Earth to Wall Street Journal: Clueless on immigration.

National Review Online ^ | January 28, 2004 | Mark Krikorian

[xsysmgr]

Now, I like the Wall Street Journal. But its editorials on immigration always have a whiff of the Soviet about them. Like an apparatchik blaming the collapse of the USSR's agriculture on 75 straight years of bad weather, the Journal's writing on immigration has no connection to reality. Tuesday's lead editorial claims that the United States has tried in vain for two decades to enforce the immigration law, and now it's time to try something new (namely, the president's guestworker/amnesty proposal ). The piece is laced with the usual libertarian contempt for conservatives, with such leftist smears as "extreme," "restrictionist right," and "nativist wing of the GOP," and even refers to "undocumented," rather than illegal, aliens.

But it's the basic factual claim of the piece that's so absurd. The new party line is that open borders aren't just desirable (a la the Journal's perennial call for a constitutional amendment abolishing America's borders) — they're inevitable. Another member of the open-borders apparat, Tamar Jacoby, had a recent piece in The New Republic (here, but you have to pay for it) subtitled "Why we can't stop illegal immigration." In the Journal's words, "if a policy keeps failing for nearly two decades maybe some new thinking is in order."

Actually, I agree. The problem is that the "new thinking" we need is a commitment to enforce the law. Over the past 20 years, we have done almost nothing to control immigration except beef up the Border Patrol. And while that's a worthwhile goal in itself, any border agent will tell you that his job is only one part of any effort to enforce sovereign borders.

The Journal claims that the ban on hiring illegals, passed in 1986, has been tried and failed. Again, this is false. Enforcement of this measure, intended to turn off the magnet attracting illegals in the first place, was spotty at first and is now virtually nonexistent. Even when the law was passed, Congress pulled its punch by not requiring the development of a mechanism for employers to verify the legal status of new hires, forcing the system to fall back on a blizzard of easily forged paper documents.

And even under this flawed system, the INS was publicly slapped down when it did try to enforce the law. When the agency conducted raids during Georgia's Vidalia onion harvest in 1998, thousands of illegal aliens — knowingly hired by the farmers — abandoned the fields to avoid arrest. By the end of the week, both of the state's senators and three congressmen — Republicans and Democrats — had sent an outraged letter to Washington complaining that the INS "does not understand the needs of America's farmers," and that was the end of that.

So, the INS tried out a "kinder, gentler" means of enforcing the law, which fared no better. Rather than conduct raids on individual employers, Operation Vanguard in 1998-99 sought to identify illegal workers at all meatpacking plants in Nebraska through audits of personnel records. The INS then asked to interview those employees who appeared to be unauthorized — and the illegals ran off. The procedure was remarkably successful, and was meant to be repeated every two or three months until the plants were weaned from their dependence on illegal labor.

Local law-enforcement officials were very pleased with the results, but employers and politicians vociferously criticized the very idea of enforcing the immigration law. Gov. Mike Johanns organized a task force to oppose the operation; the meat packers and the ranchers hired former Gov. Ben Nelson to lobby on their behalf; and, in Washington, Sen. Chuck Hagel (R., Neb.) (coauthor, with Tom Daschle, of the newest amnesty bill, S.2010) made it his mission in life to pressure the Justice Department to stop. They succeeded, the operation was ended, and the INS veteran who thought it up in the first place is now enjoying early retirement.

The INS got the message and developed a new interior-enforcement policy that gave up on trying to actually reassert control over immigration and focused almost entirely on the important, but narrow, issues of criminal aliens and smugglers. As INS policy director Robert Bach told the New York Times in a 2000 story appropriately entitled "I.N.S. Is Looking the Other Way as Illegal Immigrants Fill Jobs": "It is just the market at work, drawing people to jobs, and the INS has chosen to concentrate its actions on aliens who are a danger to the community." The result is clear — the San Diego Union-Tribune reported earlier this month that from 1992 to 2002, the number of companies fined for hiring illegal workers fell from 1,063 to 13. That's thirteen. In the whole country.

Coming at it from the other side, when we have tried to enforce the law, it's worked, until we gave up. The aforementioned Operation Vanguard in Nebraska was a good example — if enforcement wasn't working, why would the employers have bothered to organize against it? Likewise, in the immediate aftermath of the passage of the 1986 immigration law, illegal crossings from Mexico fell precipitously, as prospective illegals waited to see if we were serious; we weren't, so they resumed their crossings.

In the wake of 9/11, when we stepped up immigration enforcement against Middle Easterners (and only Middle Easterners), the largest group of illegals from that part of the world, Pakistanis, fled the country in droves to avoid being caught up in the dragnet. And the Social Security Administration in 2002 sent out almost a million "no-match" letters to employers who filed W-2s with information that was inconsistent with SSA's records; i.e., illegal aliens. The effort was so successful at denying work to illegals that advocacy groups organized to stop it and won a 90-percent reduction in the number of letters to be sent out.

Tony Blankley, the Washington Times's editorial-page editor, summed it up nicely in a recent column:

I might agree with the president's proposals if they followed, rather than preceded, a failed Herculean, decades-long national effort to secure our borders. If, after such an effort, it was apparent that we simply could not control our borders, then, as a practical man I would try to make the best of a bad situation. But such an effort has not yet been made.

The Journal's editorial writers, despite their many strengths, suffer from the malady of all utopian ideologues: an unwillingness to acknowledge facts that are inconsistent with infallible theory.

— NRO Contributor Mark Krikorian is executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies and a visiting fellow at the Nixon Center.

[Bikers4Bush]

Nice one.

[King Black Robe]

I think the answer is to charge companies the full government cost for these employees and their families. Make the employer pay the education, police, fire, welfare, medical, etc..costs for these people. The gov't can calculate the average cost and companies can cough it up per immigrant employee. Then I'd be fine with it. I'm just mad that my taxes are higher because some companies want labor on the cheap. And not only do I pay, but I get no credit for it. Mommy gov't gets to term herself as compassionate when she had to rob me -- through threat of jail -- to give to them.

[azhenfud]

I've wondered, with the advanced technology available today, why the SSA isn't making SS cards scannable and encoding them with digital and photo ID's and keeping a digital copy on file within the SSA. Then, by making those photos accessible to for verification by cross-checking, it would be impossible to counterfeit a SS card. Afterwards any felons that hire and aid Illegaliens become inexcusable...

[.308]

What concerns me, is that these illegal aliens come here, have their damn babies - who then become American citizens. We've never asked for them to come into our population. I've never voted for that.

[azhenfud]

Your's is exactly the reason why the three year proposal by the President is insane. Once across the border, they'll be breeding like fleas. You can see my concern here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1062930/posts

[DustyMoment]

KBR:

GREAT IDEA!!!! I LOVE IT!!!! If businesses want to hire cheap labor, let'em pay the whole cost.

az:
The SS card isn't equipped with all that stuff because it was never supposed to be used as either an ID card or a national ID card. However, given the usage that it has fallen into, it may be worthwhile to consider changing the SS card as you suggested. It could go a long way to helping close the problem with illegal aliens. It's a better idea than that which Bush had proposed.

In general, I support the NRO article. We have FAILED, completely, to enforce the immigration law in order for the politicians to continue their pandering to these lawbreakers. What concerns me is how long it will take for our elected officials to begin pandering in force to murderers, rapists, drug dealers, robbers, etc. Already, there has been discussion about restoring voting rights to convicted criminals. What's next? Given murderers a slap on the wrist for their first conviction and telling them not to do it again?

Lawbreakers are lawbreakers. If rewarding one segment of our society with citizenship for breaking the law is supposed to be good, imagine what reward we'll get from the government if we ALL break the law. Oh boy!!!!

[Gritty]

the Social Security Administration in 2002 sent out almost a million "no-match" letters to employers who filed W-2s with information that was inconsistent with SSA's records; i.e., illegal aliens. The effort was so successful at denying work to illegals that advocacy groups organized to stop it and won a 90-percent reduction in the number of letters to be sent out.

Just another in a long line of complete outrage in a national policy consisting of in-your-face outrages we put up with daily - and someday will if they don't do something concrete about it soon - and I don't mean another flaccid amnesty, either.

Politicians - both GOP and Dim - had better wake up to the seething volcano they are resting their laurels upon. This entire issue can get very ugly and very violent very quickly.

[azhenfud]

True, the socialist security card was never meant as an ID, but it has become that for everything from checking accounts to medical insurance and anything in between - and it's the easiest form of fraud. There would be no hesitation in Government to strengthen against currency's counterfeit-ability if they were dealing with Jacksons or Franklins in the same volume of fraud. That's a proven fact. We need to force our government to take better security protections over what we have, over what's ours.

[Lady Eileen]

bttt

[DustyMoment]

Just out of curiosity, have you suggested this to your elected rep? There will probably be a lot of foot-draffing to enact due to the traditional intent of the SS card but, it makes sense to me.

By the same token, with government reluctance to enforce immigration law, it may never go anywhere. Try also suggesting it to Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO) since he is the Congressmen leading the anti-immigration reform effort.

It's worth a shot and it makes good sense.

[Viva Le Dissention]

The reason why the WSJ supports broader, more open immigration is because it makes capitalist sense.

Immigration into a capitalist country is an asset, not a problem. The more people, the larger the market, the more opportunity for division of labor.

If you have a problem with the current state of affairs, it ought to be with the social programs, not with immigration itself.

[RKV]

You have it partially correct. Unfortunately illegals aren't willing to carry the burden of citizenship and want only the economic benefits of being here. Obeying our laws, contributing to our common defense and adopting our culture are what is needed. They have proven that they will not do those things.

[Viva Le Dissention]

They have proven that they will not do those things.

What? I don't even know how to begin to respond to something so absurd.

First off, if they don't want to be citizens, they certainly don't have to be. And as far as reaping the economic benefits--of course! That's why almost anyone immigrates. You could make that same statement for most of the immigrants to the United State throughout history.

Hey, if they want to come here and speak Spanish and eat their food, whatever. I don't care. Like I said before: larger market, more opportunity for division of labor. Welcome.

[RKV]

You have indeed proven that you don't get it (sounds to me like you don't want to). Let me see if I can assist with a simple example. I don't let just anyone into my house. They have to recognize that I own the place and operate by my rules. They have to be pleasant and contribute to the family's happiness. Our country is the same. We reserve the right to control access. Those who contribute (and this is not just an economic matter) and follow our laws are welcome. Those who are a burden (in net) are not welcome. Get it yet? Illegals are a burden not an asset - cheap labor is not cheap when you account for all costs.

[RKV]

If you actually were interested in some facts on illegal immigration you might take a look here http://www.cis.org/.

[Viva Le Dissention]

Yes, I understand that there are laws which prevent people from coming here.

I'm saying those laws are irrational and non-sensical. They are merely political and not based in any form of logic. If our laws were required to make sense, we wouldn't have immigration laws, but for a very few which would be required for national security.

Immigration laws are the same types of laws as the anti-trust laws. They don't make economic sense and they are a tool of the politicians to dupe the voting public.

[RKV]

You have made an unsupported assertion when you say such laws make no sense. I gave you a very clear example of why they do. Here is another - if a criminal wants to flee a country to avoid prosecution should we allow them to enter our country? How about another - controlling diseases? Should we let persons with active TB cases into the US? I say no on both counts, and for many other valid reasons.

[goldstategop]

I support the introduction of a tamper proof national ID card every American citizen would be required to carry in order to be able to attend college, get married, drive a car, board an airplane, train or cruise ship, get a job, and get government benefits. Any one without such a card would simply not be allowed to avail himself of the benefits of American society. Without all of the above, the flood of illegal aliens entering America would dry to a trickle and its side benefit it would seal off America from terrorists who now can take advantage of our lax ID system to attack us anywhere without warning and virtually at will. I used to be opposed to a national ID but now I think if we don't establish one soon, its simply a matter of when we will lose our country.

[azhenfud]

"I don't care."

If you're here illegally, I do.