America's illegal immigrants

George Bush has promoted a sensible immigration plan, to the horror of many of his supporters. But the devil is in the details.

THERE is a state of emergency on the border between Arizona and Mexico, with all the confusion that entails. The radio hisses: “We've got a ‘failure to yield'.” A Border Patrol agent has ordered a vehicle to pull over and seen it speed off instead. He needs back-up. Patrolman Jim Hawkins races towards the scene. Passing a suspicious-looking pick-up truck en route, he sighs that he doesn't have time to stop. A few minutes later, however, the patrolman who called for help manages to catch his prey unassisted, though the driver assaults him, so Mr Hawkins goes looking for the suspicious pick-up truck. There was someone in it using what looked like a Border Patrol radio, he explains, which could mean that it was a people-smuggler.

Mr Hawkins's instincts are shrewd, but wrong. The pick-up's driver is using a Border Patrol radio because he is, in fact, a Border Patrol agent, who had impounded the vehicle after finding two dozen illegal aliens squeezed in the back. Their disguise was averagely cunning. They came in a convoy: two pick-ups, each with a sheet of plywood over the bed, painted the same colour as the truck itself to make it look like the bed was empty, when in fact it was packed with Mexicans. Some 40 of them—men, women and children—sit glumly beneath a mesquite tree, waiting to be processed. The one smuggler who failed to escape into the roadside bushes stands even more glumly to one side, in handcuffs.

A few miles away and 11 days later, on November 28th, George Bush gave a speech about illegal immigration. “America has always been a compassionate nation that values the newcomer and takes great pride in our immigrant heritage,” the president told patrolmen at an air base in Tucson, Arizona. “Yet we're also a nation built on the rule of law, and those who enter the country illegally violate the law. The American people should not have to choose between a welcoming society and a lawful society. We can have both.”

He then outlined a plan to curb illegal immigration without starving the fruit-picking and construction industries of labour, and without offering “amnesty” to illegals currently on American soil. Given how upset people get about this issue, how hard it is to tackle and how deeply it divides Mr Bush's own party, political strategists might doubt Mr Bush's wisdom in making it the last big domestic battle of a wretched year. For Americans outside the Beltway, however, the questions are: “Is it a good plan?” and “Will it work?”.

The problem is familiar. Unlike other rich countries, the United States shares a long border with a poor and populous neighbour. According to the Pew Hispanic Centre, nearly 500,000 unskilled migrants arrive every year to do the kind of strenuous, low-paid jobs that Americans shun. Yet the United States issues only 5,000 visas a year for unskilled foreigners seeking year-round work. As Tamar Jacoby of the conservative Manhattan Institute explained to the Senate in July: “A Mexican without family in the US who wants to do something other than farm work has virtually no legal way to enter the country. And even a man with family here must wait from six to 22 years for a visa.”

So they come illegally, as the stampede of sandy footprints at popular crossing-points attests. Many are caught, but most aren't. Since the penalty for capture is repatriation, the only deterrent to trying again is the $1,500 a head the “coyotes” or smugglers charge. Coyote gangs do not hesitate to beat, rob or kill migrants who enter “their” territory without paying.

Meanwhile, many other foreigners enter America legally but then either stay on after their visas have expired or work when they are not supposed to. All told, there are an estimated 11m “illegal aliens”.

Many Americans do not mind. The illegals undoubtedly boost the economy. They wash dishes more cheaply than locals would, benefiting anybody who ever goes to a restaurant. Without Mexicans, vegetables would go unpicked and nursing homes would be filthy. But others object strongly to illegal immigration. Three reasons are usually cited.

The first is economic. The middle classes may love illegal gardeners, but many unskilled Americans fear being displaced by them, or forced to accept lower wages. “Keep them fools out,” says Alvin Pablo, an unemployed landscaper in Tucson, who says that Mexicans took his job. A recent study by the Congressional Budget Office found that the negative effect of migrants on the wages of unskilled Americans was less clear, and probably lower, than people imagine: it reduced them by something between zero and 10%. But this will hardly comfort Mr Pablo, who favours erecting a huge fence along the border.

The second gripe about America's porous borders is that they might let terrorists in. A Texan lawmaker claimed this month that al-Qaeda operatives have moved to Mexico, learned Spanish and been caught slipping into the United States disguised as economic migrants. Mr Bush mentioned terrorism twice in his speech in Tucson.

The third complaint about illegal aliens is that they are illegal. The failure to enforce immigration laws undermines the rule of law itself. Or, as many employers would put it, the fact that America does not issue enough visas to unskilled workers forces them to break the law. AP The other side of the story

Mr Bush is trying to please as many grumblers as he can. His plan is two-pronged: he wants to tighten controls at the border, while simultaneously relieving pressure on it by “creating a legal channel for those who enter America to do an honest day's labour,” through a new temporary worker programme. More guards, more permits

For the first prong, Mr Bush is relying on cash and technology. He boasted this week of having increased funding for border security by 60% since taking office. True enough, but, as Ms Jacoby told the Senate, the number of Border Patrol agents has tripled since 1986, and their budget risen tenfold, without noticeably staunching the flow of illegals.

Mr Bush argued that “cutting-edge equipment like overhead surveillance drones” can give agents a “broader reach”. The border patrollers agree. An unmanned spy plane can hover over the border for 10-12 hours, beams Michael Nicely, the Border Patrol chief for the Tucson sector. His men have all manner of gizmos, from “stop sticks” that slowly deflate the tyres of fleeing cars to “pepperball launching systems”—glorified paintball guns that immobilise rowdy smugglers.

Captured migrants sometimes have no idea how they were spotted. Carmen Vasquez, interviewed in a holding pen in Nogales, says she was tip-toeing through the mountains with her family after dark when she was suddenly surrounded by Border Patrol agents on roaring quad bikes. Agent Hawkins explains (though not to Ms Vasquez) that she was seen through an infra-red camera on a distant hilltop. “Don't let anyone tell you we can't control our borders,” says Mr Nicely, “We just need more resources.” He mentions lights, fences, infra-red cameras and helicopters (of which he already has 53—four times more than are available to help feed Sudan's stricken Darfur region).

As well as catching more illegals, Mr Bush wants to deal more rationally with those who are caught. He wants to end “catch and release”, the policy whereby four-fifths of non-Mexican illegals, when caught, are released pending an appearance before a judge, to which 75% of them fail to show up. He also touted the success of a pilot scheme in west Arizona where illegal Mexicans, instead of being repatriated to border towns, were flown and then bused back to their hometowns. With further to walk, only 8% of the 35,000 deportees so dealt with were caught again.

But can more gadgets and tougher rules beat market forces? As she waited to be “voluntarily repatriated”, Ms Vasquez said she would like to come back soon. Her sister, she said, makes $1,000 a month cleaning hotel rooms in Florida—ten times what she could earn back home.

Which brings us to the more controversial, and promising, part of Mr Bush's plan. To “match willing foreign workers with willing American employers to fill jobs that Americans will not do”, he proposes letting illegal aliens currently in America register for legal status. After paying fines and back taxes, they would then be allowed to work for a fixed period, after which they would have to return home. He insisted that this would not constitute an “amnesty”. Right-wingers said it did. “Now we've finally caught the president in a lie,” fumed Neal Boortz, a talk-radio host.

Whether a temporary worker scheme gets off the ground depends on Congress. The Senate is soon to consider two bills. One, sponsored by John McCain (an Arizona Republican) and Ted Kennedy (a Democrat from Massachusetts), calls for a guest-worker programme much like Mr Bush's. The other, sponsored by John Cornyn of Texas and Jon Kyl of Arizona, both Republicans, lays more emphasis on enforcement. This week, Mr Bush praised both Mr McCain and Mr Kyl.

However the bills are blended together, a guest-worker programme will work only if it meets two criteria. First, it must allow a realistic number of temporary work permits—enough to match the demand for migrant labour. Second, employers who hire illegals must be punished, as they rarely have been in the past. Mr Bush touted a programme called “Basic Pilot”, which allows firms to check with a federal database to see whether a prospective worker is legal. And he boasted that swoops on worksites under “Operation Rollback”, which was “completed” this year, resulted in the arrest of hundreds of illegal aliens and convictions against a dozen employers.

Hundreds of arrests, when the total number of illegals is around 11m? That is the kind of number that enrages Chris Simcox, the head of the Minutemen, a group that patrols the border and organises protests much further inside the country (such as outside a day centre for illegal aliens in Virginia, where they can hook up with employers). He fumes at the “hypocrisy” of “a federal government that will not enforce the rule of law”. He adds: “That's going to lead to anarchy, [and] out-of-control cultural change in this country.”

The mainstream media paint the Minutemen as spiteful and clueless vigilantes. One of them dressed an illegal alien in a T-shirt with the slogan: “Bryan Barton caught me crossing the border and all I got was this lousy T-shirt”. Against this, Mr Barton was expelled, and in parts of conservative America Minutemen are heroes. A recent CBS poll found that 75% of Americans—and 87% of Republicans—think more should be done to keep illegal aliens out. That is why Mr Bush has to sound tough.

But not only tough. For a start, the Republicans are keen to woo Latino voters, who are quick to punish politicians who bash their immigrant cousins. Moreover, conservative whites are not as xenophobic as their bumper stickers. They may wax indignant about the need for higher fences, but when asked detailed questions about what should happen to the illegals already in the United States, they quickly turn pragmatic. A recent poll of likely Republican voters by the Manhattan Institute found that only a third favoured mass deportations, and only 13% thought it was possible to deport all 11m illegals.

Most encouragingly for Mr Bush, when asked if they would favour a comprehensive bill that included both tougher enforcement (at the border, and in workplaces) and a way for illegals to get temporary work permits that might, with good behaviour, lead to citizenship, 72% of these Republicans said yes. The tired, poor, huddled masses are still welcome.

The article doesn't mention the drain on the public treasury illegals represent. The reason being, for that, the illegal advocates have no answer, since they admit that each illegal cost the taxpayers $89,000.

The FR pro-illegal Quislings shrink from any questions about the public cost of illegals as does Count Dracula from sunlight.

They wash dishes more cheaply than locals would, benefiting anybody who ever goes to a restaurant. Without Mexicans, vegetables would go unpicked and nursing homes would be filthy.

Thanks for posting too bad it's full of so much BS like that above.

I swear that many in my area hire illegals because they know the illegals will follow orders blindly without questioning the possible code violations involved. And WHEN CAUGHT, the employer is able to blame away any descrepancies. After all, the offending parties are long gone and we must feel sorry for the "poor Mexicans". A neighbor did just that and blamed the Mexicans he hired for the contruction of the fence that took a quarter acre of my Mom's property. He said "the Mexicans" told him they found a property line corner marker and fenced to it. It was a lie, he was just trying to steal property for a vineyard and hoped we wouldn't notice. Most likely any reputable fence builder would have hesitated at putting a fence in that area. Meanwhile, we had to pay for a survey to reestablish our property line boundary, so the surveying companies get more business too.

Not only do these owners get away with not paying withholding, taxes, etc., they have a scape goat for other illegal actions. Meanwhile the county officials in charge of code violations just look the other way.

"The current immigration system isn’t “broken” or “failed;” it's just unenforced. Not unenforceable, mind you, just ignored. Americans don’t want so-called “immigration reform, they want strict enforcement of immigration laws, an end to illegal immigration and amnesties, and an end to the rampant lawlessness engendered by politically-correct refusal to enforce our civil laws.

There's free food, subsidized housing, reduced mortgages, food stamps, free medical and education, reduced tuition and suspension of out of state tuition fees--all of this is your reward for breaking the law, but only if you aren't already an American. If you're an American, forget about it; you have to pay your way through life. This is your reward for obeying the law.

Americans have to pay full price for their education, medical care, homes, and on top of that, our taxes go to pay for criminals--that is what illegal aliens are, make no mistake: they are criminals--who get all of that for little or even for nothing. This makes it possible--even easy--for them to work for $10 an hour or less. How many of us could afford to work for peanuts IF our homes, medical, food and education were all paid for? I know that the bulk of our bills are student loans and medical; take away those bills and you take away 90% of our debt. And I know too many people my age in the same boat...so calling it a national epidemic is probably an understatement.

After all, we're the real Americans...that means we have to pay for things that immigrants--including/especially illegals--get for free so long as they have a pulse and a sob story."

Sheana here is a prime example of what your post emulates so perfectly.

I, an American from birth, get crashed into by a drunk. I have, and paid for, health insurance, there is an Auto insurance policy purchased by another American on the vehicle I was in, my purchased Auto insurance policy applies, there is Auto insurance policy purchased for the car that crashed into us, and my wife, who was not even there when it happened (nor was it our vehicle), gets sued by medical providers and has a judgment granted against her paycheck because insurance companies are playing their little lawyer games.

All the while taxes taken out of her paycheck pay the medical bills of illegal aliens that never paid a dime in Taxes or for any insurance policy at all.

I offer this as a simple example of how much truth your posts contains....its like a born American is to be punished simply for being born here instead of somewhere else. Sickening it is!

According to the Pew Hispanic Centre, nearly 500,000 unskilled migrants arrive every year to do the kind of strenuous, low-paid jobs that Americans shun. Yet the United States issues only 5,000 visas a year for unskilled foreigners seeking year-round work.

What a bunch of clap-trap and not a word about the costs of illegal immigration-- dumbed-down schools, balkanized neighborhoods, crowded emergency rooms, and third-world diseases which were once though eradicated.

So because the demand for visas is around 500,000 and the supply around 5,000, is the author suggesting we are supposed to automatically increase the supply to accomodate the demand? Does anyone but a nimrod doubt that if we did so, the demand would increase to 1, 2 or 10 million annually?

As a soverign country, do we not have the right to pick and choose the sources, quality and, yes, even numbers of our legal immigrants? Does Mexico, with many neighborhoods devoid of working age population, have no obligation to grow its own economy and provide jobs? If so, maybe some of their emmigrants should be shipped to Europe, home of this news rag, where they can displace North African Muslims and other unemployables on that continent.

As for myself, if America needs more immigrants (and I think we do), I'd rather see a few more from places like Korea, the Philippines, India and Taiwan who have shown a demonstrated willingness to assimilate into American society and learn and respect our language and culture and a few less from places which have, with some noteworthy exceptions, simply sought to replace it with the third-world cultures from whence they came.

The illegals undoubtedly boost the economy.

BS. Illegal aliens don't boost the economy. Workers boost the economy. And those workers can and should be comprised solely of Americans and legal immigrants.

They wash dishes more cheaply than locals would, benefiting anybody who ever goes to a restaurant.

Yes, illegal aliens do drive down wages. And the money saved by restaurant owners who employ illegal aliens go into the owner's pockets, benefitting solely the owners.

Without Mexicans, vegetables would go unpicked and nursing homes would be filthy.

Completely, totally, 100% untrue.

The 'powers that be' refuse to admit that Visa demand is so high. This would lead to being a measure of how our overall economy is actually doing. If job growth is so much that visa requests are filled as fast as they can be granted it is kind of hard to claim things like 'most jobs lost since Herbert Hoover'.

We have every right to decide as a nation who we let in this country and what they can or cannot do when here. Not to mention the power to tell them to leave at any time.

Mexico indeed needs to grow its own economy. I am all for helping them do so, I am against doing it FOR them.

How about just giving them a fast track North? Canada is only 30 million people or there abouts, I suppose they would be open to millions of immigrants 'looking to do those jobs Canadians won't do'.

Any immigrant that will follow the laws of our nation , including the ones where we decide who can come when and for how long, will melt into society and stop trying to make this country be an extension of their own is fine by me.

It sure seems to me that this nation has lost its way in the area of natural born Americans. It occurs to me that we come last on any list that comes out of our Government.

Spanish is popping up all over around here and my shopping opportunities are drastically lessened as a result. Until such time as Pesos and centavos are our currency, when I see Spanish at the store I simply go elsewhere.

Which brings us to the more controversial, and promising, part of Mr Bush's plan. To “match willing foreign workers with willing American employers to fill jobs that Americans will not do”, he proposes letting illegal aliens currently in America register for legal status. After paying fines and back taxes, they would then be allowed to work for a fixed period, after which they would have to return home. He insisted that this would not constitute an “amnesty”. Right-wingers said it did. “Now we've finally caught the president in a lie,” fumed Neal Boortz, a talk-radio host.

So if it isn't an amnesty then a Lewinsky isn't sex? My how our Presidents vocabulary differs from Merriam Webster. I didn't know Neal Bortz was a "right-winger", I didn't notice the author calling Ted Kennedy(a democrat from mass) a drunken socialist left winger who started this Immigration mess in 1965, could the author be biased?

After paying fines and back taxes, they would then be allowed to work for a fixed period, after which they would have to return home.

Bush's lie within a lie: The illegals already "have to return home". Yet no one makes them do so. So who's going to make them return home in the future? Bush?? ROTFLOL!!!

Or maybe Bush is saying, "let me kick this issue at least 3 years down the road, maybe my successor will have more of a spine than me, and will actually enforce something".

Of course, yet another prevarication here is the "fixed period". The only limit is how often (3 years) illegals, if they bother at all, have to get their Bush-visas stamped, but there's no total time being mentioned. What is it 3, 6, 9, 15, 30 years?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.