An interesting take on the immigration debate: part of a tradition of "tolerated lawbreaking"

[KamaAina]

Slate's Tim Wu has been doing a series all week on "tolerated lawbreaking" (the Amish' exemption from Social Security, for instance). Today, he brings immigration into this context.

http://www.slate.com/id/2175730/entry/2175742

On Aug. 10, 2007, the Bush administration announced that it would try something no modern administration has succeeded in doing: enforcing the immigration laws. More specifically, the administration wants to institute serious fines for any employer who fails to fire workers lacking legitimate Social Security numbers. If Bush's plan is ever implemented, it will require the sacking of millions. Don't hold your breath. The administration is trying to get at one of America's favorite instances of tolerated lawbreaking: our de facto guest-worker program, created by the nonenforcement of immigration laws. And while no one will admit it, our current system is popular enough that his effort seems destined to fail.

For the last several decades, internal enforcement of the immigration laws has been, by and large, sporadic and symbolic. In 2004, the number of fines issued against domestic employers for employing illegal immigrants was a grand total of three. Politicians usually prefer to talk about "securing our borders," a method of stopping illegal immigration that has great advantages for all concerned. It sounds tough. It's easy to fund. And it doesn't deprive us of any of the benefits of illegal immigration, because it doesn't work. In fact, it's such a laughably ineffective way to deter illegal immigration that it almost seems designed to fail....

Meanwhile, employers and contractors are a much more obvious and logical target for a serious enforcement strategy. The number of employers who hire large numbers of illegals is not in the millions, but in the tens of thousands. Employers are large, sensitive to fines and threats of imprisonment, and tend stay in one place. Basic enforcement theory—the theory of "gatekeeper enforcement"—clearly suggests targeting the few, not the many. Gatekeeper enforcement is what government does when it actually wants to stop something illegal from happening.

So why has the United States chosen a method—border enforcement—that's less effective than zealous domestic prosecution? If we thought illegal immigration was really a bad thing—if, say, the problem were the unlawful arrival not of workers, but of disease-bearing chickens—the government might rapidly deploy the most effective form of enforcement, with the support of all parts of society. But instead the nation tolerates illegal immigration to create a de facto guest-worker program. Immigration is what economists call "trade in services," and effective enforcement would make most services more expensive, just as blockading China would make many goods more expensive. It can be tough on low-wage workers, but the United States is richer overall because we get cheaper labor, while Mexicans and other workers are richer for selling it.

If you're at all interested in this topic -- and judging by the volume of posts surrounding it in the recent past, most of us are! -- definitely click and read the rest of this.

[nightrider767]

1. Good Article

Basically it saids that this situation will be next to impossible to fix in any humane, fair way. So when you consider that this government can't even get easy stuff right, it's not looking good for us, or for our huge population of illegals.

I'm on both ends of the issue. I think we need to enforce our laws, while still dealing fairly with people we practically invited in.
I'm not sure how it can be done. In the last immigration reform bill, I for one certainly wish that they would have at least cut some slack for people who've moved here, have children and wish to stay. Families living in shadows is not good for anyone.

On the other hand, temp workers who are here for a couple years to work, save, cash out and leave with their money are a separate issue all together.