Bush: Massive Deportation Is Unrealistic

RFID's are too "big brother" for a lot of people.

I don't see it happening in the near future. RFID or not, people will do what they need to do.

Yeah, terrorist = illegal immigrants. Why didn't we all see it before.

I think the point here is that immigrants are a vital part of the American society, and the humanitarian and economic repercussions of deporting 11 million people -- most of which are picking your cheap strawberries and mowing your lawns -- would cripple the country.

I think Bush knows what he wants in regards to immigration policy but is unwilling to clearly state his position or set forth a plan because of his low poll numbers and the further polarization that his position will have on the issue.

True enough. With such a controversial issue splitting the population in an already contentious congressional election year, any politician would be a bit edgy about coming out and saying what they mean. This was, at the least, a gutsy move.

Bush has always had a very clear plan for Immigration touted during both of his Presidential campaigns, and he has clearly spoken to the American public and Congress on what proposals he would like to see in a law presented to him (specifically a guest worker program).

Initiatives to document illegal immigrants whether through a guest worker program or providing means of giving them legal citizenship may sound overly simple, but not if you consider the other options:

• Deport them (not enough badges to find them all)
• Put them in jail (not enough jails, eats tax dollars)
• Increase border security, build a wall/fence (still have illegal persons here in the US)
• Do nothing (status quo)

Clearly, something positive must be done to ameliorate the situation, and a guest worker program and providing a means of obtaining US citizenship, I would argue, are the correct courses of action.

Agreed, Kyle. Like I said, the idea sounds good, but it is controversial. I'm not really raising issue with his guest worker / legalization ideas (although it can't help but be noted that either one is incredibly divisive and dangerous to talk about too much right now). The problem, as I see it, is that what you propose as "alternatives" aren't really alternatives at all. They're the punishment for not doing what we say, and unrealistic punishments at that.

Say we do give the immigrants a "free pass," the ability to take a test and learn English and become citizens. What if they don't? What possible recourse do we have? Our only choices are to deport them or put them in jail as punishment, and neither of those are viable options (as you pointed out). It's an unenforcable law in its current state, and that's going to be the real problem if it is ever passed.

By the way, clever nick. ;-)

It is hard to stomach, but like you said, those "alternatives" are not real options, and that is the very reason why the President has logically chosen to pursue "non-punishment" options like the guest worker program and movement towards citizenship for some illegal immigrants. These positive measures will guarantee some movement toward fixing the problem instead of just forgetting about it.

I agree that the proposals are controversial, and I peg that to years of cynicism about illegal immigrants using up welfare and our health care system. Regardless of position or party, if one takes a step back and looks at the options I presented above in dealing with illegal immigrants currently in the country, the logical option is abundantly clear (at least to me): integrate these people into our society where they will pay taxes, be documented, and not fear retribution. Let them live the American dream.

As for deterring the mass exodus across our southern border, we can deal with that by beefing up security, more badges and barriers. This alone, however, is not a solution because we must still deal with those already in the country.

BTW, my nick is my name, thus only clever in that my parents used what most parents use for names: their own last name and a name of their choosing. ;)

I hope the local communities where the immigrants live aren't counting on a big windfall of money once the in-country immigrants are legalized or guest-workerized or whatever. According to a poll I linked to on one of the other recent immigration debate articles -- which I can't find right now -- about 75% of the current undocumented workers are working under fake Social Security numbers and are paying Federal, State and local taxes out of withholding. They're also paying sales tax on purchases, and if they're living in legal conditions in an apartment, their landlord pays property tax -- used to fund schools mainly -- on his rental property. (I get the impression that the ones living 14 to a 1 bedroom apartment are most likely young single males, while families with kids might be living in a little more privacy.)

Once they're legalized and less afraid of being caught, I'm guessing they're probably going to be using more services. Unless the Feds are planning on sharing that $2000 fine with the locals, those towns that have been crying about how the undocumenteds don't pay their way might start wondering if maybe they should have kept quiet.

The national jail system (local, state, and federal) is already stretched to the max. Putting lots of people in jails will also serve to further drain the US economy of tax dollars. Is the simple benefit of deterrence worth it? I argue that it is not, as your solution punishes a peripheral reality of the primary problem: illegals crossing the border. While many secondary issues rise from the presence of illegal immigrants (use of health care system, undocumented workers, unpaid taxes, etc), these should not be confused with the primary issue. By solving that, we will successfully nip most of the other egregious issues at the same time.

Also, thinking economically about the whole problem of enforcement: a fence is a one-time expense that can save money in the long run if built and run correctly. Simply hiring more badges is an ongoing expense that may or may not be successful in preventing illegal border crossings.

I know a bit about this problem, and a bit about what motivates people to cross the border. The vast majority of illegal border crossers are on their way somewhere. The reason that they are on their way somewhere is that they have been offered a job once they get there. The people who are offering those jobs are conspiring to break our nation's immigration laws. At the same time that our Border Patrol agents are chasing border crossers through mesquite thickets trying to keep them out, American lawbreakers are urging them to evade the Border Patrol in order to make their way to where the job is. If you support a "law and order" approach to this problem, it only makes sense to hold all of the lawbreakers accountable. Indeed, it is much more efficient to attack the problem where it is most concentrated. If you take one illegal employer out of commission, you have prevented many border crossers from coming in the first place. If there are no jobs waiting, illegal border crossing will dry up. The vision that is sometimes promoted of people who cross the border and then start looking around for something to do applies to only a very small percentage of illegal border crossers.

What about the employers who did not offer jobs before the immigrant crossed? I understand your point about those who give incentive for illegal crossing. What has been proposed about also punishing employers of illegal immigrants would have anyone who buys oranges on the side of the road (I apologize for the stereotype) in cuffs. Isn't this a bit extreme?

I don't really think it is extreme. We claim that we want to do something about this problem. There are some people, as you point out, who hire the illegal immigrants without actually sending word across the border. Nonetheless, if they hire illegal immigrants, they are still conspiring to break the law. Maybe there are some who don't realize that an employee's documentation is fraudulent, but at some level, the vast majority do. When your neighbor goes down to Home Depot and gets one of those guys standing out in the parking lot to come and fix the sprinklers, he or she is making it known, not only to that small group, but to everybody they know, too, that it is worthwhile to come to America and stand down by Home Depot. When a contractor hires an illegal crew to frame a house, the message is clear - evade the Border Patrol and you'll find work. Indeed, it is illegal employers who are the very root of the problem, in my opinion. It may disturb many of us to see them pay harsh penalties, but what are the options? Do we really want to solve this problem, or not?

You offer a valid point, and I will stress your mention that there is a fine law enforcement line between an employer conspiring to hire illegal aliens and an employer who unknowingly employs illegals. One might argue that this is naïve in that any smart, capable employer should know the difference. Employers in some business probably do not have the resources to take the personal information of every person who applies for a job and verify their citizenship claims through government offices.

That said, you are correct that this problem needs a solution that attacks this at all levels: entry, those that are here, those employers that knowingly hire illegal aliens, etc.

Right after posting that last comment, I had another thought: black markets. Why do they exist? Black markets rise up because the government outlaws the sale of a particular product or service in its economy. If that particular product is coveted by any number of individuals, the black market will thrive and find ways to evade detection and continue to make money. This is particularly true with drugs, a problem our government can hardly even dent or solve.

While penalizing employers will have the effect to provide deterrence, it will also serve to allow more scrupulous individuals to exploit those illegal immigrants already here in the country through black market means. Do we want this?

I don't know the answer. Please discuss. :)

Kyle, I'm assuming that you meant to say "unscrupulous individuals." I agree that the potential would be there for exploitation. The situation at that point would be pretty similar to what we have today.

Aside from people like homeowners looking for help with a project or with housekeeping, etc; the reason that organizations tend to hire illegal immigrants is in order to compete. If Farmer Joe is paying field workers $1.35 an hour to pick cucumbers, you can bet that Farmer Betty across the valley is paying the same, as well as Farmer Romaldo down the road. By doing so, they are able to provide cucumbers to wholesalers at prices that allow you and I to pay 50 cents a piece for them down at Safeway. If Farmer Betty doesn't hire illegal immigrants, her production costs make it necessary for her to try to get more for her cucumbers than Farmer Joe and Farmer Romaldo are getting. Soon, she'll be out of business unless something happens to even out production costs around the valley.

Now, lets say that Farmer Romaldo is arrested for employing illegal immigrants. Further, lets say that Farmer Romaldo pays a giant fine (maybe equivalent to paying all of his workers minimum wage for a year), and maybe even goes to jail for a couple of years. At that point, Farmer Romaldo is probably out of business, but what do you think Farmer Betty and Farmer Joe are going to do? Now that they both have a very strong incentive against hiring illegal workers, they are going to have to start paying enough to attract legal employees, probably a good deal more than $1.35 an hour, and probably more than minimum wage, too. They'll still be able to compete with each other, they can still make the same amount of money that they've been making, they'll just have to charge the wholesalers more for cucumbers.

You and I, of course, will be paying quite a bit more for our cucumbers, but the amount we pay will reflect the true cost of producing the cucumbers, rather than the fantasy cost which can only be obtained by hiring workers who have no choice but to do backbreaking work for low wages, that is, workers who cannot complain when they are being exploited.

Now, your question asks whether or not a "black market" situation might develop in which illegal employees are hired by unscrupulous employers. I think it's definitely possible, but I doubt that we would see it on any large scale. After all, attention is going to be brought on Farmer Joe if he, all of a sudden, starts offering cucumbers to the wholesaler a a significantly lower price than Farmer Betty and the newly-reformed Farmer Romaldo can offer.

Not only that, but the size of the problem at the border would be drastically reduced. The biggest problem now is not that our Border Patrol is incompetent, it is that the size of the problem is staggering as a result of the sheer volume of illegal border crossing activity. If Farmer Joe, Farmer Romaldo, and Farmer Betty are no longer hanging out the "Help Wanted" sign to encourage illegal immigration, it will slow to a trickle, making the Border Patrol able to operate with much greater efficiency.

My feeling on this issue is that we have to look at it rationally, and realize that the situation we are presented with now is not completely the result of people trying to take advantage of all of the good things our country has to offer at our expense. There are people within the United States - Americans - who are contributing greatly to the situation. If we are serious about changing it, we can't ignore the facilitators, and we can't expect that we won't pay a price for the repair.

I'm truly sorry to have rambled on for so long here, but this issue is complicated, and I want to make my view clear.

Yeah, I did mean unscrupulous. Doh...

Brad, your farmer crackdown would only be effective if it was on all farmers across the country, simultaneously. How would we logistically investigate every single farm in the entire United States even if we wanted to? Otherwise while the two local farmers you mentioned might switch to legal fieldhands, other farmers a state away would still be using illegals. You and I wouldn't end up paying any more, the two local farmers who switched to legal workers would just lose their farms. And of course if there was such a national crackdown and we sent ~30% of our farmers to jail - where would we get our food? In that case we'd be paying much more than the earlier market price. Anyway, even if your scheme could work as the price of cucumbers went up the consumption of cucumbers would go down and then the farmers wouldn't be making the same money.

The labor black market already exists in this country, and it's called day laborers. Contractors (construction, landscaping, etc) bid on a job for a certain price, go out and hire enough day laborers to do the job, and never pay any payroll taxes on that labor, it's all cash in hand at the end of each day. This is exactly the same situation as the field hands actually. I don't know of any way in which that wouldn't be seen as a black market in labor.

The big questoin is "what would happen to the american economy if we removed 11 million workers". My answer "something very bad". Locking up even more people would just make that problem even worse.

Brian, I only take issue with one statement in that comment:

Contractors (construction, landscaping, etc) bid on a job for a certain price, go out and hire enough day laborers to do the job, and never pay any payroll taxes on that labor, it's all cash in hand at the end of each day.

I would not say that contractors never pay an payroll taxes. Sometimes, workers have fake paper work and taxes get paid to someone else's SSN. There are contractors and subs who do not deal in cash (anecdotally evidenced by the line to cash checks on Friday). I'm certainly not saying it doesn't happen, or that my exceptions are the norm. I just feel that there's no one always/never that describes the situation of over 11 million people.

Brad, your farmer crackdown would only be effective if it was on all farmers across the country, simultaneously. How would we logistically investigate every single farm in the entire United States even if we wanted to?

Brian, I am 100% with you. It's pretty much as logistically impossible as it would be to deport 11 million people. Believe me, I'd prefer a solution which wouldn't put anybody in jail. There are certain facts that we have to face, though, and one of them is this: although we pay 42 cents a head for lettuce that should cost considerably more (assuming that it is picked by legal workers who are paid enough to do the job) and $120,000 for a house that should cost considerably more (making the same assumption), there is a cost to be paid for that. Right now, the cost we pay is to look the other way when employers hire illegal workers for crappy wages, and to accept inefficient enforcement along the border. If we decide that we don't want illegal immigration, we have to address the problem both from the standpoint of physically stopping people from migrating, and from the standpoint of ensuring that there are not employment opportunities if they do migrate.

The real decision we need to make as a country is, do we want to pay workers what it is worth to do these jobs in a legal framework, or do we want to continue with the status quo? If we choose to pay the price, we won't have to worry about illegal immigration - the work can go to Americans at decent wages, and there will be little incentive for illegal immigration. If we choose to maintain the status quo, then we need to stop vilifying the people who are making it possible for us to buy 42-cents-a-head lettuce and $120,000 houses.

@Jason, I never meant to say it was all, just that it is a common practice.

@Brad, why not eliminate the minimum wage for green card holders and give green cards to all the immigrants? And of course allow continued immigration to anyone who still wants to come here under those conditions. We can continue to buy cheap produce and collect taxes on the immigrants paltry earnings, and hold out minimum wage guaranteed jobs as a carrot for those seeking to become citizens. We've only had a minimum wage since 1938, most of the past waves of large numbers of immigrants arriving started working for very low pay - we've always had immigrants who would do hard jobs for low pay, it's not a new or Mexican specific phenomenon so it's not like we've suddenly become addicted to cheap labor, we've always been addicted to cheap labor.

So there we go, no more illegal immigrants, no change in prices, no massive costs trying to enforce our unenforceable immigration laws or building a huge useless fence, no immigrants driving without a license because they can't get one from the DMV, the border patrol can focus on actual criminal entering our country, immigrants no longer have to pay a huge fee to a "coyote" and risk death to get here, and an increase in tax revenue. A win-win situation for all Americans.

Brian, sorry. The engineer in me can almost never say nearly anything with 100% (± 0.1%) certainty. It's something I have to work on in order communicate with the rest of my species. :)

Brian, although I believe that three would be some serious ethical and probably legal questions to be answered about that idea in practice, I personally believe that it would be a good start. I don't like the idea of diluting the principles which underlie labor laws, but I believe that it might be feasible to "phase in" protection from exploitation.

There may be some problems, though. How could they be worked out - how would we prevent then entry of these workers into new segments of the labor market? What if the local school district decided, for example, to hire greencarded immigrants to drive school buses for $4.00 an hour? What might happen to the traditional minimum-wage workers, such as fast-food workers? Although it is not currently practical to replace them with workers making $3.50 per hour, how could we make sure it stays that way?

Interesting proposal, Brian. It's not a "best of all possible worlds" solution, where everyone is treated fairly and equally as many of us would like to see. But it isn't exploitative or punitive and it does offer a path to citizenship; it's a realistic approach, which acknowledges that we have to work with the economy we have, not the economy we might wish or want to have at a later time... (why does that sound familiar?)

As to the issues Brad brings up, we can probably target the minimum wage exemption to a couple of industries -- construction, landscaping, hotels, agriculture -- where most of the workers are concentrated. Those who are working in other industries -- case-by-case basis, maybe, based on longevity in the position? Those are details that I'm sure some lobbyist can write into law for us...

It is interesting to see how often people allow their visceral reactions to Bush and his policies blind them of reality: Bush is on the right side of an argument here, and he should not be discounted simply for any other failings ascribed to his administration. He is right to argue that we cannot possibly afford to pursue millions of illegal immigrants to deport them, and this point is driven home from both economic and humanitarian perspectives.

The funny thing is that Bush is having a harder time convincing his own party (particularly the Republicans in the House) of the merits of a guest worker program than the Democrats. Simply spending money on increased border patrol does nothing to solve the problem of millions of illegal immigrants who are already here in the U.S.

I agree with Bush. I'm not thrilled about the test or the fine, but if those are the compromises to move forward on this, then they are acceptable to me. The statement kalimotxo highlighted is exactly the one I homed in on, too. This whole issue has turned into this big abstract "immigrant problem" with "illegals" and "undocumenteds" and lots of other name-calling, that a clear simple reminder that every one of the border crossers is a human with a story and a willingness to work and a desire to make life better for himself and his family. This is the compassion in the conservatism we had hoped we might see. On this issue, he is absolutely in the right. Umm... can I say that if I'm on the left? :)

It's not at all clear that the cost of maintaining such a 'locked down' border, if it's even possible, would be any less than the cost of turning a blind eye to illegal immigration. While it is true that illegal workers place some costs on local governments, those workers in many cases also earn illegally low wages. Their employers, in turn, pay some of the difference to the government as tax on profits. Adam Smith's invisible hand works for the legal and illegal alike...

Oh yes, because shooting them is totally the right thing to do. [/sarcasm]

Well, of course the liberal in me is waiting for the other shoe to drop…

However, I've heard President Bush speak about his thoughts on immigration before and between that and reading this article, I'm with the President on this one. Here is an instance (and not the only one, I'm sure) where he seems to be really thinking as a person from Texas and is honestly thinking about the immigrant population's concerns as opposed to a politician listening to poll numbers and political wonks. I think his approach is, as James puts it, realistic. He's taken a middle ground approach to deal with the issue of illegal immigration and, in my opinion, is getting it exactly right. I find myself supporting almost everything which he stated in this article and even if I may differ with him somewhat on the details, this approach is a great stride in the right direction in my view.

On a side note, I do wish that Senator Frist would end his posturing for '08 on this (and, well, other issues as well). I don't think that is anything Sen. Reid is being accused of since he's not really a name that's getting put out for the next presidential bid.

If employers are reluctant to hire illegals, that will just mean that the immigrants will get even more desprate, and would be subject to exploitation of all sorts from those employers unscrupulous enough to hire them.

… and/or American citizens must be willing to pay the higher labor rates of citizen workers. Thinking of buying a new home? Well, you should know that labor costs generally outweigh material costs in today's construction. I seriously doubt citizens have thought than through all the way. Is that the single most important part of this issue? I really don't think so, but I do believe that people in this country pay close attention to their wallets and it will matter to them in the end.

I think perhaps that's looking at it the wrong way. First, ask the question: why do people hire illegals?

There are two answers. The first is that these are miserly, greedy, unscrupulous people, no doubt stroking their long black moustaches and cackling while they count their money. Perhaps with less cartoon flaire, this is probably true for some business owners. The big business owners.

The second is that the employer is a small business owner, already being shouldered out of business by the larger ones who can afford legal workers, but don't bother to. These people are independant contracters. They run their business out of pocket, maybe have some of their sons or brothers working for or with them. The only way to make ends meet is to find a way to cut costs. The only way to cut costs effectiely enough to compete with the big boys is to find cheap labor.

Punishing the latter for an understandable crime perpetuated by the former may be the correct legal course of action, but it's hardly the fair one. If America wants to look out for free enterprise, these harsh penalties would be a barrier, not the solution.

Steve, I have mixed feelings on that one. I'm on a first name basis with many contractors and subs. These people are, generally, run honest businesses and are often told that their empolyees (even day-workers) have proper paperwork. Often times, even the workers themselves are under the impression that the papers they have make them legitimate (let's face it, immigration law is tricky at best for someone who's come here and doesn't speak/read fluent English). So, we often have a number of people breaking various laws without honestly knowing it. Then again, ignorance of the law is no defense, as we all know.

We of course have to consider the economics of the situation we're in, and I think you're point dovetails nicely with mine above. However, I don't think any sort of exemption for small businesses are the right thing to do. Afterall, it is often a small business sub (in construction, at least) who is hired by a larger company to do the work. These subs then often fill their worker needs with day laborers. That is my experience, at least.

The one group in all this I have little pity for and do believe deserve the harshest punishments the law allows are the so-called coyotes who specialize in profittering from human traffic across the border. They are under no such pretense that what they do might be legal.

This is so far off, I think it's unlikely you've actually spoken to an illegal immigrant. I'm guessing you haven't actually ever been in close proximity to one.

They won't go home. They come here out of desperation. They come here because the US economically and socially (in terms of upward mobility) surpasses where they're coming from by such a large margin that even the slightest, often unreasonable, hopes drive them and they'll live on economic scraps to do it.

Well, I'm not really trying to convince you. I did state, at least once, that this was just my experience in the area and only in construction (as opposed to, say, service work or agriculture). Stop by my office sometime and I'll take you by a job-site. I'm not usually actually rude enough to ask if a worker is legal or not, but you're welcome to. You'll want to make sure everyone knows you're not a fed, though.

Actually, many workers do go home from time to time and then just sneak back. Not as many from the East, I think, but it does happen often enough. Either way, I'm not sure of what I said that disagreed with the fact that people do sneak in the US out of economic desperation. I certainly don't disagree with that sort of statement. I don't think they come for the scenery or amusement parks.

Jason, agreed. I think I was unclear. I didn't mean to imply that contractors and subs always purposely hire illegals. But I was making an argument based on the assumption that they're doing so knowingly. Holding any unwitting employer to the same legal standards as one who knew exactly what they were doing seems silly, so I was going by worst-case-scenario. That said, I wasn't advocating exemption for small businesses, simply saying that making particularly harsh penalties across the board would be counterintuitive.

And joel, I'm not entirely sure if you're speaking to me, since I didn't ever even attempt to talk about the mindset of the illegal immigrants themselves. My point was about their employers. Perhaps you could clarify?

Steve, I think we're both just trying to hone in on an answer and respond to other's comments. I suspect we're both in agreement and wasn't trying to steer you. I was simply trying to add to your points. I re-read that line about exemptions and I should have been clearer myself (which is true of about 95% of all my comments…). I was simply trying to show that carrots might not be much better than sticks and not really responding to any one thing you had typed.

joel, I had assumed that you're comment was in response to mine. However, I remain confused as to what you said, so some clarification might help.

@jason

If you take joel's comment and apply it to the initial comment by basilbub, it makes sense. That's the problem I've seen with the comments here only nesting once... if you reply to the initial comment you run the risk of seeming to answer a later reply from someone else.

E to the Z: I suspect you're right, although the initial comment in this particular thread is so short as to make that somewhat difficult to tell. I agree that the comment system here isn't perfect, but it's far better than the previous system, in my opinion. Either way, that discussion is best handled on another seed all together, I suppose.

I don't think it's as cut and dried as that. First of all, it doesn't say "remove all undocumented aliens" or all "illegal entrants." So, the definition of "removable" is what matters here. That word is up for negotiation. Second of all, this is an Executive Branch department, so presidential directives or Executive Orders can modify that objective at anytime.

um. I don't understand what you're argueing. I clearly stated that the "removable aliens" list was subject to adjustment. That's all. Feel free to add the last word, though.

Just responding to the "little to be done about it" and "100% removal" statements. I apologize if I misinterpreted, but it seemed as if you were claiming that it was decided and inevitable and we should be resigned to the eventuality that we'd be removing all of the undocumented immigrants.