Illegal to Legal Immigration

How to solve the Immigration problem 9/3/12

 

For the first time, illegal immigrants outnumbered legal ones. The number of illegal immigrants peaked at an estimated 11.9 million in 2008. Illegal immigrants are growing at a rate of ½ million per year, one third is from those with legal visa that overstay their visit and become illegal.             

                                                                   

Note: In the context of this article, the use of illegal and undocumented should be construed as the same. Due to the nature of the hidden culture of undocumented immigrants, dollar amounts are estimates and not exact. 

                                                                                                       

The political landscape seems to complicate the murky issue of immigration as the presidential candidates stammer around with weak proposals. But when one steps back and looks at the facts, a clearer solvable picture emerges.  There are two basic views regarding undocumented immigrants: A concern for oppression of immigrants and a concern for the safety of U.S. citizens. The common denominator between the two views is the horrendous amount of dollars being wasted in the process. I will lay out the recent history of the issues and dissect the facts for a meaningful conclusion.

President Bush proposed amnesty to 3 million undocumented immigrants and allowed them to be in a guest worker program for 3 years. After that they must be required to return home. With that plan they would be a guest - then not a guest after the 3 years. He also offered the idea that they could become legal after registering as temporary workers. They would receive amnesty, get fined and have other sanctions applied, then be able to achieve citizenship. Both of Bush’s ideas went no-where in Congress.

President Obama’s solution is just as impractical. The initiative allowed illegal immigrant children temporary citizenship for two years. But after the second year, they would be illegal again. Between the two presidents, both offered a temporary solution, but nothing permanent. 

Not unlike president Bush, Mitt Romney’s had the idea of self deportation. Common sense tells us that no illegal immigrant would willingly deport themselves back to a condition worse than the one they already are in.

Let’s take a look at the advantages of keeping undocumented immigrants in the U.S. verses returning them to their place of origin.

Keep the Undocumented Immigrants:

It would be impractical to remove millions of illegal immigrants, therefore they should stay. Estimates to remove illegals are estimated to cost over $200 billion.

Immigrants help the economy by contributing less expensive labor for work not favorable to U.S. citizens. Economists generally believe that when averaged over the whole economy, the effect is a small net positive.

The social security system benefits from the influx of money from illegal aliens. Total taxes from illegals are estimated at $17 billion.

Federal immigration law says illegals are only committing a civil offense not a crime. This is true. A crime is something committed against the state or society as a whole, but immigration law does not see this as such. However, if your smuggling aliens or it’s your second time crossing after deportation, it’s a crime.  It is more accurate to say undocumented immigrants have broken the law and must be held accountable for their civil offense.

Return the Undocumented Immigrants:

Millions of illegals steal social security numbers from U.S. citizens to keep their jobs. Each year, for example, the U.S. Social Security Administration maintains roughly $6 billion to $7 billion of Social Security contributions in an "earnings suspense file" - an account for W-2 tax forms that cannot be matched to the correct Social Security number. Social security number theft could be a plus to the owner of the number, but it could also mean that the owner has to resolve a debt or bankruptcy from the illegal user affecting the owner’s credit. Misuse of the social security numbers cost taxpayers over 4 billion annually.

Illegal immigrants enter the U.S. quickly, while legal immigrants have to wait years to enter the U.S. Currently, there are over 7 million in the queue for citizenship and undocumented workers slow the process.

Illegals take jobs from U.S. citizens. ¾ million American workers are displaced yearly at a cost of 4.3 billion per year. Experts believe cheap labor also depresses the wages and working conditions of the working poor.

Illegal immigrants burden the health care system with free services. Educating the additional 28 million children in public primary and secondary schools, providing free medical services through Medicaid (over 300,000 children are born to illegals each year allowing automatic welfare from birthright citizenship), and incarceration for illegal criminals — costs the U.S. over $36 billion.

Drugs and criminals are mixing with the flow of illegal immigration. At least 10% of the prison population are illegal immigrants. This would translate into roughly 1 million per day to house them. House Judiciary Committee by DHS found illegals commited nearly 2,000 DUI (11.9%), over 1,400 drug violations (8.8%), and more than 1,000 major criminal offenses and violent crimes (6.9%), including murder, assault, battery, rape, kidnapping, child molestation, domestic abuse, lynching, stalking, and torture and include 19 murders, 3 attempted murders, and 142 sex crimes.

Money sent back to their place of origin and does not help the U.S. economy. $25 billion dollars of remittances bypass the U.S. economy, the proportion of that from illegals is estimated at $5 billion.

Unwinding the Data

Lets deal with points made for keeping undocumented immigrants. The first obvious issue is deportation. At $200 billion and more, it would be ambitious at the least and ridiculous at the most to try and return all undocumented immigrants to their place of origin. Even if all were deported, it wouldn’t stop the flow back in. Therefore, that is off the table. So what do we do with 11 million illegals? Simple, keep them…unless they have committed a crime, which would move the issue from a civil offense to a criminal offense. I will discuss how shortly. The second issue is the amount of income generated by illegals. A first glance it looks to be a boon to the economy, but the other side of the coin shows the negative aspect to it. There are billions of dollars lost from stolen social security numbers, from undocumented immigrant criminals, from displaced American workers, and from a burdened healthcare system and education system. All this has costs the U.S. over $36 billion annually (2008 figures). Illegal immigrant income minus illegal immigrant expenses equals a $20 billion loss to the U.S. taxpayer (these 2008 figures are estimated to more than triple this year).

The dilemma is that the U.S. can’t afford to deport the millions of undocumented immigrants from its borders, and yet the U.S. can’t afford to keep the illegals operating in the system as is.

The Solution.

My solution is to make the illegals legal, by way of a permanent business work visa. They would not be U.S. citizens.

 This would resolve three things. First, it would free up immigration to focus on more pressing illegal activity, second, it would save the U.S. billions not having to return the illegals to their place of origin, and third, it would give dignity to the immigrants that wish to stay.

Many would say that they would get a free pass. I agree that no one should get a free pass. The legal document for immigrants would be for work – and only work. The U.S. Department of Labor can coordinate with the immigration department and businesses to match work needed with existing and future immigrants. This would give the immigrant a document, enabling him/her the ability to work and live with their dependants in the U.S. As a side note, the DOL should revamp its whole system to be an efficient employment matching entity for ALL U.S. citizens and immigrants…connecting the employee to available and suitable jobs. The catch for businesses is this: If they truly assert Americans won’t work for them and feel they must instead invite immigrants to work for them, health care and their children’s educational needs should be provided by the business, not the U.S. taxpayer.

 Additionally, a business work visa would also reduce the burden of processing immigrants taking the standard path to citizenship. If an immigrant holds a job in the U.S. for 15 years without committing a crime, they should be automatically enlisted into a path for citizenship if they so desire. Another point - no children born in the U.S. should be automatically granted citizenship unless their parents are citizens. The reason for this is twofold. First, it keeps families together by solidifying their country of origin, and second, it thwarts any attempt by immigrants wishing to take advantage of the generosity of the U.S. Medicaid system by using their child as a source of income. This also doesn’t snub the immigrants trying to achieve citizenship through regular channels. If the children have lived in the U.S. for 15 years, they too can apply for citizenship.

Border security should modify its current hunt for undocumented immigrants and criminals to hunting for criminals, as well as processing undocumented immigrants coming to the U.S. for work. I envision a large employment center strategically located at each border state receiving and matching the worker with employers desperate to get their product out.

With this plan in place, it’s a win win. All working immigrants and their dependants in the U.S. can hold their head high and come out from the shadows. Employers can be open and confident about their employees. Billions of dollars will not be wasted trying to return hardworking immigrants (without a criminal record), and billions of dollars will not be wasted hunting down immigrants just wanting a better life for them and their children.

Sources: The Center for Immigration Studies, Don Huddle’s “The Net Costs of Immigration,” the INS Statistics Division.  House Judiciary Committee by DHS 

Additional links:

 http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/6787438-illegal-immigration-and-the-federal-budgetpart-2

http://www.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/issues/2010/03/pdf/cost_of_deportation.pdf

"And for His Next Trick...QE3!"

The latest news on the economic front.

The U.S. economy struggles. For the last few years the Federal Reserve has tried to stimulate the economy by cutting interest rates. The rates have been cut so low, they can't be cut anymore. This is call “zero bound.” The chairman, Ben Bernenke, initiated a new plan. Once it was revealed to the public, it created the stock market to jump to a 13-month high. It is being called the “Bernanke bounce.”

This bold new plan could be referred to as QE3 or the central bank’s version of a stimulus. The Fed will continue to pump $40 Billion into the economy each month until the job market improves. This method is called quantitative easing and has been implemented twice in Obama’s term - QE1 & QE2.

Unlike Europe who has been focused on austerity (more or less cut overspending), the Obama administration has pushed for a stimulus (more or less go into debt to encourage spending).

As much as Obama has tried, congress has not been cooperative. So when the Fed announced they were to do their own version of the stimulus, and since Obama can’t make decisions for the Federal Reserve, he must have breathed a heaving a sigh of relief at the news.

How it works.

The Fed will accomplish this QE3 by essentially printing money when it buys bonds or other securities on the open market (with hopes that inflation won’t rise). Unfortunately, past episodes of temporary infusions of cash by the central bank have yielded little results. The difference with this plan is that the Fed wants to keep it going for “as long as it takes,” said Bernenke The Fed has already bought over 2 trillion in government and housing debt in QE1; QE2 and is expected to spend over a trillion more on this plan. But will it work? That’s the 40 billion dollar per month question.

Stock Market

Wall Street loves it, since it drives down interest rates and lures investors out of safe investments like treasury securities, and into riskier investments such as stocks. Rising stock prices draw more buyers off the sidelines, boost sales commissions at brokerages, and generate more investment banking activity.

Main Street

Will this help the common U.S. citizen? 

Americans can also look forward to as Bernenke put it “more demand for homes and more refinancing” by “putting downward pressure on mortgage rates. “ Experts believe a drop of .25% may occur. So a 3.25% 30 year loan would drop to 3.0%. Therefore, those who own homes may feel better knowing the value of their homes will go up.

Nevertheless, most Americans could care less about the value of their home when they are concentrated on keeping their home from foreclosure. And, even with record rates not seen since the great depression, it becomes a risky venture to buy a home in an unstable job market. Even Bernenke said, “the weak job market should concern every American.” Ya think?

The real proof the QE3 will work is if more jobs are created.

But don’t hold your breath. QE1 and QE2 haven’t brought unemployment numbers down, so it's unwise to expect the QE3 come to the rescue…see idioms below:

            QE1 You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink.

            QE2 You can lead a horse to more water and he still may not drink.

            QE3 You can keep leading the horse to lots of water month after month and prodding him to take in the clean, blue, cool, fresh elixir, but you still can’t make him drink.

Bottom line – Jobs are the true sign of recovery.

When Wall Street succeeds and employment suffers, it is called a jobless recovery. Anytime unemployment is high, there is no real recovery. 

So how do we get more jobs? People get jobs from companies that need workers. It’s that simple. So why aren't companies hiring? Some think companies hire workers when tax rates are reasonably low, but past data doesn't prove this out. Additionally, low interest rates intended to get companies to hire, also do not prove true. In short, companies will hire workers when they predict that job orders will exceed the current work staff. Companies must feel confident future business will occur.

QE3 and Jobs:

So how will pumping Fed money into the economy provide jobs? It doesn’t. But what it does do is prime the pump so that something can occur. And this something translates into confidence. Bernanke is hoping that confidence will build from his QE3 and activity will occur in the job market. Companies will catch the bug and hire the unemployed, and eventually unemployment will drop below 7% or so. The economy will then be on stronger footing and…. Voilà! Happy days are here again.

QE3 and reality:

Bernenke sees a connection between mortgages and business hiring – I believe it is only one piece of the puzzle and do not have high expectations.

First, people are practical. If a business person sees nothing but uncertainty in the industry, looming heavy regulatory laws, and potential tax increases that may reduce profits, why would he/she invest in something new like a piece of machinery or a worker?

Second, we can’t be myopic. The U.S. does not operate in a bubble. Europe is still going through its own economic woes. This whole thing may actually backfire if Europe gets nervous about the Fed’s frivolous spending spree. The U.S. can’t sell if Europe doesn’t want to buy. And this is only Europe. China (who is now going through a tough spell of its own), Brazil, and other countries are no doubt watching too. The U.S. economy is inextricably attached to the world market and it can only move forward if the rest of the world is confident as well.  

The Fed is essentially out of tricks and is hoping this last one will work. And only time will tell whether or not Bernenke has pulled a rabbit out of his hat or whether he is only talking through it.

Is Bloomberg's paved good intentions a road to hell?

Mayor Michael Bloomberg no doubt has good intentions. Don’t we all. However, his passionate emotions do not add up to good science, good government, or pragmatic implementation.

If we all wanted to be thin and fit, we would exercise and eat right. But we don’t. So is it the responsibility of government to be the Jiminy Cricket of our eating conscience? Simply put…no. I will explain my answer by addressing three major reasons how his new “soda ban” in New York City is flawed.

First. Is it good science?

The assumption is that sugary drinks lead to obesity. Do they? No. In fact it may be just the opposite. Diet drinks are more likely to be a causal affect in weight gain. What?  Here is a portion of an article from dailymail.co.uk.

 A study of almost 500 men and women linked low-calorie soft drinks with bulging waistlines, revealed that those who downed two or more diet fizzy drinks a day saw their waistbands expand at five times the rate of those who never touched the stuff. The results were so dramatic that the American researchers advise that people ditch their diet drinks and use water to quench their thirst instead.

Those who cannot bear to give up the sugar rush may be better off drinking normal full-sugar fizzy drinks.

Professor Helen Hazuda, of the University of Texas’s health science centre, said diet sodas and artificial sweeteners may foster a sweet tooth, distort appetite and even damage key brain cells. As a result, treating them as healthy alternatives may be ill advised. The professor, who no longer drinks diet colas and lemonades, said: ‘They may be free of calories but not of consequences.’

Back in New York the ban stated (you guessed it) that a diet soda, a milk shake or sweetened latte that is larger than 16 ounces wouldn't be banned. In other words, not only is Bloomberg wrong on the science, he is actually encouraging people to get fatter 

Second. Is it good policy?

A majority of polled New Yorkers didn’t want the ban on soda, but the board of health directors appointed by Bloomberg pushed ahead with the judgment anyway. People get nervous when government intervenes in their behavior…especially when it comes to their stomachs. We like to eat and drink what we want regardless of the negative outcomes. Most of us thought that dictatorships ended when we became an adult and didn’t have to listen to mom or dad telling us to eat the vegetables we hated. Well welcome to Bloomberg’s big brother world…or is it a nanny world? In any case, all this will end up doing is infuriating the soft drink and cup manufactures, who make money and provide jobs...not to mention the people who just want a drink large enough to sustain them in central park on a hot day.

Three. Will the Soda Ban accomplish its goal?

The ban states that it will have no effect on people who buy 16 ounces of soda or more at the grocery store. Then why have the law? Why punish only the restaurants and outside venders and give the stores a free ride?

Setting the stores aside, will selling 12 ounce drinks have as Bloomberg put it “get you to drink in moderation”? Even if people buy a 12 ounce drink from a fast food chain, hasn’t Bloomberg heard of refills? That 12 ounce cup can be refilled as Lional Richie put it, “once, twice, three times a lady.”

And what of those smugglers driving in from New Jersey, New Rochelle, and other locations outside the five boroughs? Will police really enforce the smuggling of a 16 ounce drink?

How about other sugar drinks. The 16 ounce soda is about 200 calories. A 16 oz Latte is over 200, a mocha coffee is over 300, and a milkshake is over 600 calories. Should we ban these as well? Where does this end? Politicians can be so upside down in their thinking that the obviously cruel substances like tobacco are perfectly legal -- but soft drinks over 16 ounces should be outlawed?

Final thoughts

You may think that those New York City folk are different and that it couldn’t happen in your city. Why not? Politicians are just as gullible in your area as they are in New York. Once this kind of thing happens in one part of the nation, well meaning people across the country step all over themselves to be next.

Don’t get me wrong. It is understandable that we take steps to curb obesity. Weight gain of the U.S. American has, pardon the pun, ballooned in the last few decades. However, looking at good science and working on a comprehensive plan that the citizens can agree to is ultimately best medicine.