Illegal immigration and/or “the Border Crisis” are major concerns and frequent topics of discussion for my “Conservative” friends. They are generally concerned that I am not specifically aware of it nor of its severity. Out of courtesy to them I have recently invested a little time gathering information on it and attempting to put it into its proper perspective.
One must begin by defining terms. Most of the sources I have found define an immigrant as being someone of foreign birth residing in this country. A recent Pew Institute article reported that there are around forty million people meeting this description in the United States today. Forty five percent of them are naturalized citizens; twenty seven percent permanent lawful residents; five percent temporary lawful residents; and twenty three percent unauthorized immigrants. The unauthorized (undocumented) category totals about ten and a half million persons.
The history of immigration in this country is interesting. In 1850 slightly less than ten percent of our population was foreign born. This percentage approached fifteen percent in 1870 and stayed there till 1910, when it began to decline. It bottomed in 1970 (following passage of the Immigration and Nationality Act) and has increased linearly since then. Its current level is comparable to that in 1850.
One of the subjects my friends and I discussed was the ethnic makeup of the illegal immigrants. According to one source, of the roughly ten and a half million undocumented migrants currently in the United States, seventy eight percent are citizens of Central and South America and the Caribbean. Fifteen percent are from Asia; four percent from Europe, Canada, and Oceania; and three percent from Africa. Mexico (48%), El Salvador (7%), Guatemala (7%), India (5%), and Honduras (4%) are the leading sources of these people.
The question of how many “illegals” escape apprehension at the border is difficult to quantify. The CBP (Customs and Border Protection) agency, at 45,600 members the largest law enforcement organization in the country, processed six and a half million individuals in the first thirty-two months of the current administration (nearly two and a half million per year). Thirty-seven percent of them were expelled; another six percent repatriated to their home country. The remaining fifty seven percent are still in this country legally, some with the ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) agency, others with HHS (Department of Health and Human Services).
In addition, they estimate that one million, six hundred thousand additional immigrants avoided apprehension during this period (nearly four hundred thousand per year). Right wing criticism of our immigration policy appears to be focused primarily on these people — advocating building walls, adding border police, tracking them down, and deporting them, a process that requires a final destination for them (another country willing to accept them).
I suspect these “illegals” compose our current “underclass”, the portion of the workforce upon which we rely to perform the unpleasant tasks that we respectable folks are unwilling to do. Historically, our country has prospered by exploiting such people, beginning with slaves and indentured servants in the early days; followed by hordes of Irish, Italian, and Chinese workers in the nineteenth century; immigrants from Central and Eastern Europe in the early 1900s; and (primarily) Hispanics in recent years. I have relied on them to do basic things to maintain my home since my ascension into (Super) Senior Citizenship. I don’t question the “legality” of the ladies who clean my house twice a month, nor the men who mow my lawn and trim my bushes, nor the ones who clean my windows, despite the fact they speak a foreign language. Perhaps I should.
Nor do I advocate a police state in which each of us is required to show a passport whenever we interface with government at any level. It appears to me that we need these people and have an obligation to treat them humanely. Those that want to become citizens should be supported and encouraged. Those who want to take advantage of our (relative to their homeland) high wages as a means to support a family back home should be treated as guest workers. I don’t think the typical “illegal” in this country today is here because of a desire to take advantage of our welfare and educational systems.
Is there a limit to the number of immigrants we can accept and assimilate? With the world’s population now over eight billion persons and growing fifty million per month, and with our (and Europe’s) economy being so much stronger than the rest of the world, it is obvious that massive migration will continue to stress our ability to absorb it.
It is imperative that we, as a nation, come to a consensus and decide on a consistent policy on immigration. It almost certainly involves increased investment in monitoring and processing people who want to come here, regardless of their motivation. It almost certainly requires us to acknowledge that we need a dependable underclass to do the work that the rest of us are unwilling to do – everything from migrant agricultural workers to household domestic servants – and to ensure them a reasonable reimbursement for doing it. This will require us to compromise our standard of living, through higher taxes and higher prices for all the goods and services we procure. The only way this could occur would be for all of us to understand clearly what our perceived problems actually are.
I think the bipartisan legislation proposed by the Senate was a major step in the right direction. The fact that extremists in the party currently controlling the House of Representatives were able to prevent its passage is symbolic of the systemic problems with our political system today. We desperately need rational discussion of issues like this, followed by equitable resolution.