Illegal Immigration

The 2008 Presidential election finds candidates in both parties struggling with the issue of illegal immigration. The general consensus seems to be some type of either active measure (such as increased border security) to more passive measures (such as granting driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants). Earlier this year, the White House released its list of initiatives to improve border security within the existing laws. The White House listed 26 major initiatives under five major headings (border security, interior enforcement, worksite enforcement, streamlining existing guest-worker programs, improving immigration, assimilation).

There are some assumptions to most of these arguments that the presence of illegal immigrants makes us less secure. The majority of the active measures seem to be focused on the Southwest border with Mexico. It stands to reason that a porous border is a potential breech in our homeland security efforts. The solution by the DHS is to pursue walls, fences, increased Border Patrol agents, and new technology for monitoring the border. Anyone who has studied the Maginot Line (a line of fortifications constructed by France along its border with Germany and Italy after WWI) or other static defenses understands the ineffectiveness of fortifying our border with Mexico. Namely, a static defense can be defeated simply by avoiding it either by going around or under. The United States has spent a large amount of money and manpower to erect various barriers along the border in the most populated areas. The efforts to date though only cover a small fraction of the 2,000 miles that make up the border with Mexico. Aircraft and other surveillance systems are in-place (with more being purchased and deployed daily) to monitor border crossings. Despite this impressive amount of hardware and manpower, we still have people illegally entering the US through the border with Mexico.

The problem, in my opinion, is incorrectly framed as a security problem instead of an economic problem. The reason people are crossing the border is predominantly to work and not to commit acts of terrorism. Obviously if you are able to able to enter the country illegally to work, there is a potential for those with a desire to commit terrorism to enter the same way. I find this hard to believe though as the profile of a terrorist in the 21st Century tends to a young, well-educated male who is disenfranchised with society. It is this person who is most likely to be recruited by al-Qaida and other terrorist groups. These individuals come from affluent families and the terrorist groups have good financial sourcing. It would seem unlikely and unnecessary for the terrorist groups to risk losing an trained operative during a failed border crossing attempt.

If the problem with illegal immigration is about economic conditions south of the border, perhaps a realistic approach would be to take away the economic incentives. Most talk along these lines is about penalizing U.S. businesses that use illegal immigrants. Such punitive measure fails to provide a disincentive on the Mexican side of the border and people will continue to cross. If we truly are concerned about illegal immigrants as a security threat then we need to stop them BEFORE they cross the border. People are willing to endure much if the incentives and perceived rewards outweigh the hardships. Creating more opportunities on the Mexican side of the border (and this means not just Mexico, but Central and South America as well) is the true way of stopping the flow of illegal immigrants.

I haven’t seen any serious discussions about creating more economic incentives on the Mexican side of the border. If more people could earn a decent wage in Mexico, it would reduce the incentive for people to cross illegally into the United States. Less flow of people may also reduce the likelihood of people wanting to smuggle contraband. The now forgotten war on drugs has attempted to prevent drugs from South American and Mexico from entering the United States for years. The incentives are just to great however to keep determined smugglers from by-passing law enforcement interdiction efforts. The same principle applies to illegal immigration, with no hope of earning a decent wage at their present location people will travel to wherever they can make a living for themselves and their families.

While we are on this topic, I'd also like to convey the situation concerning Latino gangs in a slightly different manner. Mara Salvatrucha or MS 13 has been portrayed in the news as the latest scourge posing a danger to the homeland. Certainly MS 13 is an extremely dangerous organization but the true origins of MS 13 gets little airtime. MS 13 members are mainly Salvadorans or Hondurans and thus it is assumed this gang was created in Central American and their members infiltrated the US. MS 13 was formed in the US penal system by Salvadorans and as the US deported these members back to El Salvador, MS 13 was able to recruit additional members and begin a campaign of terror in the homeland. (On a related note, West Coast gangs first came to St Louis as a result of sending juvenile offenders to correction facilities in Joliet. Kids learned the gang system while in prison and when they were released, brought the gangs to St Louis). Deportation of members out of the US seems to have the increased, rather than decreased, the influence and manpower of MS 13. The US has long been seen by Central and South America as indifferent at best and exploitative at worst. The practice of sending hardened gangs members back to El Salvador isn't helping improve that perception and might even be damaging our efforts at providing security for the homeland.

Before we spend additional dollars to hire more border agents or buy the latest high-tech detection platform, perhaps a better use of funding would be to engage with Mexico and Central America on some type of economic develop to reduce the conditions that encourages illegal immigration.