Immigration Part III

As I have discussed in my previous two postings, Mexican workers have strong incentive to leave their country, but there are barriers to legal immigration into the U. S. With an average wage of 51 cents per hour and with 40% of its population living below the poverty line, there are little, if any, economic opportunies in Mexico.

Conversely, with a minimum wage of $5.15 per hour, with free public education, and with government-subsidized health care, the U. S. has plenty of economic opportunities for the Mexican poor.

The problem is that the typical Mexican must wait seven to fourteen years to enter the U. S., assuming that such a one has family and/or a job awaiting in the States. Thus, with strong pressure to leave, and with impenitrable barriers to legal entry, the Mexican poor have only one real alternative--illegal immigration.

In my most recent posting, I have stressed the importance of job creation in Mexico. If poverty in Mexico decreases, then Mexican workers will experience less pressure to enter the U. S. Of course, political realities would prevent a politician from advancing such a position.

Would any candidate for President dare proclaim a "Jobs For Mexico" platform when GM workers are being laid off from their $73.73 per hour jobs? (This figure includes benefits. See http://www.freemarketproject.com/news/2005/news20051123.asp) In a climate where talk of "exporting jobs" is anathema, could any candidate survive the criticism that would follow an announcment to seal the borders with a wall of factories? No way!

Well if one cannot reduce Mexican demand to enter the U.S. on their side of the border, then what could the government do to reduce Mexican demand from this side of the border? For years, there has been talk of ending services for illegals. No more free education. No more healthcare.

In theory, I suppose this would work. But then again, how could one determine whether a person is a Mexican citizen or a Mexican-American (to borrow from the PC crowd)? Check their drivers' licenses? (In states where illegals are actually given drivers' licenses, this would be a problem. Further, there are some people who don't drive.) What about birth certificates? (Do you carry your birth certificate everywhere you go?) What about "green cards"? (If you are a natural born citizen, you won't have one. But even if you had one, could there ever be a time where a person is treated in an emergency situation where their wallets/purses were lost or destroyed, such as in car accidents?)

In some situations, we are not going to be able to differentiate between the bona fide U.S. citizen/LPR and the illegal. And the first time a hospital denies benefits to a citizen/LPR because of their race, you will see a Section 1983 civil rights suit for millions of dollars, plus attorney's fees. Hospitals are not going to risk this, so they will err on the side of caution, giving aid and comfort to legals and illegals alike.

Well, if we cannot create benefits in Mexico, or reduce benefits in the U. S., then what else is there? The only thing left is to create a more fluid border between the two countries--either by reducing the wait times for Mexicans to get their LPR status, or by creating some sort of temporary worker program.

Since the former alternative would require more funding to the BICE (Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, formerly known as the Immigration and Naturalization Service) to hire more employees to process these particular applications, assuming of course that wait times for other countries remain the same and existing employees are not redirected to process Mexican applications, this alternative would cost the taxpayers.

Besides, as incentive to immigrate permanently to the U. S. increases, so will the demand. People who otherwise would be resigned to stay in Mexico would now be inclined to apply for LPR status. I don't believe the BICE would have enough manpower to ever process Mexican applications and keep them current.

And even if they could, would we want 40% of Mexico's citizens joining the ranks of permanent residents of the U.S.? Rather, would we want 40% of any country's citizens moving to our country? We wouldn't be able to absorb all of these people, even if we wanted to.

The only alternative short of provoking riots and/or a Second Mexican War (see my last post) would be the creation of a temporary worker program. Now how would we go about it? In particular, how would we handle the illegals who are already here.

While I do support a guest worker program, which would give Mexican workers the opportunity to find work here, while ensuring their return to Mexico, I do not support any proposal that would give amnesty to those illegals who are already here. Neglecting any retroactive application of this program that would accomodate those who have crossed our borders hitherto, a guest worker program would give Mexicans the opportunity to better their lives without undue strain on our economy. They would come here, provide a service, and leave.

Regardless of which approach we take, if we do not make attempts to reduce the financial incentives for people to immigrate illegally, it will continue. The most efficient way would be to create jobs in Mexico. But if we are not willing to support such a measure, then we should create temporary jobs in the U.S. for these persons. Otherwise, they will continue to overrun our borders and tax our resourses.