Research

The hard work of compromise: America needs a comprehensive immigration policy

As the debate over immigration has intensified in Arizona and across the country, the discussion has become louder, more heated and less civil. At a recent forum, "Immigration: Confronting the Challenges in Arizona" co-sponsored by the W. P. Carey School of Business, The Communications Institute, and Thomas R. Brown Foundations, participants representing views from across the spectrum turned down the volume for a few hours of poised, intelligent discussion about the economics, policy impacts, and legislative ramifications of immigration.

2007-12-19

Protestors chant "Deportation, deportation, deportation" at a Support Legal Arizona Workers rally. Hundreds of thousands march for immigrants' rights. Minutemen at an immigrant workers' protest shout "Born in the U.S.A.! Born in the U.S.A.!" Students rush Minutemen at a university assembly. As the debate over immigration has intensified in Arizona and across the country, the discussion has become louder, more heated and less civil.

At a recent forum, "Immigration: Confronting the Challenges in Arizona" co-sponsored by the W. P. Carey School of Business, The Communications Institute, and Thomas R. Brown Foundations, participants representing views from across the spectrum turned down the volume for a few hours of poised, intelligent discussion about the economics, policy impacts, and legislative ramifications of immigration.

Ending the hysteria

Moderator John E. Cox, Jr., president and founder of forum co-sponsor, The Communications Institute, posed the first question: "What steps should we take to keep terrorists and criminals from crossing the border?" Panelists included economists from two free-market think tanks: the Cato Institute and The Heritage Foundation. Among participants were activists from both sides of the debate, elected officials and representatives of agencies that enforce law and implement policy on the border.

Even though their perspectives were diverse, participants were able to agree that keeping terrorists and criminals from crossing the border is important. How to accomplish that goal comprised the debate. Panelist William W. Beach is director of the Center for Data Analysis at the Heritage Foundation. Americans have an "inalienable" right to define the border, he said. "The border is a political entity, it defines who we are," he said; that's why immigration is such a highly emotional topic.

Daniel T. Griswold, director of the Center for Trade Policy Studies at the Cato Institute, agreed that American citizens have the right to define the border. And he acknowledged the intensity of the debate surrounding just how to do that. "It has the highest ratio of heat to light," he said. "It's a highly emotional debate."

The key, Griswold said, is to do the hard work of crafting a compromise, to change immigration laws rather than to demagogue the issue. That's a topic Barry Goldwater, Jr. took up recently in a "My Turn" column in the Arizona Republic, titled "Hysteria over illegal immigrants must stop."

"This hysteria has to stop," Goldwater wrote.

"We all walk this world as human beings, and we should all seek to understand and help one another We need to urge our lawmakers to practice tolerance and fairness, to become more involved in working for a comprehensive solution that will be just to all. We need leaders that are respected by all sides for their wisdom, their wit, and most of all their rational thinking. And we need them today. Only these kinds of leaders can solve our immigration woes."

Commenting on the tenor of the debate, some forum participants argued for an end to the hysteria. Others saw its justification. "The natives are restless because of unchecked immigration," said Chris Simcox, president of the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps. "When immigration is controlled, the natives have time to accommodate and the immigrants have time to assimilate. But the natives haven't had time to adjust."

Simcox's organization defines its mission as "see[ing] the borders and coastal boundaries of the United States secured against the unlawful and unauthorized entry of all individuals, contraband, and foreign military. We will employ all means of civil protest, demonstration, and political lobbying to accomplish this goal." Yet Simcox agreed with others that society cannot afford the kind of social friction that immigration debates create.

"We're all victims of government failure — in Arizona and in Washington, D.C.," he said. "We need a compromise. And I'm willing to lead that compromise." Ward Bushee, news editor and vice president of The Arizona Republic, also warned of the dangers of social friction. "Terrible things happen in big cities when these issues get out of control," he said.

The cause of the "upswing in fear" has been a lack of clarity on the issue — the lack of a comprehensive policy on immigration, Bushee said. John Humenik, publisher and editor of Tucson's Arizona Daily Star, said that the heart of a comprehensive policy based on compromise is communication. "Our role is to help the rest of the country understand what is a very local issue."

Like Simcox, Arizona Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Horne suggested openly that hysteria over illegal immigration is justified. "People are reacting because the U.S. is becoming another country" with the inflow of immigrants, he said. "Immigration can enrich a culture only up to certain numbers."

Unintended consequences

While debates rage, the federal and state governments are increasing their presence at the border. But these moves to secure the border, participants suggested, are creating dangerous unintended consequences. Alonzo Pena, special agent in charge at the federal Immigrations and Customs Enforcement, said that securing the border is a "monumental" task, and that a lot of resources have been placed there.

But the increase in border security has created an even bigger challenge for enforcement officials: it has driven illegal immigration farther underground. "We now see more violence, from the people who smuggle illegal aliens across the border, and higher smuggling fees," Pena said. Yuma County Sheriff Ralph E. Ogden echoed Pena's observations. "The border is tighter because of increased financial resources and increased attention there," he said.

"But now the drug smugglers are also human smugglers." The more they clamp down on security in Yuma County, Ogden said, the more they're simply pushing the problem into somebody else's lap. "It's like a balloon. If you squeeze air from one side, it pushes the balloon out on another side."

The Cato Institute's Griswold said that tighter border security has meant that more people are dying in their attempts to cross the border — from increased smuggler violence and because they tend to cross in more remote, dangerous areas. It's also meant that illegal immigrants who do come to the United States are more likely to stay, because getting back and forth across the border has become a much greater challenge.

"During the 20 years of relatively lax border enforcement, 80 percent of illegal immigrants returned to their home countries," Griswold said. "Now, they're less likely to do that." Minuteman President Simcox has seen firsthand the unintended consequences of tighter border security. "My group made more than 150 rescues last summer. We're much more concerned about violence now — against immigrants and against border enforcers," he said.

But, Simcox said, enforcement nevertheless is the first step. "We're doing what we need to be doing: sending a statement that coming to the United States without documentation is illegal." Griswold suggested that we shouldn't wait until the border is secure to make other sensible policies.

Striking a balance

Sensible policies most often involve striking a balance. "We need to make sure that our border doesn't become a wall," Beach said, "virtual or real." The border is a conduit for economic activity, he said, and so policies have to balance enforcement with flexibility and a certain degree of porousness. Griswold said that it's a question of resources.

"Do we want to put our resources into stopping janitors from coming here to work, or should we put our resources into stopping terrorists and criminals?" That so many come from Mexico and other Latin American countries to work is a matter of supply and demand, participants suggested. The United States has a supply of jobs, and other countries to our South have workers who demand them.

"Moving from place to place in search of economic opportunities is a normal human activity," Griswold said. Indeed, many agreed that a lack of economic opportunity in Mexico is the root cause of immigration into the United States. But some argued that allowing Mexicans to come to the United States illegally is not an appropriate response.

"We need to take away illegal immigrants' reason for coming here," State Representative John Kavanagh said. "We do that by improving the economic situation in their countries and taking away the jobs here — as the Employer Sanctions Act will do." But others questioned whether stopping immigration is something we really want to do. State Representative Theresa Ulmer said that the Employer Sanctions Act has already reduced economic activity in Arizona.

"We have to ask the question: do we want to build the economy or not?" Carlos Flores, Consul General from the Mexican General Consulate, offered a view from the other side of the border. He agreed that economic disparities exist between Mexico and the United States, and within Mexico itself. "We have been coping with economic disparities," he said. But his country has been stymied by a liberalization of markets for U.S. and Mexican corporate interests that disregarded labor structures.

And the country, he said, is limited by debts. "The financial sector prevails over other interests in Mexico," he said. "But the financial sector isn't controlled by Mexicans. Banamex, the largest Mexican bank, is owned by Citigroup." But, Flores said, no matter how you turn or shake the map, Mexico, the U.S., and Canada are still attached. "We have to decide the kind of relationship we want," he said.

What's to be done?

"Border security measures without comprehensive immigration policy reform are doomed to fail," Griswold said. He advocated for a three-part policy, dealing with border enforcement, addressing the illegal immigrants who are currently residing in the United States, and creating a plan to allow future immigrants into the country.

"A person who resides here illegally shouldn't be rewarded for breaking the law," said Beach. "Our reverence for the rule of law is one reason why America is great." But, he added, "we're operating at full employment in most American communities; without immigrant workers, we won't be able to fill those jobs."

Many of the panelists and participants argued for a guest worker program. Beach said, "We need a guest worker program in which visas are driven by the market, not by bureaucracy." "Immigration: Confronting the Challenges in Arizona" was cosponsored by the Thomas R. Brown Foundations, The Communications Institute, Arizona State University and the University of Arizona.

Bottom line:

• Solving the immigration problem will probably involve hard work to craft a compromise to change immigration laws rather than demagogue the issue.
• Among the forum participants, there was consensus that the debate over illegal immigration has become hysterical. Some participants argued for an end to the hysteria. Others saw its justification.
• Programs to secure the U.S.-Mexico border have resulted in a number of unintended consequences, including increased violence, a higher death toll, and a larger population of immigrants who don't return to their home countries.
• According to some participants, sensible immigration policies balance border enforcement with flexibility and a certain degree of porousness.
• Many forum participants agreed that a lack of economic opportunity in Mexico is the root cause of immigration into the United States. But some argued that allowing Mexicans to come to the United States illegally is not an appropriate response.

Economics