The Comprehensive Illegal Immigrant Thread

I disagree that this income is something Mexico would not have otherwise; for example, in a scenario where the U.S. passed a comprehensive immigration reform that included some kind of guest worker program and/or expanded the categories for TN visas. But, even more importantly, I think Mexico can do more to help its population by continuing to implement policies that will attract foreign investment, which in the long run result in more jobs for Mexicans (as opposed to handouts via gov't anti-poverty programs).

And I think it would be very hard to attract foreign investment if there was a lot of unrest in Mexico, something that would be very likely to happen if the Mexican government tried to keep its citizens from leaving the country. In the long run, the escape valve may also serve American interests, because if you have unrest, then you're less likely to see more foreign investment in Mexico, and there would be even more poverty, and more people trying to escape from it.

 

You seem obsessed with a guest worker program. Whether or not there is a guest worker program put in place is pure speculation, and as such has no real bearing on the matter here. You could similarly claim that just as much money would flow into Mexico if there was a completely open border there.

The fact is that Mexico right now receives significant financial benefit as a result of illegal immigration into the US. The vast majority of that $24 billion comes from illegal immigrants, not the legal ones. It's billions of dollars in the Mexican economy that they wouldn't have if they actually lived up to their international obligations to help secure their borders.

Yes, foreign investment into Mexico might offset some of that were it to dry up, but the Mexican government doesn't have any incentive to slow it down. They are reaping the benefits of all of that money without having to spend any of their own money to generate that influx. Where is their incentive to help in securing the border?

Kimball Kinnison

 

I don't disagree with you on that. But I'm trying to point out that, from all available evidence, this influx appears to serve (at best) as a palliative when it comes to fighting poverty and creating better economic opportunities for poor people in Mexico.

What might happen if you eliminate this escape valve and keep the discontented Mexicans from leaving? It's possible that things could get worse in Mexico, much worse. A leftist, protectionist and anti-American government, in the best of cases, and outright revolution in the worst-case scenario (and history has taught us that when things get violent in Mexico, they get very, very, very violent).

I don't think most Americans would like the idea of another Hugo Chavez just south of the border, and I don't think that kind of ruler in Mexico would have any more incentive than the pro-business presidents to keep Mexicans from leaving. Not to mention that increased instability would be easy for drug traffickers to take advantage of.

It seems to me the best-case scenario involves a combination of more foreign investment in Mexico and a comprehensive immigration reform in the United States. The two should go hand in hand and in the long run would make immigration enforcement much easier, and much less of a burden on U.S. taxpayers. Not only that, with a higher purchasing power for Mexicans, the U.S. could increase its exports there.

 

Except, what is to keep Mexico from wanting to have its cake and eating it, too?

All of your solutions seem to focus on what everyone else can do for Mexico. More foreign investment. The US needs to reform its immigration.

It's not the rest of the world's job to fix Mexico's problems. It's not the rest of the world's job to invest in Mexico. It's Mexico's job to convince others to invest there. It's Mexico's job to solve their internal problems.

Until Mexico starts to change its behavior, what does it benefit anyone else to do anything for Mexico? What is to stop Mexico from continuing to encourage illegal immigration while simultaneously reaping the benefits of your proposed foreign investment and immigration reform?

Kimball Kinnison

 

Whats comprehensive supposed to mean? What do we do with illegal immigrants then? A large part of the issue is, there will always be people trying to enter the U.S. illegally unless there is no restrictions on immigration. Mexico clearly has no respect for American soverignty or law, so I do not see any reason why should we act pretending that it does.

I'd much rather just enforce the laws, let Mexico deal with its own problems, and undercut the drug runners with American-grown products. May take care of some of the rampant corruption Mexico has if we did that one, as well.

 

Poor people are irrelevant. It isn't the United States responsibility to feed and clothe Mexico or Mexicans.

And Marshall Plan my butt. The Marshall Plan was to rebuild Europe after it was blown apart in WWII. I don't recall Mexico being in a war with anything other than its internal corrupt government, which again, is not our issue.

If we enforce our current immigration laws, we would significantly reduce the number of people illegally crossing. This is evidenced in the number of people moving out of states where strict employer sanctions and other laws have been put into effect (see Arizona.) Likewise, whenever there is talks of amnesty, the number of illegal crossings increases.

 

Well, you didn't cite any sources either. So I didn't think it was important to you.

Wages

Infltaion

Now you will see that when you compare the two links that inflation has not kept up with wages.

Sorry for the delay. I've been busy and will have much less time here.

I now return you to your regularly scheduled topic!

 

Not at all. I'm looking at what would be in the best interest of the national security of the United States. I support a comprehensive immigration reform that is carried out with the interests of America in mind, not with those of Mexico. That is why I support that preference be given to highly-skilled immigrants (regardless of country of residence) when granting permanent residence visas, instead of the current family-based system that has resulted in chain immigration from Mexico.

Was it the rest of the world's job to fix Iraq's problems?

No, every country in the world has to convince foreign investors if they want to receive investment from abroad, Mexico is no different from all other developing countries.

No, every country in the world has to solve its internal problems. Even developed countries aren't different in that regard. But this certainly hasn't stopped the U.S. from intervening in countries in which it wants to affect the outcome, or has it?

There are a lot of countries whose behavior the U.S. doesn't like. And as I said before, the U.S. does have a history of intervening when it feels its national security interests may be at stake.

I don't see any incentive to change the status quo in the absence of better conditions, either.

Comprehensive, as I understand it, is commonly used to describe wide-ranging immigration bills such as the last one to have been considered by the U.S. Congress.

Well, isolationist feelings aren't new in America. But I think the U.S. has made more progress when it has steered away from isolationism. Ultimately, if there is no way to negotiate a bilateral approach, the U.S. will continue to seek unilateral conditions.

Has anyone here suggested that it is?

Well, then, we've found the solution, haven't we?

 

Why should the US give concessions to Mexico, when the other option is to simply convince illegals to leave by cracking down on the illegals in the US?

You keep suggesting basically that the US do all of the work in this. That's like saying that the way to get people off welfare is to give them more welfare, and then they will have the incentive to go get a job. It's completely backwards. The solution is to make it more agreeable to them to get a job than to stay on welfare, and once that approach was used in the 1990s, welfare reform actually started to work.

Similarly, the solution to illegal immigration isn't to give concessions to Mexico. It's to create disincentives for people to illegally immigrate. Make it more costly to them to come to the US illegally than it is for them to stay in their country. Giving concessions won't do anything unless you know that they will actually spur changes in Mexico's behavior, and the actions you've proposed don't give any incentive to Mexico the change its behavior.

Kimball Kinnison

 

Well, I'm not making the argument that the U.S. should "give concessions" to Mexico. I'm simply arguing for a comprehensive reform that will update immigration laws with America's interests in mind. There may be particular instances where it would be mutually beneficial for both countries to agree to a "quid pro quo" in certain areas, but I don't think America should change immigration laws with Mexico's interests in mind.

Not at all. It's very simple: either the conditions exist for the two countries to reach a bilateral agreement that addresses immigration, or they don't. And if they don't, then all the U.S. can do is to address the situation on this side of the border. While I think that a bilateral agreement might be more effective in the long run, if it was carefully negotiated, I am by no means saying it's the way it should be. It could happen, or it could not happen, and the reasons would be mostly political.

What specific actions have I proposed that won't give Mexico any incentive to "change its behavior"?

 

The comprehensive reform itself gives no incentives to Mexico to change its behaviors.

Mexico already has the obligation under international law to secure its own borders to prevent unauthorized exits into other countries. How will "comprehensive immigration reform" encourage Mexico to live up to its existing obligations under international law?

And remember, that's international law, not some bilateral treaty with the US. Mexico's obligations there are in no way contingent on the US's actions (or lack thereof).

Right now, Mexico is raking in billions of dollars a year from illegal immigration. How will comprehensive reform remove that rather large incentive?

Kimball Kinnison

 

That would depend on the actual details of the reform. Besides, what is the incentive to do things any differently as long as the current status quo is maintained?

How does the lack of a comprehensive reform remove any such incentive? Has Mexico's government done anything differently after the U.S. Congress failed to pass the latest proposal for immigration reform?

 

If you want to give Mexico an incentive, you have to cut off the billions of dollars of influx from the illegal immigrants. Once you do that, you make any further reforms contingent upon Mexico's fulfilling its obligations under international law.

You don't start by loosening immigration restrictions (which is what "comprehensive" reform would do). You start by removing the incentives and then you can look at easing immigration policies.

Kimball Kinnison

 

Well, first of all, it is at best doubtful that any action by the U.S. at this point will completely eliminate remittances. Secondly, even if it could be done, it doesn't mean the Mexican government will do anything differently. They'd already be looking at much greater internal discontent. But that's only assuming that remittances could simply be "cut off" automatically, completely overnight, which is slightly unlikely.

Well, we won't know what a comprehensive reform will actually do until Congress begins drafting it. We cannot assume that any reform that might be passed by Congress in 2009 or later would be exactly the same as the one it most recently almost passed.

 

Will you please stop thinking in absolutes? Who said anything about cutting them off overnight?

Cutting off the remittances doesn't require that to stop all of them. What it means is that you start trying to reduce the flow of money from illegals here back to Mexico. You do this in a variety of ways, including cracking down on illegals who are here, taking steps to discourage more illegals from coming, and attacking the financial transfers themselves.

As you reduce the amount of remittances, it will increase the pressure on Mexico to actually live up to their obligations. If further reforms are tied to that, it provides leverage to induce them to do what they should be doing already.

You see, that is a direct, concrete example of how you induce Mexico to live up to its obligations. You simply keep saying "comprehensive reform", and then don't actually say what that means. What sort of comprehensive reform would actually get Mexico to do what it's already supposed to be doing? Give specifics for what you think would work. Don't give any of this "whatever thy pass will be fine" crap that you've given before. If you think that "comprehensive reform" would encourage Mexico to fulfill their preexisting obligations, then you obviously have some idea of what it would take.

Kimball Kinnison

 

It won't. It will further the incentive to immigrate illegally because they know eventually they will get amnesty on top of the billions of dollars spent by the states on services to illegal aliens and their children.

 

There is no precedent to doing this, so it's doubtful that it could work. There are already anywhere from 12 to 20 million people here (many of them from Mexico) and it's far from certain that the majority of them would simply give up. Even if it did work, it would have the most direct impact on Mexico's neediest people, therefore creating even more incentives to find a way to work in the U.S.

No, because the people in the ruling class aren't being directly affected. They can continue to live in luxury even if Mexico were to go into a deep financial crisis simply by requesting help from the IMF or whatever. It has happened many times before - when Mexico is hurting financially, the poor people are the ones who suffer the most, and those in the ruling class continue to live in luxury. In the most radical scenarios, people might elect a populist leftist if they're desperate from lack of economic opportunity, or if they're desperate enough, start a revolution. You really think Washington wants more instability south of the border?

It is not a concrete example of anything, it is wishful thinking at best. If you actually think something like that would work, well, then let's wait and see, but don't hold your breath.

Did people just stop coming here after Congress failed to pass the most recent attempt at immigration reform? Besides, even if that reform *had* passed, it wouldn't have benefited anyone who hadn't already been in the U.S. for at least 5 years prior to the law being passed, IIRC.

 

If anything is wishful thinking in this thread, it's your constant harping on "comprehensive reform" solving everything.

The problem won't be solved until Mexico actually steps up and fulfills its obligations under international law, and prevents its citizens from illegally crossing into neighboring countries.

Everything you've advocated would only give Mexico the idea that they can have their cake and eat it too. Increase the amount of legal immigration allowed and you will simply increase the flow of people, both legal and illegal. (Unless, of course, you simply remove all limits, making everyone legal, but that is utterly impracticable.)

One of the major goals of illegal immigrants is to remit money to their family back in Mexico. If you restrict or remove that ability, manhy of them will decide that coming to the US illegally is not worth it.

And yes, it might hurt the lower classes in Mexico the most, but that's not our problem. By that same logic, the US should just allow anyone from any second or third world country to come here to send money back home, because otherwise we'd just be hurting the lower classes in those countries, too.

Those people have no right to be here. Period. I agree that immigration policies should be relaxed, but that cannot be done until after to remove the incentives for people to illegally immigrate. No "comprehensive reform" can be effective until after the incentives are dealt with. Otherwise, you simply increase the total flow of people, further straining the US's resources.

Kimball Kinnison

 

You're completely wrong there. I don't believe that immigration reform will somehow "solve everything". I think it's an important first step.

Look, the current PAN administration already tried reaching an immigration accord with the U.S., Chancellor Castaneda met with several members of the cabinet during Bush's first term. So it's not like Mexico hasn't tried to seek an agreement that would be mutually acceptable.

Who has advocated to "increase the amount of legal immigration allowed"? I certainly haven't. I think there should be enough flexibility to any future immigration reform so that the U.S. can deal with labor shortages through guest worker programs, but only when it's in the interest of America. We would be the ones to benefit from such guest worker program, because it would give us other options when there are labor shortages in certain fields that can't be filled any other way. And I think the levels of legal immigration should eventually be adjusted (increased or decreased) depending on the needs of the U.S., first and foremost.

It's certainly possible to drive a lot of the people who are already here further underground, but I don't think the U.S. can really do very much to restrict remittances. When there's a will, there's a way. So it's very unlikely we'll see this happening. If there's fewer people coming in right now, it may have to do with the sluggish economy, so we have to wait and see how the situation changes when the U.S. economy improves.

Wrong. Anything that could cause great unrest and instability right across from our southern border would ultimately become another problem facing the U.S. globally, if it ever came to that. Widespread violence in Mexico would also make it easier for drug traffickers, and potentially even terrorists, to undermine Mexican institutions and operate with even more impunity than under present circumstances. It is the interest of the U.S. to have stability in Mexico. Having said that, I still firmly believe that immigration reform should be carried out with the interests of the U.S. in mind, and not the interests of other countries.

Immigration policies should be realistic and should take into account demographic trends in the U.S. This doesn't mean the U.S. should adopt immigration policies that will hurt it in the

 

You have repeatedly advocated for a guest worker program. Now, unless you are going to tighten the limits on immigration in other areas, the new program would lead to an increase in legal immigration limits, would it not. Seeing as you haven't even mentioned tightening limits in any other areas, that leave one to conclude that you support increasing the amount of immigration allowed.

So, since you advocate a guest worker program, where do you plan to cut back in immigration to make up for it? If you don't, then don't lie and claim that you haven't called for an increase in legal immigration.

The more difficult the US makes it, the less money they will be able to send home. As the amount that they can send home easily drops, many of them will decide that it is more costly for them to come to the US illegally than it is for them to find other employment back home. There are already several news reports (including many posted in this thread) showing that sort of action in areas where there have been crackdowns on illegal immigrants.

The US can't solve Mexico's problems short of a full-blown invasion and turning it into a vassal state. The only people who can solve Mexico's problems are the Mexicans themselves.

Yes, they should be realistic. Your proposals are not realistic because they don't address any of the incentives for Mexico to ignore their obligations. Until those incentives are addressed (by removing Mexico's ability to benefit from illegal immigration into the US), nothing can change.

Kimball Kinnison

 

I have advocated for a guest worker program that (like guest worker programs usually are) would be completely separate from the process for obtaining permanent residence in the U.S.

Like the name indicates, there is a difference between guest worker programs and permanent immigration. Guest worker programs, by definition, do not include provisions for permanent immigration.

So you're completely wrong in assuming that having the framework for guest worker programs would lead to an increase in the limits of legal, permanent immigration, because they are different immigration categories. Furthermore, there are completely different criteria for determining the levels of permanent immigration and the ones for any guest worker programs (which would depend on whether or not there are labor shortages).

To put it more simply: I support a reform that lets America decide, on a basis of yearly quotas, the amount of guest workers it may want to bring in (if any) and -- separately -- the amount of permanent residents it wants to authorize. If on a given year, America wants X amount of permanent residents and zero guest workers, then that's exactly what will be approved. If the next year, America wants a different amount of permanent residents and a few guest workers, then that is what would be approved for that year.

You're wrong again. I am not calling for an increase in legal immigration. I am calling for immigration levels to be adjusted based on America's needs, whether they be for temporary labor or for permanent residence. ADJUSTING means exactly that - that the quotas can be increased or decreased, depending on what America needs.

Again: to say that the levels should be ADJUSTED based on need, means they could be increased OR DECREASED.

It's doubtful at best that it will happen, but let's wait and see.

Once again: the objective of immigration reform is not to "solve Mexico's problems". It is to address America's needs.

On the contrary, my views are extremely realistic in that up to now, there has been pretty much nothing the U.S. had done to try to pressure Mexico into doing the kinds of things you mention. If there is a realistic way to do it, then the U.S. should have already done it. But as I said before, the lack of remittances won't hurt the ruling class.

 

No, the objective of immigration reform is to stop illegal immigration while addressing America's needs. The problem is that you can't stop the illegal immigration unless you remove the incentives that cause illegal immigration.

There is one key question that you simply haven't answered, and I think that's because you are completely unable to answer it.

How would any sort of comprehensive immigration reform remove the incentives for people to immigrate to the US illegally? How does it address the causes of the problem?

Kimball Kinnison

 

Immigration reform, if carried out unilaterally, can only seek to address domestic factors, because America's laws apply within America.

To address the root causes of the problem, the U.S. needs to act externally. The easiest way to seek changes externally is to engage in bilateral negotiations and/or agreements.

So the real question is, does the U.S. want to address the problem internally and unilaterally, or does it want to engage in diplomacy to seek a bilateral solution??

Working bilaterally may be more likely to yield the desired results, especially considering that much of the world already regards the U.S. as a big global bully.


You are proposing -- correct me if I'm wrong -- unilateral, domestic measures with external consequences in mind, but with no way to be absolutely certain that it couldn't lead to unintended consequences.

 

Working bilaterally is only possible when both sides uphold their obligations. Mexico has already shown itself to be completely unreliable when it comes to stemming the illegal flow of immigrants into the US, despite their obligations under international law.

Everything has unintended consequences. You can't refuse to act because you might face unintended consequences, because then you will never get anything done. You deal with unintended consequences when they appear. You don't sit around and fret over them before then.

But, as you say, the US has no real authority outside of its own borders. Since Mexico has already been shown to be unreliable at fulfilling its obligations, the US really has no viable alternative except to do what it can domestically, and once the effects of that spill over to Mexico, then offer a diplomatic olive branch if Mexico can prove that it will fulfill its obligations.

The US has a responsibility to its citizens to secure the borders, and the illegal immigrants are a threat to the security of the United States. Mexico isn't going to stop them, because it's benefiting to the tune of billions of dollars a year from their activities. That money is the direct result of illegal activity, and Mexico has no reason to crack down on it. In fact, many parts of the Mexican government have outright encouraged it.

Last I checked, criminals were not allowed to keep their ill-gotten gains. If you make money from selling drugs, they don't let you keep the money you got from it. If you steal someone's property, you don't get to keep it after you are arrested. If you make a lot of money through fraud you don't get to use it to pay for your defense attorney.

In any of those cases, if you let the criminal keep the ill-gotten gains, you provide absolutely no deterrent to them continuing their activities. You have to make the cost of performing the criminal activity greater than the cost of not performing it.

If Mexico doesn't want the US to crack down on illegal immigrants, then they need to step up and stop the illegal immigrants from coming here in the first place.

Kimball Kinnison

 

Well, if international law is involved, as you say, then the matter has to be addressed by the governing body that enforces international law. But if you're talking about bilateral treaties the U.S. enters into, it's really not like the U.S. is a fragile little country without any real clout.

Except that in this case, the unintended consequences could result in a situation that is far, far worse than what we have right now.

It seems to me that there is a minor flaw in your argument. You say that if Mexico can't or won't stop Mexicans from leaving the country, then the answer is to make it so nobody can possibly send any more remittances to Mexico. And you claim that this will get the ruling class in Mexico to stop Mexicans from leaving the country. But if it is already impossible to send any more remittances to Mexico, why are Mexicans going to be trying to leave Mexico? They no longer have any reason to leave Mexico, whether or not the government tried to stop them.

The money is the direct result of the fact that up to now, there has been demand for the labor of these people and there hasn't been any guest worker program that would address the demand for their labor. The status quo has continued up to now because the ruling classes in both countries have largely allowed it, in part due to internal political considerations.

Absolutely. When someone is tried, sentenced and convicted, then the government can apply the appropriate legal punishment.

I'm sure the justice system does all that it can within the bounds of the law, but sometimes you still may get repeat offenders. It depends on the case.

I don't believe Mexico has any control over how the