Press Releases

Washington D.C. - On Monday, the Immigration Policy Center (IPC) hosted a teleconference with border and national-security experts who dissected the myths linking immigration and border violence. These experts shared their analyses of the reality of crime and violence along the U.S.-Mexico border, what the real sources of violence are, and how the U.S. should respond.  They all made the point that nearly twenty years of immigration policy focusing on "securing the border first" has failed to address the underlying issues and criminal cartels that are the real cause of violence along the border.  The experts noted that immigration laws and policies of the past two decades have, ironically, made the border less safe and have actually benefitted the traffickers and smugglers who operate at the border.

Benjamin Johnson of the American Immigration Council stressed the need to disentangle unauthorized immigration and border violence as a means for solving both problems, noting that "we are pursuing a lopsided approach of border-enforcement only and placing the highest priority on prosecuting nonviolent border-crossers rather than dangerous criminals. Everyone wants an easy solution to solving our problems at the border, but the reality is a simple solution does not exist for complex problems."
 
According to David Shirk, Director of the Trans-Border Institute at the University of San Diego,
"the Border Patrol has doubled to 20,000 agents, there are also more than 3,000 Immigrations and Customs Enforcement agents, 300 National Guard troops (with 1,200 more on their way), and a significant surge in the number of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms personnel. However, border security-only advocates say that this is still not enough. Further saturating the border is costly and ineffective. Indeed, the border-centric approach has encouraged drug trafficking organizations to evolve from relatively small-scale, low-level operations in the 1980s into the highly sophisticated, heavily-armed criminal organizations that are today seriously undermining the Mexican state. The flow of drugs and immigrants continues practically unabated, despite these very costly investments in border security."
 
He added, "the argument that can be made is that we have gone as far as reasonable to secure this part of the comprehensive approach. We have entered into a free trade agreement with Mexico that allows the flow of goods and capital, but we have not figured out how to manage labor. Border security is made difficult by the creation of a haystack of people; 200,000 people were apprehended at the border last year and 200 were found to have criminal histories. In my view, we need to figure out how to get the 99% of people who don't pose a threat out of the way through work-visa programs or other means. This would make the Border Patrol's job much easier by shrinking the size of the haystack."
 
Jennifer Bernal Garcia of the Center for New American Security explained, "it's true that the U.S. faces a problem of national security relevance at its border. However, focusing on the problem of crime rather than crime and immigration is needed. When you build a fence, you are pushing immigrants straight into the arms of criminal cartels. There hasn't been enough of a focus placed on prosecution and enforcement measures against criminal cartels. Many think that the border is the 'choke point,' but drug cartels are sprawled out. We must think beyond the border. Going after scapegoats at the border does nothing to change or deter the criminal element."  She explains, "what is needed along the border is a coordinated strategy among federal agencies and foreign governments, not incremental acts and feel-good deployments. Such a broad strategy would focus on reducing criminal groups' ability to violently contest state authority, both by diminishing the sources of their proceeds (drugs) and their social base (through a mix of regional law enforcement and social programs)." 

Aarti Kohli of the Warren Institute at California State University at Berkeley noted that programs like Operation Streamline, which places all illegal border crossers in federal criminal proceedings in certain regions, are examples of a misdirected policy.  "All border crossers regardless of their criminal history are pushed through federal district courts rather than through the civil immigration court. One of the unintended consequences is that resources are taken from prosecuting higher-level offenses. In 2009, federal prosecutors in border districts turned away 1,800 drug prosecutions mostly because they did not have enough investigative and prosecutorial resources. We have created an environment where non-violent border crossers are being prioritized over more dangerous criminals like kidnappers, drug smugglers, and others."  In a recent report she found that "between 2002 and 2008, federal magistrate judges along the U.S.-Mexico border saw their misdemeanor immigration caseloads more than quadruple. Criminal prosecutions of petty immigration-related offenses increased by more than 330% in the border district courts, while smuggling and drug trafficking charges were brought less frequently or remained flat."

The panel made the compelling point that "border security first" as a policy choice long ago reached the point of diminishing returns.  Reducing illegal immigration will not be accomplished solely by securing the border, but by a coordinated and comprehensive strategy. Creating sensible immigration policies, while simultaneously and comprehensively addressing the criminal issues that are at the heart of border violence, is the only way to provide genuine security along the border and throughout the United States.

Listen to the telephonic.
 
To read further information see:

• Throwing Good Money After Bad: Immigration Enforcement without Immigration Reform Doesn't Work (IPC Fact Check, May 26, 2010)
• U.S. Border Enforcement Prioritizes Non-Violent Migrants Over Dangerous Criminals (IPC Press Release, May 20, 2010) 
• New Data on Federal Court Prosecutions Reveal Non-Violent Immigration Prosecutions Up (IPC Fact Check, February 4, 2010)

Washington D.C. - In the midst of a loud, long and contentious battle over immigration, a soft voice emerged yesterday which spoke volumes about our nation's broken immigration system - and the fear and havoc it creates in the lives of million of young people in America. "My mom... she says that Barack Obama is taking everybody away that doesn't have papers," whispered a second grade girl in Silver Spring, Maryland, to Michele Obama during her visit to that school yesterday. Her honesty was powerful testimony on behalf of 5.5 million children (75% of which are U.S. Citizens) in America, who have at least one parent without proper immigration status. 

For several years a range of academics have documented the powerful effect this uncertain future is having on the lives of children in America. The Immigration Policy Center has produced fact sheets and provides links which highlight these various studies.

• The Ones They Leave Behind: Deportation of Lawful Permanent Residents Harm U.S. Citizen Children highlights more than 100,000 children were affected by deportation of a legal immigrant parent between 1997 and 2007. At least 88,000 of these children were U.S. citizens and 217,000 other immediate family members were affected by the deportation of a legal permanent resident.

• Protecting Children in the Aftermath of Immigration Raids highlights the consequences of parental arrest, detention, and deportation on 190 children in 85 families in six locations across the country. The report found that raids and other ICE actions that separate parents and children pose serous risks to children's immediate safety, economic security, well-being, and long-term development. In most cases, two-parent homes became single-parent families after one parent was detained.  At least 20 families in the study were forced to decide whether children-many of whom are native born U.S. citizens-would leave the country with their deported parent or remain with the other parent or other relatives. The Urban Institute interviewed families affected by ICE actions at the following six sites.

• A Portrait of Unauthorized Immigrants in the United States, by the Pew Hispanic Center, finds that a growing share of the children of unauthorized immigrant parents - 73% - were born in this country and are U.S. citizens. 

Washington D.C. - Today, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer may sign into law a bill that has the potential to sink her state much deeper into the red than it already is. Touting a $10 million investment into local law enforcement from discretionary federal stimulus money the state received from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, Governor Brewer is gambling with Arizona's economy. The costs associated with SB 1070 have not been quantified by the Arizona legislature but it is safe to assume that $10 million dollars is only a drop in the bucket towards what it would actually cost to enforce this law. 

In Arizona, when a bill is introduced in the state legislature, a "fiscal note" is attached which lays out the cost of implementation. In the case of SB 1070, the accompanying fiscal note is shockingly lacking in detail, concluding that "the fiscal impact of this bill cannot be determined with certainty. We do not have a means to quantify the number of individuals arrested under the bill's provisions or the impact on the level of illegal immigration." At a time when Arizona is facing a multi-billion dollar deficit, however, enacting an enforcement program that will surely run into the hundreds of millions of dollars is fiscally irresponsible at best.

In the absence of any current fiscal data on the cost of SB 1070's implementation, some Arizonans are pointing to a fact sheet produced by Yuma County Sheriff Ralph E. Ogden in response to similar legislation proposed in 2006. Yuma County is one of Arizona's 15 counties, with a population of about 200,000.

The 2006 fact sheet estimates the costs of a bill which would have authorized the police to arrest illegal immigrants on trespassing charges if they were simply present in the state (the bill was eventually vetoed by then Governor Janet Napolitano).  The Yuma County Sherriff's fact sheet shows a staggering potential cost to Yuma County law-enforcement agencies. The Sherriff estimated:

• Law-enforcement agencies would spend between $775,880 and $1,163,820 in processing expenses;

• Jail costs would be between $21,195,600 and $96,086,720;

• Attorney and staff fees would be $810,067-$1,620,134;

• Additional detention facilities would have to be built at unknown costs.

Furthermore, in an email between Yuma County Attorney Jon Smith and Arizona lawmakers, Smith added that there would be even more costs to implementing SB 1070 than just what Ogden had outlined, and noted that his county was already struggling with a budget deficit by furloughing employees and forcing days off without pay. He wrote:

"It was also noted that the Superior Court, Justice Courts and Municipal Courts would also realize increased costs if that legislation passed. Although such increases were not calculated, it was and should be noted that such would include additional court staff, interpreters, administrative staff and pre-trial services. In a percentage of those cases, Juvenile Court and the juvenile detention facility would have also recognized cost increases...An increase of this proportion would stifle all areas of the system, from the moment of arrest to the point of conviction, sentencing and incarceration.  Already LEA (law enforcement agencies) are fighting to stay afloat through the use of furloughs, and mandated days off with pay.  I really doubt the fines and fees assessed will be able to match the need and cost associated."

The Yuma county snapshot of enforcement costs is a sobering reminder of the overwhelming financial harm that SB 1070 could cause the state of Arizona.  Ultimately, those costs are only part of the story and don't even account for lost revenue such as tax contributions and consumer purchasing, as well as the potentially expensive lawsuits that will likely ensue if this law if it is signed by the Governor.

Washington D.C. - A new report from the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC), entitled Immigrant Legalization: Assessing the Labor Market Effects, yields both some enlightening and some potentially misleading results about the likely impact of a legalization program.  Because the PPIC report focuses on legal status acquired under current immigration law, it does not reflect the long-term benefits and gains that follow from a comprehensive immigration reform package which includes legalization.

While the PPIC report dovetails with other reports when it concludes that legalization would not have a negative impact on native workers' wages and employment, their findings on the wages and mobility of the newly legalized differ from other academic studies on how immigrants fare after legalization.  This difference can be attributed to the fact that PPIC looks at legalization only, and how the newly legalized are doing just 4-13 months after becoming legalized. Almost all other previous studies haven take a longer term view of their success.

PPIC relies upon data from the New Immigrant Survey (NIS), a sample of foreign-born individuals who acquired legal permanent resident (LPR) status between May and November 2003.  It is important to keep in mind that the NIS is not representative of the unauthorized-immigrant population as a whole.  As opposed to the individuals captured in the NIS, most unauthorized immigrants do not have a means of acquiring legal status.  Moreover, individuals in the NIS were interviewed 4-13 months after acquiring LPR status.

Despite these limitations in the NIS data, the PPIC report uses it to conclude that immigrants who receive legal status do not experience significant upward mobility in their occupation or wages. Unfortunately, 4-13 months is far too short a time to witness the sort of upward socioeconomic mobility that legalization would facilitate.  For instance, a report on beneficiaries of legalization under the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) revealed pronounced upward mobility in terms of education, wages, homeownership, and occupation between 1990 and 2006:

• In 1990, only 30 percent of IRCA immigrants 16-24 years old had a high-school diploma or better.  By 2006 (when that group was 31-41 years old), the share had increased to 58 percent.

• The real wages of IRCA immigrants in all age groups increased between 1990 and 2006.

• While 34 percent of IRCA immigrants age 35-44 years owned homes in 1990, 68 percent owned homes in 2006.

• The share of younger IRCA immigrants employed in managerial-level positions rose substantially, from 9 percent in 1990 to 17 percent in 2006.

Although the PPIC report is right that a new legalization program for unauthorized immigrants poses no danger to native-born workers and taxpayers, it vastly underestimates the significant economic benefits that would likely flow from legalization.  This stems in part from the report's questionable finding that roughly 90 percent of all unauthorized immigrants already pay taxes and that legalization therefore would bring few new taxpayers into the system.  Most other authoritative estimates suggest that around half of unauthorized immigrants currently pay taxes.  Legalization would bring more people into the tax system than PPIC assumes, and would yield increasing tax revenue over time as the wages of newly legalized workers rise.

A recent report from the Immigration Policy Center and Center for American Progress concludes that, in the first three years after legalization, the higher earning power of newly legalized workers would translate "into an increase in net personal income of $30 to $36 billion, which would generate $4.5 to $5.4 billion in additional net tax revenue." This is a significant increase that reflects upward mobility among legalized workers which takes years, not months, to achieve.