Immigration: keep the illegals out!

My earlier post spawned a flurry of comments that all offered similar criticisms. To paraphrase the most common: “Legal immigration is fine; it’s illegal immigration that we need to stop. Illegal immigrants, by definition, break the law by coming here and continue to break the law while they live here. Everyone knows that crime increases the more illegals there are.” As often happens, what everyone knows isn’t necessarily true. In one of my own comments I pointed to three different academic articles that reveal no association between immigration and crime rates; here, here, and here. Since then, I dug a little more and found more research; here, here, here, and here. Oh, and here, here, here, and (if you’re not into academic papers) here. There; you can’t claim invincible ignorance now. A quote from here summarizes how clouded the debate can be:

America has a big problem with illegal immigration, but a big part of it stems from the word “illegal.” It pollutes the debate. It blocks solutions. Used dispassionately and technically, there is nothing wrong with it. Used as an irreducible modifier for a large and largely decent group of people, it is badly damaging. And as a code word for racial and ethnic hatred, it is detestable.

Nogales border fence By bunky's pickle

Nogales border fence By bunky’s pickle

I couldn’t help but mentally draw the connection between the “immigrants are criminals” idea and Prohibition. If our borders were more open, i.e., if it were less costly for people to move here, it would attract more “normal” types of immigrants. As it is, though, when our border is militarized, when getting into the U.S. is very costly and dangerous, then the types of people who will be attracted to entering will pretty much be the opposite of the people we want: people with no good options at home who are willing to engage in dangerous, risky behavior to come here. When we outlawed alcohol, violent criminals got us our alcohol; now that alcohol is legal, the providers of alcohol certainly are a more respectable group. Is it possible that our “get tough” political motivation on immigration policy, that illegals are criminals, is self-fulfilling in the sense that those are the ones who most try to come here given how difficult it is to come here legally? On the relationship between immigration and the drug war, see good commentary here.

“Illegals could be terrorists.” True, as could any native. But the statistical probability that a given immigrant, even an illegal one, will commit a terrorist act is extremely small. Do we deny everyone the American dream (or at least deny them from fleeing their own domestic nightmare) because of this extremely small probability? Do we shun our poor neighbors over so tiny a risk?

“They take our jerbs!” Commenter Paul says “The unskilled labor influx is actually a detraction for the local economy. An unskilled laborer who is illiterate or only semi-educated due to their former homeland is more likely to be hired even for entry-level positions like working at McDonald’s or pushing carts at Publix. The problem with this is that you have educated kids graduating from high school that can’t get a job because they’ve been filled with low skilled immigrants who have very little chance of upward mobility.”

I found this an odd argument for a couple of reasons. First, it would seem to be a good thing that we have educated our high schoolers sufficiently that they don’t have to work at McDonald’s or push carts at Publix. The preferable alternative, then, is to have our educated high schoolers performing jobs for which they are overqualified? Isn’t that the lament frequently offered about college education? Second, the economist in me, after hearing that high schoolers are having trouble finding work, again feels obligated to point out that lowering the minimum wage would do much to increase employment in this group.

As is obvious, I only present principles here; I am not adept (or long-suffering) enough to plow through actual legislation that is being considered, like Carson is. Certainly legislation can be written well or poorly; a more strict immigration policy that is written well and actually prevents criminals from coming in but allows normal, hardworking people to do so would be preferable to a poorly written policy that pushed open borders but did nothing to address the welfare handouts that immigrants supposedly seek (though in the video I posted previously, the point was made that illegals often don’t qualify for such things). Further, U.S. legislation can do next to nothing to change what largely drives most immigration: poor institutional quality in developing countries. When countries do not respect the rule of law, private property rights, the benefits of free trade, the importance of constitutionally limited government, etc., then of course people will want to leave. Do we turn them away at our border because their government rulers are kleptocrats? Is that the immigrant’s fault?

As is also obvious, I nor anyone else blogging for CV claim to speak officially for the Church. We are Catholics in good standing approaching timely issues through the mind of the Church but often providing various viewpoints on issues of prudence. Catholics in good conscience can arguably be on both sides of the immigration debate; my intention here and earlier is simply to highlight a viewpoint that is well-established amongst economists, seems to be favored amongst the U.S. Bishops, but is often ridiculed amongst conservatives.


Categories:Culture Immigration Law Legislation Politics

  • Peter O

    Tim tries to supply fallacies disguised as arguments in favor of illegal activity.
    First, he tries to promote the “sciency” part of the debate, where he cites a bunch of pseudo-scientific articles published by liberal groups who support Tim’s preferred cause. Very fair-minded Tim– in the same way Global Warming alarmists only supply information that support their cause.
    Then, Tim resorts to the typical “you’re a racist if you disagree with me” liberal defense mechanism. Newsflash Tim: No one cares that illegals tend to be from Mexico. If Canada were a problem, it would be just as wrong.
    Not finished yet- Tim validates the violation of the sovereignty of a nation with an innocuous comparison to the Prohibition. Well played Tim. We’re obviously trying to drink the sweat of illegal immigrants, which causes more violent illegal immigrants to intoxicate us with the sweat of their labor so we can mentally escape the world that “the Tim’s” have created.
    Tim then addresses the terrorism question by downplaying the risks. Hey Tim, how many terrorists does it take to fly a few planes into some massive buildings, killing several thousand people? How many terrorists does it take to bomb a race? How many terrorists does it take to shoot a dozen unarmed soldiers? Here’s the answer: only a few legal and a few semi-legal immigrants from “high-risk” nations, which we can’t call “high-risk” because that would be “racist”. And we don’t want to offend Tim’s sensibilities.
    Let’s pretend we start monitoring those “high-risk” nations more closely. Which door will terrorists take next? The one Tim demands remain open.
    Tim then brings economy into the debate. Ironic it is when liberals decide to bring economic concerns into the debate. We’re actually arguing that it’s good that we’re taking advantage of immigrants by encouraging them to take low-paying low-quality jobs? Wow, sound the racist alarm! “We want illegals because they prevent our highschoolers from having to do ‘dirty’, ‘menial’, ‘low-wage’, ‘immigrant-type’ jobs.” Tim, for shame!
    Glenn Beck’s book, aptly Titled- “Arguing with Idiots” outlines only a few of the damages associated with illegal immigration. It even provides some of those “sciency” studies that Tim loves so much. Everyone should read it.
    I am all for reforming our immigration policy so that citizenship doesn’t go to the highest bidder, but I am fed up with individuals who try to downplay the severity of the problem with demeaning and fallacious arguments and attack those who stand up for what is right.

    • Peter O

      And to those who try to use a perverted form of Christian logic in the immigration debate- I have heard many people reference open doors and open borders.

      You are correct,
      Christ did say, “knock and the door shall be opened”.
      But notice, the door wasn’t already open. You still had to knock.

      In the same way, nations have the right to be sovereign, while those who appropriately knock should be given the opportunity for immigration.

  • momo

    I personally have to agree with Carlos. While the information presented in the article is pretty valid, the act of illegally immigrating is not something that should be rewarded with compassion and service. Illegal acts should be dealt with by our law. That’s what it’s here for. If the law needs to be done, it makes no sense to fight against it by helping the people doing the crime. That’s what happened with the underground railroad. While it was a great thing that helped out many people, it wasn’t fixing the situation. The civil war and the emancipation proclamation and all of the other things like that were the things that changed society. You can’t expect to change anything by bashing on our government and breaking the law to make a point against it. You need to work with government to fix the problem.

  • Chris

    Tim wrote: “When countries do not respect the rule of law … then of course people will want to leave.”

    And when migrants do not respect the rule of law, then of course people will want them to leave. (This is true even if the only laws that are broken are immigration laws.) It’s hard to make progress in the debate over immigration policy without a general acceptance that this is a rational, if not universal, attitude.

    (I use the term “migrant” because, “immigration” being a legal process, one who has not undergone – or has stopped complying – with that process is not, properly speaking, an immigrant.)

    • Joe

      Chris – did you just ignore all of the nine links in the post? There is a very clear argument that’s made than “legality” really distorts the whole debate. I commend the author of this post for pointing this out so eloquently and citing really good information.

      • Chris

        Joe, in the main, those links (slightly more than nine, in fact) address the relationship between migration – in some cases, including illegal migration – and crime in the host countries. I didn’t ignore them; the empirical findings they provide simply do not detract from the particular point I was making.

        I’ll grant, for the sake of argument, the thesis that neither lawful immigration nor illegal migration causes a general or statistically significant increase in crime rates. In fact, I’ll go further and grant (again, for the sake of argument) that their economic impact is benign. It still remains the case that there is, as a general matter, a legitimate and principled objection to having people remain in the country who, unlike so many of their peers, did not respect the state’s lawful authority to prescribe the terms and conditions of entry and residence.

        If there is a coherent argument that nullifies this objection, it certainly does not emerge from any of the linked articles. Beyond that, Joe, I have no idea what you mean by saying that ” ‘legality’ really distorts the whole debate”, or for that matter, what your use of scare quotes around the word legality is supposed to convey in this context.



Receive our updates via email.