Despite numerous patrol stations and constant additions to the fences, the border between America and Mexico has never efficiently been able to prevent illegal crossings. Recently, the Republican presidential candidates have focused on their concern for eliminating these illegal crossings: Bachmann suggested a double fence, Perry wanted “aviation assets in the ground”, and Cain even suggested modifying the current fence to have an electrical charge.
However, contrary to the Republicans beliefs, statistics from the patrol stations are actually showing that the number of illegal crossings in the past few years has decreased and is going to continue to decrease. At its peak in 2000, the number of arrests totaled 1,643,679, where just last year the number of arrests dropped a whopping 96% to 447,731. Next year, the number is expected to drop even lower. These decreasing figures can be attributed to increasing spending on border patrol. America has employed greater number of patrols (on land, boats, and airplanes), trained dogs to sniff out stowaways, installed infra-red, magnetic, and seismic sensors, and even established a team to chase the migrants through storm drains. In addition, those who are caught now have to serve several weeks in jail.
So with these promising numbers and improved measures, is the Republican presidential candidates’ focus on illegal immigration really justified? I believe that as it stands, we are already spending a hefty enough amount on border patrol. It can be argued that the decrease in illegal immigrants from Mexico is due to a loss of incentive. The current weak American economy deters migrants who may think the risk of crossing is not worth the potential rewards. If this is true, then spending on border control can even decrease; it is our economy, and not increased spending, that appeals or dissuades the migrants. However, just because the number of those who are illegally crossing the border is decreasing doesn’t mean illegal immigration is not a problem; the total number of illegal immigrants is actually increasing. The greatest controversy is over when we should be spending more or less on border control.
11 comments:
Since the percentage of illegal immigrants has dropped, it seems to me that we can either decrease or sustain the amount that we are spending on the boarder. However, since illegal immigration is a huge Republican concern, I cannot see the budget for boarder patrol dropping any time soon. Nonetheless, I do not think that more needs to be spent as there will always be illegal immigrants unless the government devotes a majority of its resources to fighting illegal immigration.
I agree with Sophia's point that there will always be a problem with illegal immigration. I guess that the Republican candidates' fixation on illegal immigration is somewhat justified because illegal immigration is still taking place and somewhat of a problem. However, I feel that we should be wary about their plans because they seem somewhat drastic and inhumane. I personally do not feel that electrical fences that Cain suggested is the best idea. Also, Bachmann's call for a double fence seems to be ridiculously expensive because we don't even have 1 fully constructed, strong fence. How does she expect to pay for another?
I agree with Sophia and Dustan in that we should spend less on border patrol. There are better ways to reduce illegal immigration, directly and indirectly.
Because one of the problems of illegal immigration is the fact that it creates more workers than there should be, we should increase the incentive to work overseas. By doing this, we'll not only reduce the incentive to cross illegally, but also reduce the surplus of workers that we have.
Another possible method would be to increase the quota for legal immigration. I think that the main reason why there are so many illegal crossings is because the quota for legal immigration is too small, so foreigners have no way to cross except illegally. Increasing the quota will allow for more immigrants to cross legally and reduce the number of illegal crossings.
I find it interesting that we seem to be basing the number of illegal crossings on the fact of how many arrests were made. Although it is very likely that increased spending on border does not lead to decreased efficiency in catching border crossers, I do not believe that we can say that because there are less arrests there is a corresponding drop in the number of illegal immigrants. On the point of how to decrease illegal immigrants, I agree with Sophia that not much more can be done to decrease the number of illegals crossing the border unless we spend a large portion of resources on it - which does not seem economically sound - or use drastic measures, but land-mining the critical areas would probably just draw more criticism to the government. Upon Vincent's point of increasing the desire to work overseas to decrease illegal border immigration, I do not believe that it will work because most illegals choose to hop the border because it is a cheap solution to get to a place with more job offerings while rowing a boat to China does not seem like a good idea for most Mexicans.
I agree with Vincent. If we increased the legal immigration quota, we could possibly decrease the illegal immigration problem. However, there could be an unforseen influx of people wanting to enter legally and then causing a "backup" in the process. People then would turn to entering illegally and thus increasing the problem.
However, I recently saw a news segment about how international companies want to set up in the U.S., but they are unable to get into the country due to immigration issues. If the quota were incresed, these people could have the chance to enter and stimulate the economy.
As with all things, there are pros and cons.
I agree with what people are saying. Another problem with their fixation on illegal immigration is that there is illegal immigration from other countries other than Mexico and countries in Central America who get in through crossing the border. Other illegal immigration happens to. Another cause of illegal immigration is overstaying visas which is a problem the Republicans are not adressing.
Addressing Amy's question on whether or not the candidates bringing it up is justified, I think it is and it isn't. As several people said, clearly it is a national concern but whether or not the politicians were bringing it up for that reason is a whole different issue. You have to consider the fact that suggesting an electric fence strong enough to kill, even as a joke, is going to appeal to certain far-right constituents, or extreme anti-integration supporters. Personally I think that bringing it up to discuss further protection provisions rather than to commend the already huge improvements is more of a politically motivated move than anything.
Since the number of illegal crossings continues to decrease, it does not seem to be a pressing need to increase border security. I think that the electric fence and double fence ideas appear unnecessary and not worth the costs. The fact that our economy is dissuading people from immigrating should be enough of a sign that we should not even think about spending more on border patrol. It would be reasonable to keep the amount of spending the same and see what happens. If it keeps decreasing then maybe we can gradually spend less.
While I do agree that illegal immigration is a problem, I agree with the people saying that no more money should be spent on fixing the borders. All three candidates mentioned require some form of government money to be spent on additional border control mechanisms. As the article mentioned, the newly implemented border controls seem to be working and I think that hoping for an even lower illegal immigration total is the least of the US concerns. I think that the government should focus more on fixing the economy before spending millions more preventing illegal immigrants from crossing the border (especially since the economic incentive is essentially gone).
I disagree with Vincent's point that one of the problems of illegal immigration is that it creates more workers than there should be. Illegal immigrants are taking jobs that almost no one in America wants such as harvesting and meat packing. Both of these jobs are dangerous because the companies hiring them take advantage of their illegal status and refuse to provide the safe working conditions required by law. For example, workers must spray down produce with pesticides without giving them so much as a gas mask to prevent them from inhaling the chemicals. And the 2003-2007 Bureau of Labor Statistics shows that, "the rate of illnesses and injuries for workers in "animal slaughtering and processing" was over twice as high as the national average, and the rate of illnesses alone was over ten times the national average." http://www.sustainabletable.org/issues/processing/#fn19
The result of these companies spending little to no money taking care of their workers is a major reason why we are able to buy cheap produce and meat. Obviously, these practices are terrible and need to be stopped. However, if you think about it from that perspective, illegal immigrants have actually been aiding our economy.
I agree with Sophia Wu's point that it seems that we need to save ourselves first before worrying over border control. If we could somehow measure the effects of our economy's reputation and the effects of our border patrol spending on illegal immigration, we could totally calculate a drop in spending over border control without being too obvious about it. We are not dropping our defense, we are allocating resources for the greater good: our economy. If people really drop those two bombshells, well it would give immigrants greater incentives to come here illegally. That is the case, if those two ideals are the only pushes towards encouraging illegal immigration. This is a simplistic situation, but dealing with such allocation options doesn't leave us much choice: raise or sustain or lower spending?
Post a Comment