006); and Steven A. Camarota, “Dropping Out,” Center for Immigration Studies, March, 2006; and Steven A. Camarota, “Immigration’s Impact on American Workers,” Testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, May 9, 2007; and George J. Borjas, “Increasing the Supply of Labor Through Immigration,” Center for Immigration Studies, May 2004. Also see footnote 91a.
114 This is an underlying theme of Robert Justich and Betty Ng, “The Underground Labor Force is Rising to the Surface,” Bear Stearns Asset Management, January 3, 2005.
115 T. Willard Fair, “Mass Immigration vs. Black America,” Statement before the U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law, Committee on the Judiciary, May 9, 2007.
116 The fastest growing sector of the farm worker population in California are workers from rural villages in Mexico where Spanish is not the primary language. According to a 2005 survey of California farm workers conducted by the EPA, they constituted 16 percent to 20 percent of farm workers. See Sarah Arnquist, “Study Paints New Challenges Concerning Migrants,” Tribune (San Luis Obispo), August 20, 2006.
117 See Philip L. Martin, “Promise Unfulfilled,” Center for Immigration Studies, January 2004.
118 Philip L. Martin, “Guestworker Programs,” Transcript from Panel Discussion at the National Press Club, March 3, 2006. Available at Center for Immigration Studies website.
119 As still another concession to agricultural interests, IRCA effectively stopped INS open field raids by requiring the INS to get a search warrant in advance. The impracticality of obtaining such warrants through courts far from the fields has lead to the abandonment of what had been very productive raids for the INS. See Vernon M. Briggs, Jr., Mass Immigration and the National Interest, 3rd ed. (Armonk: M.E. Sharpe, 2003), 185-186.
120 See for example, Roberto Suro, “Migrants’ False Claims: Fraud on a Huge Scale,” New York Times, November 12, 1989.
121 Otis L. Graham Jr., “Amnesty Repeats Itself,” The American Conservative, June 18, 2007.
122 Janice L. Kephart, “Immigration and Terrorism,” Center for Immigration Studies, September 2005.
123 Nathan Thornburgh/Vass, “How Not to Treat the Guests,” Time, June 4, 2007.
124 For a list of the amnesties and the number of immigrants legalized by them see Vernon M. Briggs, “Immigration Reform and the U.S. Labor Force: The Questionable ‘Wisdom’ of S.2611,” Statement before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary, August 29, 2006, footnote 4.
124a See previous chapter and footnote 120.
125 Robert Rector, “Amnesty and Continued Low Skill Immigration Will Substantially Raise Welfare Costs and Poverty,” Testimony before the United States House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary, August 2, 2006.
126 A study of the National Academy of Sciences estimates that immigrants to the United States who have not graduated high school each cost U.S. taxpayers $89,000 net present cost over their lifetimes without regard to the costs of educating their children. The corresponding number for high school graduates is $31,000 net present cost. For those with a college education the number goes to a positive contribution of $105,000 net present value. See National Research Council, The New Americans: Economic, Demographic and Fiscal Effects of Immigration (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1997), p.334.
127 With an amnesty, qualifying illegal immigrants become legal permanent residents. Requirements for citizenship include living in the United States continuously for five years as legal permanent residents and demonstrating an ability to read, write, and speak English and knowledge and understanding of U.S. history and government.
128 Robert Rector cites Gordon H. Lester and Jan Tin, “Dynamics of Economic Well-Being: Program Participation, 1996 to 1999 Who Gets Assistance?” Household Economic Studies, Current Population Reports, P70-94, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington D.C., January 2004 which shows that for 1999, Hispanics in the United States were almost three times more likely to receive welfare than non-Hispanic whites. Moreover, among families that received aid, the median aid received for Hispanic families was significantly higher than the median for non-Hispanic white families. In addition, Hispanics were more than three times as likely to be long-term welfare program participants than non-Hispanic whites.
129 Hispanic mothers born in the United States had an illegitimacy rate of 50 percent in 2003 (the most recent year of the data used) in contrast to 43 percent for Hispanic immigrant mothers and 24 percent for whites. Data from Steven A. Camarota, “Illegitimate Nation – An Examination of Out-of-Wedlock Births Among Immigrants and Natives,” Center for Immigration Studies, May 2007.
130 Cultural factors were highlighted by George J. Borjas who studied immigrant
usage of welfare. Among his observations were that there were “large differences in welfare propensities among national origin groups.” Among the nationalities of households with high welfare usage after at least ten years in the United States with 1998 data were Dominican Republic (58 percent), Mexico (33.6 percent), Cuba (28.6 percent), El Salvador (25.9 percent). By contrast Poland (6.8 percent), India (5.6 percent), were at the low end of the range. Borjas also found that “the longer that immigrants live in the United States, the more likely they are to use welfare….” See George J. Borjas, Heaven’s Door (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1999), Chapter 6.
131 Income tax filers with incomes below defined levels are eligible for the earned income credit. The maximum credit for filers with two qualifying children for the 2006 tax year was $4,536. The 2006 maximum for filers with no qualifying children was $412. If the earned income tax credit exceeds the filer’s tax liability, the IRS will send the filer a check for the difference.
132 Rector cites Richard Fry and B. Lindsay Lowell, “Work or Study: Different Fortunes of U.S. Latino Generations,” Pew Hispanic Center, May 28, 2002. A different study which shows a lower high school dropout rate for Hispanics also shows that the third generation has a higher dropout rate than the second, both also being significantly higher than the non-Hispanic dropout rates: Pia Orrenius, “Is the U.S. Still a Melting Pot?” Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, Southwest Economy, May/June 2004.
133 From Rector: “The age specific incarceration rates in federal and state prisons (prisoners per 100,000 residents in the same age group in the general population) are two to two and a half times higher for Hispanics than for non-Hispanic whites. Relatively little of the higher imprisonment rate of Hispanics seems to be due to immigration violations.” Rector cites Paige M. Harrison, and Allen J. Beck, “Prisoners in 2003,” Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report, NCJ 205335, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington D.C. November 2004, table 12. Also cited was Thomas P. Bonczar, “The Prevalence of Imprisonment in the U.S. Population 1974-2001,” Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report, NCJ197976, August 2003.
134 Alan Riding, Distant Neighbors, subtitled A Portrait of the Mexicans (New York: Vintage Books, 2000), 113, states: “Mexican officials find difficulty in admitting – above all to foreigners – that corruption is essential to the operation and survival of the political system. But the system has in fact never lived without corruption and it would disintegrate or change beyond recognition if it tried to do so.” On 116: “In a sense, the fact that corruption continues to flourish in myriad forms elsewhere [in addition to that found in the upper levels of the Mexican government] confirms that the problem is cultural….”
135 See Heather Mac Donald, Victor Davis Hanson, Steven Malanga, The Immigration Solution (Chicago: Ivan R. Dee, 2007). This book extensively documents the social and economic fallout from our current illegal immigration.
136 Robert Rector.
137 Mark Krikorian, “Limit Relatives Rights,” USA Today, June 18, 2007 mentions the eight million estimate. This article also mentions that the failed immigration bill of May/June 2007 proposed to eliminate extended family categories of legal immigration as a tradeoff for amnesty, but only after admitting the millions on the waiting list over the next eight or ten years. Senator Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.), a staunch immigrant advocate, is quoted as saying of this proposal: “The day it passes, we’re going to put in legislation to try to fix it [restore extended family preferences in legal immigration].” As part of its recommendations, the Jordan Commission proposed that the level of legal immigration be reduced by eliminating some of the family preferences which can give rise to extended chains of legal immigration.
138 Randall Monger, “U.S. Legal Permanent Residents: 2009,” Annual Flow Report, Office of Immigration Statistics, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Table 2.
139 Janice L. Kephart, “Immigration and Terrorism,” Center for Immigration Studies, September 2005.
140 Deseret News, “States churning out immigration bills,” April 20, 2007. Data attributed to National Conference of State Legislatures.
141 Walter F. Roche Jr. (Los Angeles Times), “States take lead on immigration law,” Tribune (San Luis Obispo), August 7, 2007. The source cited by this article is a report by National Conference of State Legislatures. Additional information can be found in Julia Preston, “Immigration Is at Center of New Laws Around U.S.,” New York Times, August 6, 2007.
142 Walter F. Roche Jr. (Los Angeles Times), “States take lead on immigration law.”
142a The quotations from President Obama and Governor Brewer come from Luara Meckler and Miriam Jordan, "Clash on Immigration Law," Wall Street Journal, April 24, 2010.
142b Teresa Watanabe, “Cardinal Mahony criticizes Arizona immigration bill,” Los Angeles Times, April 20, 2010.
142c Ibid.
142d As reported in an article below the heading Los Angeles in the Tribune (San Luis Obispo), May 4, 2010.
142e Margaret Talev (McClatchy Newspapers), "Most Americans approve of Arizona law," Tribune (San Luis Obispo), May 13, 2010.
142f Hugh Holub, "Arizona state legislature runs for cover on SB 1070," Tucson Independent Examiner, April 30, 2010. It appeared that this revision bill received little or no coverage in the mainstream media.
142g Miriam Jordan, "Immigration Debate Flares in Oklahoma," Wall Street Journal, May 10, 2010.
143 Dan Walters, “Schwarzenegger, like Wilson, Could Play the Immigration Card,” Sacramento Bee, March 19, 2006.
144 Paul Vitello, “As Illegal Workers Hit the Suburbs, Politicians Scramble to Respond,” New York Times, October 6, 2005.
145 Otis L. Graham Jr., Unguarded Gates (Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield, 2004), 155.
146 Ibid., 155.
147 Richard Marosi, “The Nation; Arizona Stirs up Immigration Stew,” Los Angeles Times, November 6, 2004.
147a1 Emily Bazar, "Pa. town's illegal-immigrant law tossed," USA Today, July 27, 2007.
147a2 Ibid.
147a3 Monica Davey, "Nebraska Town Votes to Banish Illegal Immigrants," New York Times, June 21, 2010.
147a Vernon M. Briggs, Jr., Mass Immigration and the National Interest, 3rd ed., (M.E. Sharpe, Armonk, New York), 179.
147b Vernon M. Briggs, Jr., “Immigration Policy and Organized Labor: A Never-Ceasing Issue,” Testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on Immigration, May 24, 2007.
147c U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform, “ Statement of Professor Barbara Jordan, Chairman,” News Release, Washington, DC, June 8, 1995.
147d For more along this line of thought see Mark Krikorian, How Obama is Transforming America Through Immigration, (New York, Encounter Books, 2010).
147e See the results of a study by Robert Rector as outlined in the chapter entitled "Problems with Any New Amnesty."
147f James G. Gimpel, “Latino Voting in the 2006 Election: Realignment to the GOP Remains Distant,” Center for Immigration Studies, March 2007.
147g See James G. Gimpel and James R. Edwards, Jr., The Congressional Politics of Immigration Reform, (Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Allyn & Bacon, 1999), 47 for comments related to The American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA).
148 Vernon M. Briggs, Jr., “Immigration Reform and the U.S. Labor Force: The Questionable “Wisdom” of S.2611,” Statement before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary, August 29, 2006.
149 One of the first effects of increased employer verification will be increased use of stolen social security numbers, i.e. identity theft with all of its attendant problems, by illegal immigrants. This is already happening: “Under pressure from federal authorities to verify their workers’ legal status, more employers are checking the validity of Social Security numbers, and that has caused many illegal immigrants to use stolen rather than made-up numbers to get jobs, immigration officials said.” Quote from Anna Gorman, “Theft of identity compounds the crime; because more employers are checking workers’ IDs, illegal immigrants are increasingly using stolen Social Security numbers to get jobs,” Los Angeles Times, July 9, 2007.
149a See footnote 2a.
149b Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as referred to in Mike Esterl, "Teen Births Hit Low in Hard Times," Wall Street Journal (December 22, 2010).
149c See footnote 5c.
150 According to the results of a broad sample of Mexican illegal immigrants living in the United States, 27% said that they expected to stay in the United States for five years or less, and 68% said that they would be willing to participate in a temporary immigration program that would require that they return to Mexico. See Robert Suro, “Survey of Mexican Migrants, Part One,” Pew Hispanic Center, March 2, 2005.
150a Margaret Talev (McClatchy Newspapers), "Most Americans approve of Arizona Law," Tribune (San Luis Obispo), May 13, 2010 notes that a McClatchy-Ipsos survey found that 69 percent of Americans wouldn't mind if police officers stopped to ask them for proof of citizenship or legal right to be in the country.
151 It has been suggested that visitors to the United States be required to purchase a compliance bond to guarantee their exit by a certain date. This possibility was mentioned in J.D. Hayworth, Whatever It Takes (Washington, D.C.: Regnery, 2006), 183. It seems that an established national ID system that was widely used in the ways suggested here would obviate the need for compliance bonds.
152 From "Blame the Employers" from the Review and Outlook section of the July 16,2009 Wall Street Journal: "A bigger problem with the E-Verify system is that it doesn't catch identity fraud. An illegal alien using legitimate documents that don't belong to him can go undetected.... Several government raids on businesses in recent years have resulted in the arrests of thousands of illegal workers whom E-Verify had approved." For background on E-verify see Jessica M. Vaughan, “Proposals to Improve the Electronic Employment Verification and Worksite Enforcement System,” Statement before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law, April 26, 2007.
APPENDIX A -- DETAILS RELATED TO ARIZONA'S SB1070
Pertinent Details of SB1070 as noted in a press release dated April 29, 2010 of the Center for Immigration Studies
• The new Arizona law mirrors federal law, which already requires aliens (non-citizens) to register and carry their documents with them (8 USC 1304(e) and 8 USC 1306(a)). The new Arizona law simply states that violating federal immigration law is now a state crime as well. Because illegal immigrants are by definition in violation of federal immigration laws, they can now be arrested by local law enforcement in Arizona.
• The law is designed to avoid the legal pitfall of “pre-emption,” which means a state can’t adopt laws that conflict with federal laws. By making what is a federal violation also a state violation, the Arizona law avoids this problem.
• The law only allows police to ask about immigration status in the normal course of “lawful contact” with a person, such as a traffic stop or if they have committed a crime.
• Estimates from the federal government indicate that more than 80 percent of illegal immigrants come from Latin America.12 Thus, there is concern that police may target only Hispanics for enforcement.
• Before asking a person about immigration status, law enforcement officials are required by the law to have “reasonable suspicion” that a person is an illegal immigrant. The concept of “reasonable suspicion” is well established by court rulings. Since Arizona does not issue driver's licenses to illegal immigrants, having a valid license creates a presumption of legal status. Examples of reasonable suspicion include:
o A driver stopped for a traffic violation has no license, or record of a driver's license or other form of federal or state identification.
o A police officer observes someone buying fraudulent identity documents or crossing the border illegally.
o A police officer recognizes a gang member back on the street who he knows has been previously deported by the federal government.
• The law specifically states that police, “may not solely consider race, color or national origin” when implementing SB 1070.
• When Arizona’s governor signed the new law, she also issued an executive order requiring the Arizona Peace Officer Standards and Training Board to provide local police with additional training on what does and what does not constitute “reasonable suspicion.”13
Additional Background on Illegal Immigration in Arizona from the Center for Immigration Studies press release
• The federal government estimated that Arizona had one of the fastest growing illegal immigrant populations in the country, increasing from 330,000 in 2000 to 560,000 by 2008.1
• Arizona has adopted other laws to deter the settlement of illegal immigrants in the state in recent years. The federal government estimates that the illegal immigrant population dropped by 18 percent in the state from 2008 to 2009, compared to a 7 percent drop for the nation as a whole.2 This may be evidence that the state enforcement efforts are having an impact.
• The Maricopa County Attorney’s Office has found that 22 percent of felonies in the county are committed by illegal immigrants.3 Illegal immigrants are estimated to be 10 percent of the county’s adult population.4
• Analysis of data from State Criminal Alien Assistance Program showed that illegal immigrants were 11 percent of the state’s prison population. Illegal immigrants were estimated to be 8 percent of state’s adult population at the time of the analysis.5
• Approximately 17 percent of those arrested by the Border Patrol in its Tucson Sector have criminal records in the United States.6
• The issue of illegal immigration and crime is very difficult to measure, and while in Arizona there is evidence that illegal immigrants are committing a disproportionate share of crime, it is not clear this is the case nationally.7
• In 2007, the Center for Immigration Studies estimated that 12 percent of workers in the Arizona are illegal immigrants.8
• In 2007, the Center estimated that illegal immigrants and their U.S.-born children (under 18) comprise one-fifth of those in the state living in poverty, one-third of those without health insurance, and one out of six students in the state’s schools.9
1 See Table 4 “Estimates of the Unauthorized Immigrant Population Residing in the United States: January 2008,” http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/ois_ill_pe_2008.pdf.
2 See 'Estimates of the Unauthorized Immigrant Population Residing in the United States: January 2009,” Table 4, http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/ois_ill_pe_2009.pdf See also Table 4 “Estimates of the Unauthorized Immigrant Population Residing in the United States: January 2008,” http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/ois_ill_pe_2008.pdf.
3 The Maricopa County Attorney’s office report is at: http://www.mcaodocuments.com/press/20081002_a-whitepaper.pdf.
4 See Table 3 in “Immigration and Crime: Assessing a Conflicted Issue,” http://www.cis.org/ImmigrantCrime.
5 See Table 6 in “Immigration and Crime: Assessing a Conflicted Issue,” http://www.cis.org/ImmigrantCrime.
6 See “The Krentz Bonfire: Will the murder of a respected Cochise County rancher change anything on our border?” Tucson Weekly, April 29, 2010, http://www.tucsonweekly.com/tucson/the-krentz-bonfire/Content?oid=1945848.
7 The Center for Immigration Studies has conducted a detailed review of the literature and data available on crime. Nationally it is very difficult to come to a clear conclusion about crime rates among immigrants. The report, “Immigration and Crime: Assessing a Conflicted Issue,” is at: http://www.cis.org/ImmigrantCrime.
8 See Tables 21 in “Immigrants in the United States, 2007: A Profile of America's Foreign-Born Population,” http://www.cis.org/immigrants_profile_2007.
9 See Tables 23, 24, and 26 in “Immigrants in the United States, 2007: A Profile of America's Foreign-Born Population,” http://www.cis.org/immigrants_profile_2007.
APPENDIX B -- IMMIGRATION BACKGROUND OF THE 2010 TIMES SQUARE BOMBER
Below are preliminary research findings from The Center for Immigration Studies:
WASHINGTON (May 13, 2010) – The Center for Immigration Studies has prepared a synopsis of the information that has been released on Times Square bomber Faisal Shahzad’s immigration history, plus policy recommendations that would reduce the risks inherent in U.S. visa and immigration programs. The report, written by Jessica Vaughan, Director of Policy Studies for the Center for Immigration Studies, reveals a familiar pattern of a terrorist easily taking advantage of weak spots in America’s immigration system. Shahzad was admitted long before 9/11, but the openings he exploited are still in place today.
Contrary to what some news media have stated, it is not completely clear that Shahzad always maintained legal status. In addition, there are aspects of his immigration history that indicate his awareness of how to work our system and that he was planning to engage in terrorism for some time. Moreover, Shahzad was born in Pakistan, traveled there often and received his terrorist training there. Thus, it seems inaccurate to describe him a “home grown” terrorist as some reporters have done. Nor does it seem accurate to describe his terrorism as simply a case of “a legal immigrant’s failed American Dream”, as suggested by CBS news.
June 30, 1979 – Born in Pakistan.
December 22, 1998 – Issued student visa in Islamabad. It is difficult to justify the issuance of this student visa. Shahzad certainly failed to demonstrate that he had “sufficient academic preparation to pursue the intended course of study” at the University of Bridgeport, as the regulations required. He was applying as a transfer student, and his transcript from his correspondence course with Southeastern University, a now defunct fourth-rate academic program, showed a GPA of 2.78, including several D’s and an F (in statistics). Moreover, during the 1990s, the University of Bridgeport was financially and academically troubled, with its accreditation and reputation in serious jeopardy, and actively seeking foreign students to compensate for plummeting U.S. enrollment. Not only was the visa a mistake, but the visa officer appears to have erred in giving Shahzad a four-year visa when two would have sufficed to complete the program that Shahzad reportedly told officials he wanted to complete. Many news accounts have asserted that Shahzad underwent a “criminal background check” in order to qualify for the visa. Not exactly – in 1998 this would have been a check of CLASS, the consular database with information on prior refusals, ineligibilities, and derogatory information such as federal arrest warrants, and TIPOFF, which was a watchlist of known and suspected terrorists. Today’s watchlists and databases are far more comprehensive, but would not have provided grounds for refusal, as Shahzad apparently had no serious criminal history. But under the law the mere absence of a criminal or terrorist history is not enough by itself to qualify for a U.S. visa. For more on temporary visas, see Center for Immigration Studies Backgrounders 'Shortcuts to Immigration' and 'No Coyote Needed,' online at www.cis.org.
Fall 2000 – Graduates from University of Bridgeport, Conn. Several media reports have noted that Shahzad was flagged by border officials for carrying large sums of cash into the United States and for his repeated visits home to Pakistan. Even though foreign students are supposed to pay their own way, private papers uncovered by an intrepid local newspaper reporter revealed that Shahzad had been awarded a grant of $6,700 from the University of Bridgeport to help cover his tuition.
2001 – Begins working for a temporary staffing agency. Shahzad entered on a student visa, which does not include permission to work. It has been reported that he was granted Optional Practical Training status, which allows foreign students to stay and work after graduating (the “training” label is really a work permit). If so, there would be an application and a work permit on file with the school and with USCIS. The details are a little sketchy; it is not clear from the timing of his employment that this was feasible. The fact that any foreign student can get approval to remain here after graduating to work at a temporary staffing agency under the guise of “practical training” is an illustration of just how absurd our immigration system has become.
2002 – Issued H-1B visa. Shahzad was sponsored by Elizabeth Arden to work in a low level accounting job under the H-1B visa program. This would seem to support the argument that the visa program brings in primarily ordinary workers, not the best and the brightest as its defenders claim.
2004 – Obtains mortgage with Huma Anif Mian (U.S. citizen and future spouse).
2004 – Comes under scrutiny of the local Joint Terrorism Task Force. The JTTFs are local, multi-agency units that investigate cases related to national security. No information has been released as to why the JTTF was interested in Shahzad. Some media have reported suspicions that he had ties to Anwar al-Awlaki, the radical Muslim cleric who inspired several of the 9/11 hijackers, the Ft. Hood murderer, and the Christmas Day underwear bomber.
February 2005 – U.S. citizen wife files green card petition. Neighbors of Shahzad’s bride have told reporters that he had visited her in Colorado just once before she left to marry him.
January 2006 – Green card approved. USCIS was apparently unconcerned about either the suddenness of the marriage or the JTTF investigation. Immigration benefits adjudicators have little time or incentive to review cases closely. This case demonstrates the basic reality that the green card application process is firmly rigged in the alien’s favor, with few applications refused or challenged, especially those involving marriage to a U.S. citizen. Marriage to a U.S. citizen is one of the easiest and most popular ways for illegal aliens (and terrorists) to obtain a green card. See the Center for Immigration Studies Backgrounder 'Hello, I Love You, Won’t You Tell Me Your Name: Inside the Green Card Marriage Phenomenon.'
October 2008 – Applies for citizenship. Shahzad wasted no time applying for U.S. citizenship, which can happen after three years of marriage to a U.S. citizen, compared with five years of residency for other legal immigrants. Shahzad’s alacrity in submitting his citizenship application is very unusual. The average immigrant waits six to ten years before applying, according to DHS statistics. For one thing, the process is expensive ($675) and includes a lot of paperwork and passing a test. His U.S. citizenship makes travel abroad much easier as U.S. citizens face less scrutiny than foreign nationals when coming and going from the country and, unlike green card-holders, citizens can stay overseas indefinitely without losing status. Becoming a U.S. citizen did not require Shahzad to give up his Pakistani passport, this can be useful in concealing long periods of travel to countries like Pakistan without drawing the attention of immigration inspectors at U.S. ports of entry upon return.
April 17, 2009 – Sworn in as a U.S. citizen. Again, it appears that USCIS was untroubled by or unaware of the previous JTTF investigation.
June 2, 2009 – Departs for Pakistan.
February 3, 2010 – Returns to the United States.
May 1, 2010 – Attempts to set off bomb in Times Square.
APPENDIX C -- ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS ACCESS WELFARE VIA IRS
Many illegal immigrants are regularly accessing welfare benefits in the United States in different ways.1 They may do so through those state and local governments that do not verify citizenship or that accept false proof of citizenship. In many cases, they access welfare benefits through their citizen children born in the United States. Additionally, and this is the focus of this report, there are ways illegal immigrants can obtain a form of federal welfare that is available to income tax filers. Since a significant percentage of illegal immigrants have low incomes, work “off the books,” or work with false names and Social Security numbers, it is likely that many report little or no income when applying for federal, state, or local benefits.
An illegal immigrant cannot qualify for a legitimate Social Security number to use to file income tax returns or for any other purposes. Thus, a major facilitator for illegal immigrant access to income tax-based welfare benefits is the nine-digit Individual Tax Identification Number (ITIN) established by the IRS in 1996. It was initially established for people like foreign investors, who are required to file U.S. income tax forms but can not legally obtain a Social Security number. However, the IRS has allowed illegal immigrants to apply for and use the ITIN for filing income tax returns related to income earned in the United States. Consequently, the ITIN quickly became a vehicle for illegal immigrants to obtain refunds of part or all of income taxes withheld (if any) from their pay and for obtaining refundable tax credits above and beyond any withholding. All but a small minority of people using ITINs today are illegal immigrants.2
Since Congress did not explicitly limit the Child Tax Credit (CTC) and the Additional Child Tax Credit (ACTC) to holders of Social Security numbers, the IRS has allowed ITIN filers to obtain billions of dollars of refund checks related to these tax credits. If the CTC results in negative total tax due, it may be converted into an ACTC, which is the vehicle that the ITIN filer (or Social Security number filer) may use to collect the negative tax in the form of a check from the IRS. By IRS rules, the ACTC is a refundable credit available to individuals with no tax liability.
A Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration report dated March 31, 2009, “Actions Are Needed to Ensure Proper Use of Individual Taxpayer Identification Numbers and to Verify or Limit Refundable Credit Claims,” indicates that, for the 2007 tax year, Child Tax Credits (774,000 filings for $0.62 billion) and Additional Child Tax Credits (1,220,000 filings for $1.78 billion), together totaling $2.4 billion, were given to ITIN filers.3 By definition, none of the 1,220,000 filers who received the ACTC refunds had any tax liability, and as a group they received IRS checks totaling at least $1.78 billion. The report goes on to say: “ While the law also prohibits aliens residing without authorization from receiving most public benefits, IRS management’s view is that the law does not provide sufficient legal authority for the IRS to disallow the ACTC to ITIN filers. Nonetheless, as it now stands, the payment of Federal funds through this tax benefit appears to provide an additional incentive for aliens to enter, reside, and work in the United States without authorization, which contradicts Federal law and policy to remove such incentives.”4
A Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration report dated December 8, 2009, “Individual Taxpayer Identification Numbers Are Being Issued Without Sufficient Supporting Documentation” indicates that total refunds due for new ITINs issued in the January 1, 2008, through November 21, 2008 period were projected to amount to $1.929 billion, based on a statistical sampling.5 Without the CTC and ACTC, these ITIN filers were projected to have collected in the aggregate only $0.412 billion of refunds instead of the $1.929 billion, a difference of $1.517 billion.6 The December 8 report goes on to note that, based on a statistical sampling, 87 percent of ITIN applications submitted by Certified Acceptance Agents contained errors, primarily in supporting ID documents being missing or illegible and that “In addition, more than 55,000 ITINs were used multiple times on approximately 102,000 tax returns with refunds totalling more than $202 million."7
Any illegal immigrants who in some way obtained Social Security numbers that they could use to file tax returns and obtain refunds are not included in the above numbers for ITINs. Moreover, such illegal immigrants may have also accessed the Earned Income Credit or the Making Work Pay Credit.
End Notes
1 “Senate Amnesty Could Strain Welfare System,” Center for Immigration Studies Announcement, June 2007, http://www.cis.org/node/502, shows in the table titled “Use Of Welfare Programs Based on Nativity of Household Head” that a little more than 50 percent of Mexican illegal immigrant households have at least one person who is using at least one major welfare program, not counting the income tax-based programs discussed in this Memorandum.
2 See “Giving Cover to Illegal Aliens: IRS Tax ID Numbers Subvert Immigration Law,” by Marti Dinerstein, Center for Immigration Studies Backgrounder, October 2002, http://cis.org/IRSTaxID-ImmigrationLaw.
3 See p. 14 of Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration report dated March 31, 2009 (Reference Number 2009-40-057), at http://www.treas.gov/tigta/auditreports/2009reports/200940057fr.pdf.
4 Ibid., Memorandum Synopsis p. 3.
5 See p.13 of Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration report dated December 8, 2009 (Reference Number: 2010-40-005), at http://www.treas.gov/tigta/auditreports/2010reports/201040005fr.pdf.
6 Ibid.
7 Ibid., Memorandum Synopsis pp. 2-3.
APPENDIX D -- 11 PERCENT OF CURRENT POPULATION TRACED TO ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION
The present population of the U.S. recently passed the 300 million mark. The following population sources tied to illegal immigration since the 1980s together account for the author’s rough conservative estimate of 34 million people whose presence in the United States can be traced to illegal immigration.
Illegal immigrants legalized by seven amnesties enacted since 1986 total more than 6 million (source: Vernon M. Briggs, “Immigration Reform and the U.S. Labor Force: the Questionable ‘Wisdom’ of S.2611,” statement before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary, August 29, 2006, footnote 4).
Illegal immigrant births in the United States were estimated at 380,000 for 2002 (source: Steven M. Camarota, “Birthrates Among Immigrants in America,” Center for Immigration Studies, October 2005). Extrapolating for 2000-2008, births of illegal immigrants should have added about 3.2 million in this period. With fewer illegal immigrants here in the 1990s, we estimate 2 million births for that decade, and .5 million for the 1980s.
For the decade of the 1990s, the INS estimated that it granted 1.5 million illegal immigrants legal permanent residence for reasons such as marriage to a citizen or job certification. Conservatively, we used that data to estimate 1.5 million from that source for the 2000-2008 period, and .3 million for the 1980s (source: an INS source cited in Steven A. Camarota, “Immigrants at Mid-Decade,” Center for Immigration Studies, December 2005).
Illegal immigrants who have awarded legal permanent residence status or been subsequently naturalized have rights to sponsor relatives for legal immigration. For the fiscal year 2006, family sponsored preferences accounted for about 800,000 new legal immigrants according to a statistical publication of the Department of Homeland Security: Annual Flow Report – U.S. Legal Permanent Residents: 2006. Many of these 800,000 must be relatives of former illegal immigrants who were amnestied or were awarded legal permanent residence status since few other Americans would have qualifying relatives living out of the country to sponsor. We conservatively estimate legal immigrants sponsored by individuals who were former illegal immigrants at 3 million for 2000-2008, 1.5 million for the 1990s, and .15 million for the 1980s.
Lastly, we estimated the number of children which were born to the 6 million amnestied illegal immigrants, the 3.3 million who obtained legal permanent status in other ways, and the estimated 4.65 million legal immigrants sponsored by former illegal immigrants. We conservatively estimate these births at 1.6 million for the 2000-2008 period, 1 million for the 1990s and .2 million for the 1980s.
To the above we add the conservative estimate of 12 million illegal immigrants here at the end of 2007, to come up with a grand total of 34.27 million of our current population that is here illegally today or attributable to immigrants that took up illegal residence here since the 1980s.
APPENDIX E -- THE ASYLUM CASES OF PRESIDENT OBAMA'S AUNT AND UNCLE
Attending Obama’s Senate swearing-in ceremony in 2004 was a half-sister of his father, Zeituni Onyango, whom Obama had referred to in his memoir as “Auntie Zeituni.” Onyango had sought political asylum in the United States in 2002. In April 2003, an immigration judge turned down the asylum bid and ordered Onyango deported. After a series of appeals, Oyango was again ordered to leave the country in October, 2004. The order to leave was ignored by Onyango with no consequence. This is the usual case for those denied asylum – a 2003 study found that only 3 percent of those denied asylum left the country or were deported (see footnote 53).
A spokesperson for the Housing Authority in Boston said that Onyango had been screened and approved for public housing as an “eligible non-citizen” in 2003. The spokesperson went on to say that the Housing Authority receives no notice of deportation orders. Furthermore, the spokesperson noted that although Onyango entered the system under federal guidelines in a federal development, she now lives in a state funded development and Massachusetts law forbids the authority from asking about immigration status. Thus, the federal deportation order has no bearing on Onyango’s eligibility for the state funded project where she was living in 2008 according to the spokesperson.
On April 1, 2009, the same immigration judge that heard her earlier cases gave Onyango 10 months (of living in the United States) to prepare another appeal against the outstanding deportation order. Onyango is one of many immigrants who seek to have their cases reopened, which can occur repeatedly, according to federal immigration officials.
News of Zeituni Onyango's status surfaced shortly before the presidential election in the fall of 2008. A statement from the Obama campaign at the time said "Senator Obama has no knowledge of her status but obviously believes that any and all appropriate laws be followed."
On February 4, 2010 Zeituni Onyango was back before an immigration judge trying to make a case for asylum. She arrived in a wheelchair and her attorney indicated that medical conditions would be part of her case. Once again President Obama through his press secretary indicated he has no involvement in the case. The closed hearing ended without a decision by the judge who can make one in the coming months or continue the case on May 25.
In May 2010 the immigration judge ruled that asylum should be granted in Onyango's case based on his judgement that a return to Kenya might put her in danger. The danger results from the public disclosure of her identity in an unauthorized leak of confidential government information regarding her case three days before the November 2008 presidential election.
Controversial Onyango comments excerpted from an interview with Jonathan Elias of WBZ-TV of Boston in September 2010:
1) "If I come as an immigrant, you have the obligation to make me a citizen."
2) Commenting on how she could afford a top immigration attorney despite claiming poverty: "When you believe in Jesus Christ and almighty God, my help comes from heaven."
President Obama's uncle, Oyango Obama received publicity following his DUI arrest in Massachusetts in August, 2011. As noted in the chapter entitled "Secondary Source of Illegal Immigration: Gaming the Asylum System" newspaper reports at the time indicated that it was suspected Oyango Obama had been in the U.S. illegally for many years and that he has held a Social Security number for 19 years. Following his arrest and booking he was asked if he wanted to make a phone call. He responded "I think I will call the White House." He is now being represented by the same immigration attorney, Margaret Wong, who represented the President's aunt Zeituni. The president's press secretary announced that President Obama would not be intervening on behalf of his uncle. It should be noted in this regard that the President announced earlier in August that it would allow many illegal immigrants facing deportation the chance to stay in the U.S. and apply for work permits.
References:
Associated Press writers Eileen Sullivan, Elliot Spagat, Rodrique Ngowi, and Jay Lindsay, "Obama's Kenyan Aunt in US Ilegally," AOL News, November 1, 2008.
Judy Rakowski, “2010 Deportation Hearing Is Set for Obama’s Aunt,” Washington Post, April 2, 2009.
Devin Dwyer, "Obama's Kenyan Aunt Seeks Asylum Again, Awaits Ruling on Deportation," ABC News, February 4, 2010.
Associated Press, "Immigration judge blasts leak in Obama'a aunt's asylum case," August 18, 2010.
"Obama's Uncle Charged with Drunken Driving, Held by Immigration Officials," Fox News (on the internet), August 30, 2011.
APPENDIX F -- ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS RECEIVE BILLIONS OF DOLLARS MORE FROM THE IRS THAN THEY PAY IN
A more clear copy of Appendix F may be obtained at http://cis.org/child-tax-credits-2011.
Summary: The July 7, 2011, report of the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration provides summary data from IRS tax returns that show illegal immigrants collected far more in dollars from the IRS than they paid in federal income taxes for each year in the period of 2005-2010, the total six-year net benefit amounting to about $7.3 billion.
This Memorandum is a follow-up to the November, 2010, Memorandum “Child Tax Credits for Illegal Immigrants.”1 It highlights new information contained in a report of the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) dated July 7, 2011, entitled “Individuals Who Are Not Authorized to Work in the United States Were Paid $4.2 Billion in Refundable Credits.”2 The $4.2 billion is entirely the product of the Additional Child Tax Credit (ACTC) for the 2010 tax processing year.
The ACTC is a bit of a misnomer since it does not have to do with multiple children but rather represents the refundable portion of the Child Tax Credit (CTC) when the CTC (worth up to $1,000 per qualifying child) results in a negative total tax due. In short, filers for the ACTC have no federal income tax liability and the ACTC amount represents Treasury money that is distributed to them.
An illegal immigrant cannot qualify for a legitimate Social Security number to use to file income tax returns or for any other purpose. However, the IRS allows illegal immigrants to apply for a nine-digit Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN) to be used to file federal income tax returns, and all but a small minority of returns filed with ITINs are filed by illegal immigrants.3
Using Table 1, it can be seen that for the 2010 processing year more than three million returns were filed with ITINs. Of these, 2.3 million paid no federal income taxes and collected an aggregate of $4 billion4 from the Treasury in refundable tax credit money from the ACTC. Of those who did not file for the ACTC, most used the CTC to reduce or eliminate their tax liability and thereby recover all or part of any federal income tax money withheld by employers. Of all of the 2010 ITIN filers, fewer than one-quarter paid any federal income taxes, which amounted to about $0.87 billion in total. Thus, on a net basis, ITIN filers gained $3.13 billion ($4.0 billion minus $0.87 billion) from the IRS in the 2010 processing year. The sum of row 6 in Table 1 equals $7.37 billion, which represents an approximation of the total net outflow of IRS funds to ITIN filers for the 2005-2010 processing years.
Table 1 – Forms 1040 With ITINs
(In millions of returns and billions of $)
Processing Year 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005
(1) Number of ITIN Returns 3.02 2.86 2.55 2.44 2.04 1.55
(2) Number With Tax Paid 0.71 0.80 0.79 0.87 0.74 0.54
(3) Total Tax Paid for ITINs $0.87 $1.04 $1.02 $1.12 $0.88 $0.64
(4) ITIN Returns With ACTC 2.18 1.85 1.53 1.30 1.06 0.80
(5) ACTC Refunds Paid $4.00 $2.86 $2.14 $1.71 $1.31 $0.92
For ITIN Returns
(6) Net IRS Outflow of Funds $3.13 $1.82 $1.12 $0.59 $0.43 $0.28
For ITIN Returns: (5) – (3)
Table Source: Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration, “Individuals Who Are Not Authorized to Work in the United States Were Paid $4.2 Billion in Refundable Credits,” July 7, 2011, Reference Number: 2011-41-06, p. 20. As noted in footnote 11 on p. 4, the numbers in this table are likely understated as they come from the IRS Return Transaction file. The IRS Individual Master File is deemed more accurate because it includes subsequent adjustments. The Master File is the source of the 2010 information that shows for ITIN filers there were 2.33 million ACTC claims for a total of $4.2 billion, compared with 2.18 million and $4.00 billion for the Return Transaction File. The above table is from the Return Transaction file because some of the information was not available on the Master File.
The July 7, 2011, TIGTA report echoes the message contained in the earlier March 31, 2009, TIGTA report in the statement: “Although the law prohibits aliens residing without authorization in the United States from receiving most Federal public benefits, an increasing number of these individuals are filing tax returns claiming the Additional Child Tax Credit (ACTC), a refundable tax credit intended for working families. The payment of Federal funds through this tax benefit appears to provide an additional incentive for aliens to enter, reside, and work in the United States without authorization, which contradicts Federal law and policy to remove such incentives.”5
Once again, the TIGTA observed that IRS management’s view is that existing law does not provide enough legal authority for the IRS to disallow the ACTC to ITIN filers. Consequently, the TIGTA again recommended that Congress enact ACTC legislation similar to that which limits the Earned Income Tax Credit to those individuals who have Social Security numbers valid for employment. The report notes such a bill was recently introduced in the U.S. Senate (S.577 — Child Tax Credit Integrity Preservation Act of 2011).
The TIGTA notes that ACTC claims have been steadily increasing, as can be seen in Table 1, which shows total ACTC claims rising from $924 million in 2005 to $4 billion in 2010. The growth in claims was augmented by The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, which altered the ACTC tax calculations for the tax years 2009 through 2012, enabling more tax filers to qualify for the ACTC and some qualifiers to claim a greater amount. Additionally, there has been an increase in the number of filers who are filing for back years as well as the current year in order to maximize their refunds due to the ACTC. For example, in the 2010 processing year about 238,000 ITIN filers submitted multi-year returns claiming more than $1 billion of ACTC money.6
In addition to having concerns about whether it is appropriate for illegal immigrants to be collecting any ACTC funds, the TIGTA also was concerned about the fraud potential in the ACTC claims by ITIN filers, since it was the experience of the IRS that the risk of fraud involving refundable tax credits is “significant.”7 The report details a number of fraud findings related to ITIN filers and makes recommendations for IRS changes to minimize fraud.8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
End Notes
1 http://cis.org/child-tax-credits.
2 Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration, “Individuals Who Are Not Authorized to Work in the United States Were Paid $4.2 Billion in Refundable Credits”, July 7, 2011, Reference Number: 2011-41-061, http://www.treasury.gov/tigta/auditreports/2011reports/201141061fr.pdf. It is important to note that the headline number of $4.2 billion of refundable ACTCs for 2010 cited in the report title is from a different IRS source than the $4.0 billion cited in Table 1 of this Memorandum. See source note for Table 1 for a detailed explanation of the differences and the conclusion that the $4.2 billion number is the more accurate number.
3 See Marti Dinerstein, “Giving Cover to Illegal Aliens: IRS Tax ID Numbers Subvert Immigration Law”, Center for Immigration Studies Backgrounder, November 2002, http://cis.org/IRSTaxID-ImmigrationLaw.
4 See Table 1 source note for an explanation of the discrepancy between the $4.2 billion and the $4.0 billion numbers.
5 Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration, “Individuals Who Are Not Authorized to Work in the United States were Paid $4.2 Billion in Refundable Credits”, July 7, 2011, Highlights page (the first page following the title page). Very similar wording can be found in the March 31, 2009, report of the TIGTA “Actions Are Needed to Ensure Proper Use of Individual Taxpayer Identification Numbers and to Verify or Limit Refundable Credit Claims”, Reference Number: 2009-40-057. The latter report can be found at http://www.treas.gov/tigta/auditreports/2009reports/200940057fr.pdf .
6 Ibid., p. 5.
7 Ibid., p. 3.
8 One of the fraud findings in this report deals with ITIN filers who claim employer withholding on their returns and then supply a W-2 to prove the withholding. In a number of these cases it turns out that there is a Social Security number on the W-2 that belongs to a citizen who is thereby a victim of identity fraud (see p. 11 of the report). The TIGTA believes it is the duty of the IRS to promptly notify legitimate taxpayers that their identity has been compromised, which was not done in most of the ITIN cases examined by the TIGTA. For e-filed ITIN returns, the TIGTA discovered that many software programs automatically substituted the individual’s ITIN number on the e-filed W-2 for whatever taxpayer ID number was used on the actual W-2 (such as a stolen Social Security number), making it impossible for the IRS to easily discover identity fraud or reconcile the employee-claimed withholding amount with that the employer reported to the IRS (see p. 13). A large proportion of ITIN returns are now e-filed. For tax year 2008, tax returns, 56 percent of all ITIN returns were e-filed. See p. 4 in TIGTA report dated December 8, 2009, Reference Number: 2010-40-005, at http://www.treasury.gov/tigta/auditreports/2010reports/201040005fr.pdf.
Saturday, April 24, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)