Skip to footer

3 views on how US should combat illegal immigration

For the third installment in our One Minute Debate series for election 2012, three writers give their brief take on how the United States should combat illegal immigration, including the estimated 11 million people without legal documentation already living in the US.

Dan Stein, president of Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), argues the US should 'tighten up.' On the other side, Mary Giovagnoli, director of the Immigration Policy Center, argues America should 'loosen up.' Richard Lamm, former governor of Colorado, and professor/author Lawrence Harrison suggest 'another way.'

1. Tighten up: Eliminate incentives for illegal immigration. Improve detection and removal.

Ross D. Franklin/AP
Maria Cruz and Lincoln Statler chant 'No papers, no fear' as they join dozens of protesters who rallied in front of the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement building in Phoenix, Sept. 19, a day after a portion of Arizona's controversial new immigration law took effect. Civil rights activists contend the law – parts of which were upheld by a Supreme Court ruling this summer – will lead to systematic racial profiling.

Dealing with the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants in the United States is often cast as a choice between two extremes: mass amnesty or mass deportations. The former amounts to capitulation and is not desirable. The latter is not feasible, although illegal immigrants who are apprehended should be removed. Neither approach is necessary.

What is generally ignored in the debate is that mass illegal immigration can be deterred. Illegal immigrants tend to be very rational people. They come and remain here in large numbers because they believe they will benefit and that there is little chance that our laws will be enforced.

The first step must be to eliminate the biggest draw to illegal immigration: employment. Illegal immigrants and employers skirt employment prohibitions with fraudulent or stolen Social Security numbers. E-Verify, an electronic employment verification system, already exists and is highly effective, but its use is voluntary. Such a system should be made mandatory. Knowing that fraudulent documents would be flagged would discourage most illegal immigrants from even applying for jobs.

Many state and local governments sweeten the pot by providing nonessential benefits and services to illegal immigrants. Many others have legislated or de facto sanctuary policies that shield illegal immigrants from detection.

Illegal immigrants are further encouraged to come and remain by the Obama administration's enunciated policy to allow, under the guise of prosecutorial discretion, hundreds of thousands of eligible illegal immigrants to apply for deportation deferrals.

Just as illegal immigrants come and remain for rational reasons, they will leave for rational reasons. If we eliminate the incentives and increase the likelihood of detection and removal, fewer illegal immigrants will come, and more will leave on their own. Over time, the numbers will decline, while the jobs, wages, tax dollars, and security of the American people will be enhanced.

Dan Stein is president of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR).

1 of 3
Mark Sappenfield
Editor

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

Subscribe to insightful journalism

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.