What we know about unauthorized immigrants living in the U.S.
“As of 2022, unauthorized immigrants represented 3.3% of the total U.S. population and 23% of the foreign-born population. These shares were lower than the peak values in 2007 but slightly higher than in 2019.” - Pew
- 376 views
It really shows that illegal immigration hasn't exploded. Unfortunately neither party wants to actually work with the other party to develop a comprehensive immigration law. Instead each wants to get their candidate into the Oval Office and rule immigration through executive orders. It isn't Trump or Biden's responsibility to enact legislation on immigration. It is Congresses responsibility, but as we are seeing in general Congress is by and large fairly ineffective.
3.3% of the current U.S. population is (using Worldometer as a reference) is 11,283,746. (And that’s assuming you can trust the source of the original 3.3% figure). That number should be as close to 0 as we can make it with borders, enforcement, etc. Any immigration legislation that covers that group should be at least 90% deportation (assuming there are as many as 10% who are here outside of their control, though it’s probably much smaller, and even those that are legitimate should be examined carefully). True asylum should be limited (and only exercised through legal channels, not after the fact of immigrating illegally), and otherwise, legal immigration should be in numbers that are helpful to the U.S., not to mention prioritizing bringing in people who will be constructive members of society, not future criminals.
But of course, we know such legislation will never happen. It’s a complete no-brainer that legislation that allows “up to” 2500/day illegally entering should be opposed. People can claim that turning such legislation down means being political and not really wanting something that can help the immigration issue, but it’s madness to put into law something that allows that much illegal entry and calls it legal.
Dave Barnhart
The numbers here don't square with other estimates of border crossings and the like. I can't outright prove this study is wrong, but the numbers are contradicted by others.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
The Pew study says there are about ten million illegals here currently, but other reliable sources indicate that about ten million have come in the past four years. Both cannot be true unless we have evidence that as many people have left in the same time, which we don't have.
So this is another study that should have crashed hard on the rocks of peer review and outside evidence.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
The Pew Research Center is a pretty reputable research group. I know a few people who have passed through there. The number you are referring to, 10 million, is the number of encounters at the border. A large number of those are apprehended or expelled.
All of those encounters, and nobody gets through? That's what's being stated, more or less, by assuming the number of illegals is about constant. That's also contradictory to all of those buses and planes full of illegals sent north.
I don't know exactly what's missing, but there is a set of huge disconnects here. Somebody doesn't know where to look, or is deliberately not looking.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
a comprehensive immigration law
There is a comprehensive immigration law on the books. It just isn’t enforced because some want a different law.
If there was a comprehensive immigration law on the books, than Trump wouldn't have needed 472 Executive Orders on Immigration during his term, in addition to 39 more that were written but not implemented. Trump would not have had to use Title 42 of the Public Health Act to enforce immigration throughout his term (and most of Biden's term). There are huge gaps in the policy. Both sides say the policies are clear, yet they continue to issue hundreds of executive orders to fill the gap. Biden has taken 296 Executive Orders on Immigration. 89 of those were to reverse some of Trumps orders.
The last time Congress passed Immigration reform was in 1986. 38 years ago. Congress tried to do something in 2013, but wasn't able to get agreement on both sides of the aisle. In the end, there have been a number of smaller laws passed which has created an outdated, and failing patchwork of laws/rules that don't meet today's needs. This is why it is so easy for the Executive Branch to control it by Executive Order. There isn't much to block them from doing it.
The last time Congress passed Immigration reform was in 1986.
And there you have it. It is there. It simply isn’t being enforced because immigration is being used as a pawn for political purposes. Should there be changes? Perhaps. But until those changes are passed there is a law that should be enforced.
This reminds me a bit of a NFL player under contract who holds out for a better contract. He just decides he won’t play even though he has a contract to play.
It’s wrong. Enforce the law and work towards something better.
Of course that will require compromise which is a feature of our government, not a bug.
On executive orders, I think it has greatly turned government sort of “upside down.” The recent immunity ruling had people claiming the president was becoming a king. Well, I think executive orders are much more kinglike than the immunity ruling.
Keep in mind we did have an attempt to build about 700 miles of fence in 2006, but as Congress shifted to the port side, funding for that evaporated to where a large portion of the fence is pretty close to what the ranchers had there before--a few strands of barbed wire.
Long and short of it is that the left wants a pretty much open border with minimal deportations. Even deportation of violent criminals is fought by sanctuary cities, and the whole deal lends itself to the question of whether the left is depending on illegal immigrant votes and Census apportionment for their political power. The right wants a border barrier and extensive deportations, especially of criminals. Not a lot of room for "reform" when everybody is dug in pretty good.
And really, I'm against "comprehensive" immigration reform for a very simple reason; when Congress-critters do things in a "comprehensive" manner, the end result tends to be a dog's breakfast of unrelated initiatives. I think it's far better to do small things where it can be debated properly, and the offense of amendments can be mitigated.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
I agree KenS. I think the Republicans recently have been painting a more dire scenario of immigration than what actually exists. And in many cases they are lying:
- Repeated studies have shown that Central and South America are not clearing out jails and not sending criminals to the border
- Migrants are not all criminals, in fact, they commit crimes at a significantly less percentage than the native population
- Border walls don't help
- You can't make Mexico pay for a border wall
I think the Republicans miss the impact that deporting 10M migrants out of the US will have on the economy. It would essentially send it downward. These people pay taxes (and don't collect any benefits), they buy cars, houses, food, clothes....... And before you say most don't pay income taxes, they currently pay about $11.6B in income tax, they pay for sales tax, entertainment taxes, gas taxes....
Mass deportation isn't the answer. Nor is it the lefts, of just grant full amnesty.
>>Mass deportation isn’t the answer. Nor is it the lefts, of just grant full amnesty.<<
So if you don’t deport them, and you don’t grant them amnesty, where does that leave them? Permanent illegal status? Just so we can keep collecting taxes?
Dave Barnhart
My take is very simple; we are not so short of criminals here that we need to import them. I do not need to argue that they're clearing out jails (although Cuba did just that during the Mariel boatlift), or that "all" illegals are criminals in ways that are not related to their immigration status. I simply posit that for the past century and a half, a serious criminal background or conviction was sufficient reason to bar a person from residency in the U.S., and I don't see any good reason to change this.
There is a problem with how Immigration places "holds" on criminals as they are released, and I'd solve that by asking "when will the person be released?", and when that information is provided, respond with "we'll be there to pick him up."
Regarding "we'll just collect taxes from them", the reality is that the left tends to lump illegals in with legal immigrants, and the end result is that you end up with a situation where you've got a net gain from an H1-B holder balancing out net losses from the guys installing your roof, and the like.
After you account for welfare costs, schooling, and the like, the balance is almost certainly pretty negative--and that is before you account for the welfare costs of low income workers who cannot get good paying jobs because their is so much competition for those jobs.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
Bert,
Most major studies have shown that illegal immigrants have net benefit to the economy. Welfare costs are not a drain, because illegal immigrants are bared from taking any welfare benefits. Illegal immigrants pay for their housing, whether it is a house, condo or rent an apartment, as a result they pay property taxes, or their landlords pay property taxes, which support the public school system. Undocumented workers have higher employment and just in Social Security have a net benefit of $100Billion according to SSI.
Discussion