Mediaboss Marketing

Download the .pdf version

Are massive legal immigration and massive illegal immigration related? If so, how? Many in policy circles hold a view of "Legal immigration, good; illegal immigration, bad."1 The logical extensions of such a simplistic perspective are to assume that the overall level of legal immigration does not matter and to underestimate any correlation to illegal immigration. But the facts show a distinct connection exists.

In brief, this report finds:

This report examines the links between legal and illegal immigration. First, it sets the historical context of American immigration. It considers the data on legal immigration, illegal immigration, including countries of origin, and the ways present immigration policy and processes enable and encourage lawbreaking. Finally, policy recommendations are offered.

Immigration in American History

It has been said that legal and illegal immigration are two sides of the same coin. That is, when legal immigration levels have been high, illegal immigration levels have also tended to be high. Similarly, when legal immigration is lower, there is less illegal immigration.

What could explain this phenomenon? A short review of American immigration history gives much-needed perspective. Immigration to the United States has ebbed and flowed. In general, from 1776 to 1965, this "nation of immigrants" averaged 230,000 immigrants per year.2 By the 1990s, immigration averaged about a million each year, plus illegal immigrants.

Historical Immigration Levels

Table 1 shows average immigration levels from the colonial era beginning in 1607 when Jamestown, Virginia, was settled until 1965. The American immigration experience has seen much lower levels of immigrant arrivals compared with today's aberration.

Noting the ebb and flow of immigration within American historic periods, expert Carl Hampe said "average annual immigration rates were well below 400,000 during 1850-1880, an average of 520,000 legal immigrants entered each year between 1880-1890, but . . . fell below 450,000 from 1890-1899."3 He continued:

During the peak "Ellis Island" period of U.S. immigration, 1902-1914, 12.4 million immigrants entered the country (over 900,000 per year). However, numerous "ebb periods" emerged after 1914 (particularly during the Depression, when only 528,000 persons entered the U.S. during the entire decade of 1931-1940). From 1925 to 1976, legal immigration did not exceed 500,000 in any one year.

One thing is for certain, the 1902-1914 period is an historical aberration: 900,000 immigrants per year on average far outstrips any other comparable 13-year slices of U.S. history.4 (emphasis in original)

Average annual immigration levels following the high period from 1880 to 1924, which included the "Great Wave," subsided greatly to 178,000 a year on average (see Table 1). But this level was still the second-highest period of immigration up to that point.

Runaway Mass Immigration

Immigration expanded rapidly after 1965, in part because Congress shifted the legal preference system to family relations and away from employment needs and immigrant ability.5

The new scheme provided seven, up from the previous four, preference categories. The new policy expanded family-based categories to include relatives well beyond the initial immigrant, spouse, and minor children. Nonquota immigrants came to include others beyond nuclear family units, such as aged parents of U.S. citizens.6

The effect of the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act Amendments -- and exacerbated by subsequent legislation in 1980, 1986, and 1990 -- was to increase dramatically the number of immigrants and radically expand the pool of potential immigrants.7 Hampe explained, "The Immigration Act of 1990 significantly expanded a legal immigration system which the 1965 Amendments ensured would have a built-in growth mechanism."8 (emphasis added)

The numbers of new immigrants continued to climb after the new law went into effect in 1968. During the first few years the United States averaged nearly 400,000 newcomers. By the end of the 1970s the number had soared to 800,000. In the 1980s immigration, still theoretically limited to 270,000 a year, averaged more than 700,000. During the decade the nation absorbed 8.9 million legal immigrants and, by most estimates, at least 2 million illegal ones. In absolute numbers the 1980s saw more immigrants (legal and illegal) than any other decade in U.S. history. By the early 1990s more than 1 million new legal immigrants were arriving in the United States every year, accounting for almost half of its population growth.9

Figure 1 shows the sharp rise in immigration by decade. Legal immigration has jumped fourfold from 2,515,479 admissions between 1951 and 1960 to 9,095,417 between 1991 and 2000.

Another way to distinguish this escalation is by comparing annual admissions. For example, the United States admitted 265,393 immigrants in 1960 and 296,697 in 1965, the year of immigration expansionism. By 1969, 358,579 immigrants gained admission, 462,315 in 1977, 601,516 in 1987, and 915,900 in 1996. Going from two and a half million immigrants admitted in a decade to a million a year would overtax any immigration system; this rapid rise has stressed the U.S. system tremendously.

Chain Migration. This profligate immigration system spurred "chain migration," which feeds illegal immigration.

. . . [R]elatives of U.S. residents had never been given top preference in immigration law until the 1965 [A]ct. If the legislation had extended the preference only to spouses and minor children, there would have been little effect on the numbers. But it also gave preference to adult sons and daughters, parents of adult immigrants, brothers and sisters. If one member of a family could gain a foothold, he or she could begin a chain of migration within an extended family, constantly jumping into new families through in-laws and establishing new chains there.10

The inherent problems arising from "chain migration" manifest themselves in relation to both legal and illegal immigration. The illegal immigration aspect is discussed later. But on the legal side, millions may claim permanent residency in the United States and even become U.S. citizens on the sole basis of an extended family relation.

[B]ecause family reunification policy now permits the creation of migration "chains" -- immigrants petitioning for their parents and brothers and sisters, who may in turn petition for their children and other relatives -- family immigration has become a form of entitlement that may crowd out other types of immigration that would be equally or more beneficial to American society. In addition, "chain migration" allows the demand for family immigration to grow exponentially.11

How does chain migration work? One example adequately demonstrates the process and shows the opportunities and temptations for illegal immigration.

Under the new preference system, an engineering student from India could come to the United States to study, find a job after graduating, get labor certification, and become a legal resident alien. His new status would then entitle him to bring over his wife, and six years later, after being naturalized, his brothers and sisters. They in turn could begin the process all over again by sponsoring their wives, husbands, children, and siblings. Within a dozen years one immigrant entering as a skilled worker could generate dozens of visas for distant relatives.12

Not only is a single immigrant responsible for a long chain of numerous links, but also those chains of migrants help explain legal immigration's exponential growth. The record for chain migration is reported to be a petitioner who brought in 83 immigrants.13

Meaningless "Caps," Real Backlogs, and Waiting Lists. Family-based preferences that give rise to chain migration cause even more profound consequences because capitation levels are not capped in fact. While family-based immigration is "capped" at 480,000 admissions a year, the nominal cap is "piercable." Piercing the cap happens due to nonquota immigrant categories (spouses and minor children of U.S. citizens, parents of U.S. citizens) outpacing the supposedly limited overall family immigration amount. The cap is also "flexible," meaning unused employment-based visas from one year are added to family-based preferences the next year or vice versa. This flexibility depends on the level of demand for certain visas.14

Related to these features and to chain migration, as well as to illegal immigration, are "oversubscription and large backlogs in the family categories."15 The massive IRCA amnesty led to tremendous demand for the numerically limited spouses and minor children of lawful permanent resident visas. Even with the IRCA transition program to accommodate excessive numbers of LPR spouses and minor children, 88,673 visas of dependents were given in fiscal year 1994, the last year of the program.

And still 80,000 dependents of LPRs were applying for admission each year. The U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform reported that this group's waiting list was "high and rising annually. In January 1995, the waiting list for spouses and minor children was 1,138,544, up 8.7 percent from 1994 when it was 1,047,496, which was up 9.2 percent from 1993, when the backlog was 958,839."16 The wait time for LPR spouses and minor children in the mid-1990s was longer than three years and rising fast.

The bipartisan commission reported that the "ongest backlog exists in the brothers and sisters of [U.S. citizens] preference category, where there are almost 1.6 million registrants . . . making up 45.5 percent of the total visa waiting list . . . ." This translated into waits of "ten years for countries with favorable visa availability and even longer for oversubscribed countries."17 Adult siblings from the Philippines, India, and Mexico accounted for the greatest number of applicants. Filipinos in this category were waiting 17 years for a visa.

Married sons and daughters of U.S. citizens queued up in a backlog of some 260,000 applicants. After the 1990 Immigration Act (which caused most backlogs to multiply), most people in this category had four-year waits. However, Filipinos, making up 56 percent of the backlog, faced decades-long waits. Mexicans were on a wait list of 13 years.

For unmarried adult children of U.S. citizens, Mexicans constantly have oversubscribed this category. But the Philippines backlog meant nearly 10-year waits. Unmarried sons and daughters of LPRs have met backlogs, "especially since IMMACT [of 1990]." The commission said the waiting lists in this category were growing in the 1990s, and expected to see 18-year waits.18 "More than one-fifth of those in the backlog are from Mexico, with additional significant demand from the Dominican Republic and the Philippines."19

In other words, American immigration policy was set on "automatic pilot" in 1965 and the engine shifted into high gear in subsequent laws. In effect, foreigners are determining American immigration levels by default -- by simply exploiting an overly generous, misprioritized immigration system. As we shall see, this mass legal immigration has had tremendous adverse implications in terms of illegal immigration.

Two Sides of the Same Coin

At the core of America's illegal immigration crisis is the fact that illegal immigration is a function of legal immigration. As legal immigration has been liberalized, illegal immigration has expanded alongside it.

In addition to volume, an important aspect to consider is the predominant source countries of immigration. Figure 2 illustrates the share of immigrants from 20 of the top sending countries over the decades of the 1960s through the 1990s. Mexico has come to dominate American immigration unlike any other single nation. While a significant source country in the 1960s, Mexico did not then overshadow all other countries of origin as it has come to increasingly in each subsequent decade.

(Click on figure for a larger version)

Figure 2 also shows how the traditional source nations retained a decent share of the immigrant flow during the 1960s, but that their proportions have generally fallen in real terms in subsequent decades, as well as relative to new source countries. This may be attributed in part to the post-1965 preference system's bias toward family-based and especially extended relatives' immigration. Yet another detail to bear in mind here is the increase in immigrants occurring heavily from less developed countries, rather than from developed nations.

By comparing Figure 2 with Table 2, one may see that several of the rising source countries of legal immigration in the 1990s gained firmer footholds in part because of amnesties, particularly the 1986 IRCA amnesty. Most of the top 20 IRCA amnesty countries of origin, seen in Table 2, sent even more immigrants in the following decade. Legalized aliens could turn around and sponsor family members to immigrate.

Another picture of the relation between legal and illegal immigration may be seen in Figure 3. While reliable estimates of illegal immigration are harder to come by before the 1990s,20 this graph shows that, in general, as annual immigrant admissions grew over the 1980s and 1990s (with a spike by 1991 because of the effects of the 1986 IRCA amnesty), illegal immigration has actually climbed along with legal immigration.

On paper, illegal immigration levels fell in 1991 alongside a jump in legal immigration due to IRCA amnesty legalizations. However, Figure 3 shows that the IRCA amnesty did not reduce illegal immigration, as experts and policymakers promised. Rather, the amnesty gave hope to millions more would-be illegal entrants that the United States would repeat itself and one day legalize them, too.

The overall illegal alien population is estimated at between 2.5 million and 3.5 million in 1980, growing to 5 million by 1987. About 3 million illegal aliens were legalized under IRCA. The remaining illegal population stood at 2 million in 1988. Estimates say 3.5 million illegal aliens lived here by 1990. Illegal residents numbered 3.9 million by October 1992 (a figure undoubtedly in flux and masked by much immigration fraud and abuse in the IRCA amnesty).

By October 1996, 5 million illegal aliens were estimated to live in the United States -- in other words, the illegal population had replenished itself in less than a decade (see Figure 4). The number of illegal alien residents had doubled from 1990 to 2000, from 3.5 million to 7 million. By 2005, some 9.6 million to 9.8 million illegal aliens lived in the United States -- more than triple the number of IRCA amnesty recipients, triple the illegal alien population in 1980, and twice the level of illegal immigration in 1996.21

Table 3 shows the estimated levels of illegal aliens residing in the United States throughout the 1990s, as well as the annual growth in the illegal population for that period. INS researchers noted that apparent drops in annual growth of the illegal population during this decade are attributable to policy changes, including the granting of temporary protected status, or TPS, to certain illegal alien nationalities and amnesties directed at certain groups.22

Figure 5 and Table 4 illustrate similar phenomena. Notable are the countries listed in these graphics, compared to the oversubscribed chain migration nations named in the previous section. Figure 5 indicates the proportion of the foreign-born population from certain countries for 1990 and 2000. Further, it shows for those years the portion of a country's immigrants who comprise the illegal population as a segment of the whole number of immigrants from a country. For example, Mexicans, legal and illegal, far outnumber immigrants from other nations. Mexicans who are unlawfully present approached half of all Mexican immigrants in 1990 and exceeded half in 2000.

Also, Figure 5 shows that for the countries charted, all of which are among the top 15 senders of illegal aliens, only El Salvador -- and that because of 200,000 Salvadorans being amnestied in the interim period -- saw a decrease in its illegal alien population from 1990 to 2000.

Table 4 gives the top 10 countries responsible for America's immigrant population in 2000 as well as the top 10 illegal alien senders. Half of the top 10 countries of birth also number among the top senders of illegal aliens. Mexico is readily the heaviest exporter of its populace, legally and unlawfully, to the United States. Table 4 also shows that the five source countries of illegal aliens that are not among the top 10 overall immigration source countries are all in relative proximity to the United States -- in Central America, the Caribbean, or South America. And of the 10 chief immigrant countries of birth, only Cuba and Vietnam are not among the 15 worst sources of illegal aliens. Cuba is somewhat of a special case, as the United States has maintained special policies for Cubans fleeing the Castro regime.

Crux of the Problem: Mexico

Mexico easily stands out as the worst cause of America's immigration problems. Continual Mexican migration northward, both legally and illegally, may pose the biggest threat to U.S. security and sovereignty.23 "This situation is unique for the United States and unique in the world. No other First World country has a land border with a Third World country, much less one of two thousand miles."24

Large-scale Mexican immigration began growing in the 1960s and "accelerated in the 1970s as the number of Mexicans in the U.S. tripled between 1970 and 1980. The number doubled again by 1990 and again by 2000. In 2004, the [Census Bureau's] March CPS shows 10.6 million people born in Mexico [and residing in America]. This figure represents more than a 13-fold increase over the 1970 census."25 Mexicans represent nearly a third of the foreign-born population; this is about three times the proportion of the next three countries of origin (China, Philippines, India) combined.26

Mexican illegal migration explains much of the growth in illegal immigration overall. "Since the mid-1990s, the number of new unauthorized migrants has equaled or exceeded the number of new legal immigrants. For Mexico, 80-85 [percent] of new settlers in the U.S. are unauthorized."27 Half of Mexicans living in America are illegal aliens.28

The 1986 mass amnesty exacerbated the Mexican illegal immigration problem. Of the 3 million legalized foreign lawbreakers, the INS said 75 percent were Mexican. As previously mentioned, they became eligible to sponsor family members to join them here (or at least to legalize their status), naturalize, and sponsor even more relatives, this time distant relatives. Proximity has made it easy for "mixed status" households to proliferate.29

And amnesty, especially of Mexicans, only sparked more illegal immigration.

The 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) had the most sweeping impact on immigration policy since the repeal of national origins quotas in 1965. In the next several years, immigrant admissions would soar to new heights as the new permanent residents brought in their family members. This created unanticipated problems, including long backlogs in the queue for immigrant visas, skyrocketing costs for the provision of government services in the areas where the immigrants and their families settled, and sustained border control problems. It was clear that the implementation of employer sanctions would be no quick fix. The magnet had not been demagnetized. An exodus of emigrants from Central America continued through the late 1980s, and this influx raised questions about the asylum system. Applicants needed only to make a minimal showing that they faced a "well-founded fear of persecution" in their homeland in order to be granted an asylum review. By late in 1988, the INS office in Harlingen, Texas, was receiving 1,700 applications for asylum each week . . . .30

As mentioned, estimates using census data say there were 3 million illegal aliens present in 1980, rising to 4 million in 1986. The 3 million amnesty recipients were scarcely through the legalization process when, by 1992, the illegal foreign-born population was back up to 3.9 million. It doubled again by 2000 and now may exceed 10 million.31 Much of this increase may be attributed to Mexico.

Given that mass immigration, both legal and illegal, predominately stems from Mexico (see Table 4) and that the IRCA amnesty only fed the desire and opportunity for Mexicans to migrate northward (legally and illegally), important findings from the New Immigrant Survey show the "two sides of the same coin" nature of legal and illegal immigration.

Table 5 indicates that Mexico leads all other source countries in two key routes to unlawful presence in the United States before eventual legalization. Mexicans account for more than two of five illegal border crossers. Mexicans also lead as visa abusers.

The New Immigrant Survey also found that, whereas two-thirds of adult immigrants had spent time in the United States prior to receiving a permanent resident visa (including about a third as illegal aliens), 84 percent of Mexican immigrants had previously been to the United States. "[A] clear majority (57%) of Mexican immigrants have prior experience as illegal border crossers and another 9% are visa abusers."32 That is, two-thirds of Mexican immigrants were once illegal aliens.

In short, Mexico's abutting the United States with a 2,000-mile border, coupled with lax American enforcement, wide economic disparity, the Mexican government's de facto policy of driving its poorest residents northward, and vast numbers of Mexican immigrants already here to harbor illegal aliens and steer them to jobs all provide opportunity and motive for immigration lawbreaking on a grand, systematic scale.

The Flip Side of the Coin

As we have seen, as legal immigration levels have skyrocketed to near-unprecedented highs, illegal immigration has risen alongside it. The result has been nearly four decades of constant, steeply increasing immigration both lawful and unlawful. As Samuel Huntington put it, "Substantial illegal entry into the United States is a post-1965 and Mexican phenomenon."33

The post-1965 mass immigration scheme has established patterns and affected human behavior in response to present U.S. immigration policies. Just as people respond to any changes in law, human beings (and often their foreign governments) have adjusted accordingly to the possibilities of immigrating to the United States.

In other words, American immigration policy has directly influenced the choices foreigners have made and what they have come to expect. Changes in tax law or economic policy, such as certain tax deductions or tax credits, influence people's economic behavior; it is no different with immigration policy.

By Any Means Possible. The incentive to immigrate to the United States arises from opportunity, the experiences of relatives or peers, and other forces. Liberal family-based immigration preferences, along with myriad nonimmigrant visa classes from tourist to student to business investor, provide ample immigration opportunity to many more people. Whereas one might not otherwise have contemplated uprooting and moving halfway around the globe before, the existence of opportunity affects one's decisions.

Foreigners with access to immigration lawyers or human smugglers or with a familial relation already in the United States can exploit one of the licit or illicit opportunities to get to the United States. Everything from becoming a "mail-order bride" in what amounts to a marriage of convenience (if not an outright sham) to enrolling in one of the many scams exploiting loopholes such as the "investor visa" program and filing bogus asylum claims provides opportunity to immigrate.

As the costs of international travel and international communication -- telephone, Internet -- have fallen, friends and relatives who have already immigrated to the United States can more easily share tales of their experiences in America. Or the evidence of immigrant relatives' remittances to those who remain behind testify to the relatively higher earnings paid by U.S. jobs.

The United States enjoys the world's highest standard of living. "Poverty" by U.S. standards is a far better lot than real poverty as it occurs in most of the world's countries, and those living in America below the official "poverty line" often have living quarters and First World "creature comforts" that those in other nations' middle classes lack.

The United States affords a stable political system, a legal system based on the rule of law, broad individual liberty and economic opportunity, a sound economy, and generous government welfare entitlements, in addition to extremely generous private charity. America is relatively free of public corruption and offers a safe, secure place to live. By comparison to many places, would-be immigrants may view the United States as a land of vast wealth where the streets are seemingly paved with 14-karat gold.

Even purely from an economic perspective, moving to America has a lot of appeal. The average Mexican earns a twelfth of an American's wages. There are 4.6 billion people around the world who make less than the average Mexican. (Would-be immigrants often fail to take into account the much higher cost of living in the United States that accompanies those higher wages.) Therefore, the "pull" factor of more money entices many aliens.

Because one technically qualifies for an immigration visa, yet the backlogs may be long, many aliens immigrate illegally. They wait for their visa number to come up while living here illicitly. "Some do not wait their turn, but instead immigrate illegally to the U.S., hoping (and in many cases succeeding) to wait here until their visa number becomes available. Thus, the unrealistic expectations created by the failure to set firm priorities in the system of legal immigration causes further incentive for illegal immigration."34 Such dishonesty and cheating on aliens' part are functions of chain migration.

Determined alien lawbreakers have discovered ways to exploit legal loopholes and "end-run" the system. Illegal immigration and cheating quickly have become means to the end of permanent legal immigration. For example,

. . . many potential immigrants came on tourist visas and worked illegally. While living and working illegally, they could obtain labor certification based on their employment and apply for immigrant visas. Once a visa was approved, sometimes two or three years later, an applicant could return to his home country for a day, pick up the visa, and return as a legal resident entitled to hold any job available.35

Another characteristic of immigration that relates to both the legal and illegal sides of the equation, as well as to the use of every possible means of illegal immigration, is so-called "mixed families." This term may refer to any of a combination of households in which some members are U.S. citizens or legal residents and others are illegal aliens.

The lure of "birthright citizenship" plays into the calculus of many foreigners willing to break American immigration law. A misinterpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution by the Supreme Court grants automatic U.S. citizenship on virtually everyone born on American soil, including the children of illegal aliens. Immigration authorities are highly unlikely to try to deport an illegal alien whose child is an American citizen. Therefore, "birthright citizenship" provides illegal aliens an "anchor baby" who provides relative assurance of permanent residence, if not legal status.

An estimated one-tenth, or 380,000, of U.S. births in 2002 were to illegal aliens, based on Census data.36 "Mixed families," in which some members (usually children) are American citizens and others are illegal immigrants or some other combination of legal and illegal residents, present a host of challenges to the United States, including determining eligibility for taxpayer-funded public assistance programs.37

One estimate puts the number of people in "mixed" households in 2004 at 13.9 million, or 6.3 million households. Within these "mixed" families, there are 3.1 million "anchor babies." Some four-fifths of children of illegal aliens live in mixed households. Fifty-five percent of, or 2.6 million, children of illegal aliens reside in families where all the children are American citizens.38

A variation of a mixed family is where certain family members come ahead as illegal aliens and move in with a legally residing relative. The New Immigrant Survey, which assessed the amount and type of experience immigrants had had in the United States prior to becoming permanent lawful residents, found 84 percent of illegal border crossers in the sample were family-based immigrants. Nearly half of those entering without inspection who later gained a green card were spouses and children of U.S. citizens, while 27 percent were spouses and children of lawful permanent residents. Almost half of immediate family members of U.S. citizens in the New Immigrant Survey had overstayed a visa.39

The New Immigrant Survey cast a disturbing light on immigration realities. It illuminated a systematic pattern of lawlessness and line jumping, even among so-called "egal" immigrants -- many were in fact illegal aliens first.

Thus, patterns observed for illegal border crossers and visa abusers again suggest that immediate family join their citizen or resident alien relatives abroad while they await legalization themselves, living in the United States as undocumented migrants until the time when they can return to their country of origin to pick up their documents and re-enter the country as "new" immigrants.40

The survey found immediate family immigrants who had come first unlawfully typically made 2 to 4 trips illegally, living 5 to 8 years in the United States as illegal aliens before legalization.41

One more indicator of the interconnection of illegal and legal immigration is the increased rates of adjusting status within the United States. The Department of Homeland Security's figures show a general rise from 1990 to 2000 (with an exceptional spike in 1991 from the IRCA amnesty). As Table 6 indicates, adjustments of status by illegal aliens not having to leave the country went from 36,000 in 1990 to 152,000 in 1999.42

Another way in which legal and illegal immigration are shown to be two sides of the same coin is with visa overstays. An estimated one-third to half of illegal immigration occurs when someone enters the United States on a valid temporary visa but stays on past the visa's expiration.43

While violating the terms of a visa by overstaying its period is unlawful (8 U.S. Code Sec. 1227(a)(1)(C)), the statute presently does not provide criminal penalties. Thus, visa overstayers enjoy a loophole in their favor. While subject to removal, overstayers face little prospect of actually being deported. By this route, many aliens commit fraud and abuse, fully intending to use "temporary" lawful entry as a backdoor to permanent residence.

The Entitlement Mentality. All these factors create certain expectations among foreigners who otherwise would be perfectly satisfied to remain in their home country for the rest of their lives. With a distant family member now living in the United States, sending home monthly remittance checks, whose family members live relatively more lavishly, growing awareness of the "good-paying" American job his emigrant relative has, and enticing tales of this new land, opportunity combines with others' experiences and the decision becomes when and how, not if, to immigrate to the United States.

Expectation to immigrate spreads throughout a society, as more and more people do so. Expectation feeds a sense of entitlement. People come to suppose they have some inherent right to impose themselves on another, sovereign nation.

Thus, demand (like consumer demand for a heavily advertised and marketed product) builds, as expectations grow far beyond what is reasonable or could ever be reasonably accommodated. Demand far outpaces supply of U.S. visas. So, pent-up demand overflows into illicit immigration.

Immigration policy expert Carl Hampe, testifying in regard to the mid-1990s congressional attempt to curtail legal immigration, said:

Well, I think it's clear that the current legal immigration system, which recognizes not only the nuclear family of incoming immigrants but as well [naturalized] U.S. citizens' more distant family relations, creates a system in which expectations for immigration and growth in at least visa demand is automatic, it's inherent. The demand growth becomes exponential, because each time an additional distant family member comes in, that person as well could have spouses, children, and the other distant family relatives connected to that incoming immigrant, which as you can see, creates sort of a geometrical growth pattern.44

The U.S. House of Representatives committee report on H.R. 2202, the Immigration in the National Interest Act of 1995, further explained this vexing phenomenon:

Such sustained, uninterrupted growth in immigration [since 1965] is without precedent in American history. So is the underlying rationale of many that immigration is a right, not a privilege. The entitlement theory, which seeks to fit immigration policy to the demands of those who would like to immigrate to the United States, has made it increasingly difficult to establish a policy that selects immigrants according to their ability to advance our national interests.

More here:
Two Sides of the Same Coin: The Connection Between Legal ...

EL CENIZO, Tex. This scrappy city of rickety homes on the U.S.-Mexico border cannot afford an ambulance or a gas pump. The mayor earns $100 a month. The nearest supermarket is a half-hour drive.

Yet El Cenizo is leading the charge to block a tough new Texas immigration law that requires police to hold criminal suspects for possible deportation, before the measure takes effect Sept. 1. The lawsuit filed by the city pits Mayor Raul Reyes and his tiny outpost of Democrats against the states powerful Republican Party. Almost everyone in town is an immigrant from Mexico or is related to one and many are here illegally.

People have been posting that they should make an example out of me and that they should lock me up, Reyes , who helped draft the federal lawsuit, said in an interview at City Hall. Its a sacrifice Im willing to make for this cause. I know I will be on the right side of history.

The mayors move puts this city of 3,300 residents at the heart of a new war raging in Texas over an old issue: illegal immigration.

On one side is Gov. Greg Abbott (R) and the GOP-led state legislature. Emboldened by President Trumps blunt rhetoric on illegal immigration, they passed a law in May that forces sanctuary cities such as El Cenizo to help detain and deport those who are in the country unlawfully. Uncooperative local governments face large fines, police chiefs and sheriffs could be jailed, and elected officials could lose their jobs.

On the other side are progressive activists such as Reyes, part of a fast-growing younger generation that is largely Hispanic and U.S. born but lacks the political power of conservative white voters. With him are advocates who have pressured Dallas, Houston and other cities to resist cooperating with Immigration and Customs Enforcement because they fear it will lead to racial profiling or deportations for minor offenses.

Tensions boiled over in Austin on May 29, as protesters gathered outside the state capitol. Lawmakers nearly came to blows after a Republican from the Dallas area boasted to several Democratic colleagues of calling immigration authorities to come arrest demonstrators.

Rep. Matt Rinaldi (R) said he made the call because some protesters held signs openly declaring their undocumented status. The Democrats say there were no such signs and accused Rinaldi of racial profiling. Democrats said that proved the anti-sanctuary city law will result in the unfair targeting of Latinos.

Appearing with Neil Cavuto on Fox News on Thursday, Rinaldi defended the law as simply keeping criminal aliens murderers, rapists, child abusers from being shielded from federal authorities.

In an interview with The Washington Post, Rinaldi called the sanctuary city law a very strong policy that deals particularly with criminal aliens or illegals responsible for thousands of crimes. The law forbids law enforcement authorities from racially profiling suspects, he said.

In a video statement on Facebook to announce that he had signed the law, Abbott singled out for criticism the sheriff of Travis County, which includes the liberal city of Austin, who won her seat last year promising not to honor requests from ICE to hold people in the local jail for federal immigration violations.

This law cracks down on policies like the Travis County sheriff, who declared she would not detain known criminals accused of violent crimes, Abbott said in the video. Those policies are sanctuary city policies and wont be tolerated in Texas.

Reyes, El Cenizos 34-year-old mayor, has gotten mixed reactions from residents of this impoverished enclave on the humid banks of the Rio Grande. It sprung from a shantytown of landscapers, farmworkers and house cleaners who could not afford the rent in nearby Laredo, a bustling hub of 250,000 people about 17 miles to the north.

For down payments as small as $50, they bought plots of land and built trailers and, later, cinder-block houses. Some are patched together with duct tape, tarps and aluminum foil to block the searing sun.

Hes trying to defend us, said Maria Magdalena Rangel, a 72-year-old immigrant from Mexico who arrived at a local Lutheran church Thursday for a weekly ration of bread and tomatoes. He sees the injustices that are happening with the people.

Others say they fear the mayors defiance will irritate the U.S. Border Patrol and inspire them to make more arrests.

The divisions underscore how illegal immigration has evolved as an issue in Texas, home to an estimated 1.6 million undocumented immigrants.

Latinos are expected to outnumber whites in the state over the next few years and already comprise a majority of the public school student population. Political scientists saw a modest jump in Latino voter turnout in the 2016 presidential election, although Hispanics remain significantly less engaged in politics than whites.

Despite the recent immigration crack down, Texas has taken a nuanced at times progressive approach. Under then-Gov. Rick Perry (R), Texas was the first state to allow undocumented students to qualify for in-state college tuition. In 2012, the state Republican Party, backed by business interests, called for a national guest-worker program, although the plank was later removed from the platform.

The state GOPs attitude has shifted further to the right, more closely mirroring the national party and its hard-line illegal immigration stance; Trump tried to punish sanctuary cities with an executive order in January that was temporarily blocked by a federal judge.

The whole attitude toward immigration and illegal immigrants residing in Texas has changed and hardened since the early 2000s, said Ray Sullivan, a Republican operative who advised former Texas governors Perry and George W. Bush. Sullivan credited concerns about crime, a sense that the border is still not secure, and the rise of Trump for the shift.

Many Texas liberals also have staked out a more radical position, quietly pushing officials in Democratic-leaning cities to keep federal immigration authorities at arms length. The anti-sanctuary city law is in some ways a backlash to their success.

They contend that the federal governments failure to enact comprehensive immigration reform has forced local governments to act on their own to protect communities in which citizens and unlawful residents live interdependently, often within the same family.

Liberals argue that communities suffer when local law enforcement works closely with immigration officials, sowing a fear that can discourage people from reporting crimes or cooperating with investigations. ICE sometimes leaves people to languish in local jails for weeks before picking them up, which they argue violates their constitutional rights.

El Cenizo declared itself a sanctuary in 1999 and vowed to fire any city official who reported an immigrant to authorities. The city holds its council meetings in Spanish, the predominant language. And when outside volunteers tried to patrol the border with Mexico, the city created a $500 park usage fee to keep them out of El Cenizo.

Reyes said crime is rare. He said the city has not had a single homicide during his seven terms in office, dating to 2004.

At the community center Thursday, Jose Guadalupe Alvarez shrugged as he played dominoes over popcorn and hot coffee. The 64-year-old retired construction worker said he worries that the mayors defiance will make Border Patrol agents more aggressive.

Where are you going to hide so many people? This is a small town, said Alvarez, a legal permanent resident who helped build hospitals in other towns, although his own does not have one. Its taunting the immigration agents. Most of us are illegal. Thank God I fixed my papers.

U.S. Border Patrol agents say there is value in working closely with state and local police, including in El Cenizo, to prevent public safety threats and to bust drug traffickers and human smuggling rings operating along the border.

Gabriel Acosta, the assistant chief patrol agent in charge of the Laredo sector, acknowledged that immigrants whose only offense is the civil violation of being in the United States illegally are sometimes deported, but he said they have some recourse because they can go before a judge.

I totally sympathize and understand what theyre going through, but at the end of the day, its the law, Acosta said as he patrolled Thursday night. All were doing is enforcing the law.

To federal officials, illegal immigrants are lawbreakers. But in El Cenizo, they are Margarita, who cleans houses and sells tamales on the side; Maria, whose son graduates from high school Friday and will join the Army; and Angel Garza Reyna, 18, the pride of El Cenizo, who just received a full scholarship to Duke University, according to the mayor and a letter he provided to The Washington Post.

Angel, brought to the United States illegally at 11 months old, has Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, a temporary reprieve from deportation instituted under President Barack Obama that, for the teenager, expires next year. He rises before dawn to catch a ride to a magnet school in Laredo. His bedroom wall is plastered with academic medals. Crammed into one corner is a donated Hamilton upright piano, on which he taught himself to play Chopin.

He wants to be a doctor, because El Cenizo doesnt have one.

Undocumented residents here worry that authorities will soon go door-to-door to root them out. The mayor said he has heard that domestic violence victims are afraid to report crimes. And people fret that going to the supermarket or buying gas could put at risk the lives they have built in the United States.

This is worse than the wall, said Ricardo Molina, a school board member. Scaring people to death.

Somashekhar reported from Washington.

Link:
A tiny Texas border city is leading the charge against the state's immigration crackdown - Washington Post

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER

Border Patrol agents from the Tucson Sector, including aBorder Patrol Search Trauma and Rescue (BORSTAR) team, saved the Mexican national. The man was struggling to maintain consciousness when agents found him.

The foreign national called 911 and told dispatchers he was lost in the desert, according to information obtained by Breitbart Texas from U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officials.

The Pima County-Ajo Dispatch notified Border Patrol agents after officials determined that the 911 caller was in a remote area west of Sells, Arizona. Sells is in Pima County. The remote community is located in teh Tohono OOdham Nation Reservation which borders the state of Sonora, Mexico. The caller provided enough information to dispatchers for them to determine his general location.

Border Patrol agents found the man struggling for his life. BORSTAR agents responded with their emergency medical training, giving him immediate help. Agents called a Life Flight evacuation helicopter for transport. Life Flight flew the illegal migrant flown to a Tuscon hospital for treatment.

A statement obtained by Breitbart Texas from CBP officials said the Mexican national would be processed for immigration-related violations after being released from the hospital.

The release from CBP notes:

Unscrupulous smugglers often abandon migrants in the desert who fall behind. As a result, many perish every year. Border Patrol officials encourage anyone in distress to call 911 or activate a rescue beacon before becoming a casualty. In the fiscal year 2016 Tucson Sector Border Patrol agents rescued over 1,400 persons with many of those rescues conducted in the western Arizona region.

Breitbart Texas follows the plight of those left to die by human smugglers, including children.

In mid-March, this writer reportedBorder Patrol agents assigned to the El Centro Sector found a four-year-old girl who had been abandoned by smugglers. The agents observed a group of illegal immigrants trying to cross the International Border illegally near Mount Signal. One of the individuals fled back into Mexico, and another jumped into a vehicle and absconded leaving the little girl alone. Officials later determined that the four-year-old to be a Guatemalan citizen.

Parents who turn their children over to callous cartel-connected human smugglers are risking the lives of their children, agents with CBP have warned. In order to escape, these traffickers will frequently abandon a child in a dangerous place to distract Border Patrol agents.

If a person being smuggled falls behind for any reason, such as dehydration, injury, or exhaustion, the coyotes will simply leave them behind to die in the desert.

Often times, the deaths of these migrants place financial hardship on small border counties near and along the U.S.-Mexico border. These communities often bear the cost of having to dispose of human remains of illegal immigrants left by these callous human smugglers. Breitbart Texasreported that Brooks County, Texas, saw an increase in 2016 in the numbers of deaths of these aliens.

Finding the remains of 55 humans in this county of about 15,000 people is overwhelming for a sheriffs office with seven deputies, then Sheriff-elect Benny Martinez told Breitbart Texas. When a deceased immigrant is found, our office is tasked with recovering the remains, identifying the victim, and burying the remains. With our very limited resources, this is a daunting set of tasks.

By years end, officials in the county had recovered the remains of 61 human smuggling victims. The area 80 miles north of the Texas-Mexico border has become known as the Brooks County killing fields.

Bob Price serves as associate editor and senior political news contributor for Breitbart Texas. He is a founding member of the Breitbart Texas team. Follow him on Twitter@BobPriceBBTXandFacebook.

See the article here:
Illegal Migrant Abandoned in Desert Calls 911 for Help - Breitbart News

The Homeland Security Department launched an office for American victims of immigrant crime Wednesday. The Victims of Immigrant Crime Engagement, or VOICE, is intended to keep victims informed of the immigration proceedings of suspects. (April 26) AP

The Homeland Security Department headquarters in northwest Washington.(Photo: Susan Walsh, AP)

WASHINGTON Official-looking fliers warning residents of a Washington sanctuary city neighborhood to avoid harboring unlawful immigrants and to report illegal aliens to immigration authorities were not issued or sanctioned by the Department of Homeland Security, officials said Thursday.

The blue and white fliers with the logoof department began appearing in southwest Washington Thursday, providing an apparently legitimate 800-number where callers can leave messages about alien fugitives and smuggling, among other options.

The fliers were not issued of sanctioned by ICE, said DHS press secretary Jenny L. Burke at Thursdays regular weekly press briefing, using the abbreviation for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Washington Mayor Muriel Bowser had reached the same conclusion earlier, tweeting, Please know that these are not real, and notifying residents they will be taken down.

Thursdays briefing by Department of Homeland Security press secretary David Lapan announced a new program that permits foreign visitors concerned about overstaying their visas to determine their status online.

Lapan also explained that DHS Secretary John Kellys decision last week to extend for six months the temporary protected status of 60,000 Haitians who fled the 2010 earthquake. Lapan said Kelly's decision placed an emphasis on the programs temporary character. Lapan said Kelly is not inclined to extend the program, which would have expired in July, beyond January.

Asked if a laptop fire on a JetBlue airliner that made an emergency landing Tuesday night had changed Kellys thinking about not for now limiting laptops as carry-on baggage from flights arriving from Europe, Lapan said the latest incident doesnt change the calibration.

Laptop ban: U.S., Europe differ over aviation security

Kelly announced in March that passengers arriving at U.S. airports directly from ten Middle Eastern countries would have to check electronic devices larger than smart phones. A decision on extending the ban is still under consideration as Kellys views continue to evolve, Lapan said.

Asked about illegal immigrants married to U.S. citizens who have been detained when seeking to clarify their status, Lapan said the law is clear. He likened the situation to a car owner seeking to register a car previously cited for parking violations.

He met with federal agents to discuss a path to citizenship. They arrested him instead.

Its our duty to enforce the laws as they are written, he said.

Read or Share this story: https://usat.ly/2stqUmA

See the rest here:
Homeland Security disavows DC illegal immigration fliers - USA TODAY

Opponents of Senate Bill 4, the measure intended to keep Texas communities from shielding unauthorized immigrants from deportation, demonstrated during Texas House proceedings May 29, 2017 (screenshot from Texas House video).

Just after protesters in the Texas House shouted objections to a pending state law targeting unauthorized immigrants, state Rep. Matt Rinaldi approached Latino colleagues on the House floor and said hed reacted by alerting federal immigration authorities.

As the 2017 regular legislative session came to a close on Memorial Day, the Irving Republican followed up theraucous moment recapped in news stories here, here, here and here with a Facebook post stating in part: "I called ICE on several illegal immigrants who held signs in the gallery which said I am illegal and here to stay." ICE refers to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

His post:

That night, a reader asked us to check if such signs were waved by the red-shirted objectors to Senate Bill 4 who jammed the multi-rowed gallery looking down on the House floor.

Gov. Greg Abbott signed that proposal, intended to keep local governments from shielding immigrants from deportation, into law on May 7, 2017. It takes effect Sept. 1, 2017.

Rinaldi offers no backup

Seeking factual elaboration on the signs Rinaldi described, we repeatedly reached out to him, not hearing back.

Ultimately, our reviews of photos and videos taken inside the House chamber, by the House and others, didnt uncover any signs with the described declaration though, we concluded, that didn't prove no such signs were flashed. After we posted this story, too, we learned that Rinaldi gave interviews three days after putting up hisFacebook post in which he said he saw signs causing him to call ICE before he entered the House chamber that day. See more on those interviews here.

Legislators with different recollections

At the outset, our probe of what Rinaldi said in his Facebook post led us to interview a couple legislators about Rinaldis claim--one who affirmed what Rinaldi said, the other having no recollection of such signs.

Rep. Jonathan Stickland, R-Bedford, told us by phone he and a few other members saw a poster-board sign with the message described by Rinaldi. "It all happened pretty fast," Stickland said. "There were a number of us talking about it as we saw it" and, Stickland said, those observations occurred before Rinaldi called an ICE tip line.

A Democratic House member, Diego Bernal of San Antonio, said by phone that he didnt recall seeing the signs Rinaldi cited. Bernal said he did see large signs that referenced SB 4 directly that were held up by several people. Bernal also said that when Rinaldi explained to colleagues that hed called ICE, he didnt say it was because he saw people holding signs that said they were "illegal and here to stay."

Searching photos and video

Next, we scoured for photo evidence of signs shown in the House gallery during the demonstrations.

Around 48 minutes into the days session, according to House video of the days proceedings, House leadership called on officers to clear the gallery. A look at the House video didnt uncover any such sign though we recognized too that none of the materials had a 360-degree view of the entire protest--so it seems possible Rinaldi saw signs not captured on camera.

Heres what we came up with:

Video from United We Dream, which helped organize the demonstrations. At the 1:25 mark, a chant began of "Here to Stay."

A photo within an online album emailed to us by a United We Dream communications staffer, Chris Valdez, of a woman holding a sign stating: "Daughter of Immigrants - Unapologetic and Here to Stay." From the photo, it looked to us like she wasnt in the House gallery.

Another photo in the same album sent by Valdez of a woman, perhaps standing in the Rotunda, holding a sign that read: "We are here to stay," with cartoon drawings of five different people.

Another photo of a red sign that read: "No Hate, Texas Immigrants are Here to Stay."

Video from CBS Austin, which at the 4:48 mark shows a black-on-white hand-lettered sign held aloft in the Rotunda, stating: "Im Here to Stay."

Video from the Texas Observer. Around the 26:01 mark, a sign in the background in the Rotunda, stating (possibly in part): "Here to Stay."

Organizer describes banners

Among individuals we reached who said they were at the Capitol during the protests, Sheridan Aguirre, communications coordinator for United We Dream, said by email that there were "no signs that said I am illegal and here to stay."

Aguirre said the group otherwise had banners including these messages:

See you in court See you at the polls Here To Stay in TX and USA (Outline of Texas) Here To Stay

Aguirre said participants red shirts said: "Fight Back, No SB4."

No confirmation from newspaper photographer

We also emailed Nar Dorrycott, chief of staff for Rep. Ina Minjarez, whose video of the scuffle on the House floor was linked in a Texas Tribune article, but didnt hear back.

San Antonio Express-News photographer Jerry Lara looked through his photos from that day and only recalled seeing signs that said "Here to Stay." We also checked with three other photographers present that day but didnt hear back.

No Truth-O-Meter ruling

Summing up: Rinaldi said he called ICE after seeing "several illegal immigrants" holding signs in the gallery stating, "I am illegal and here to stay."

Signs saying "Here to Stay" were present, we find, but we didnt confirm that anyone held a sign calling himself or herself an illegal or unauthorized immigrant.

Because the absence of photo evidence doesnt mean there wasnt such a sign, however, were not rating the accuracy of Rinaldi's statement.

Read the original post:
Did Texas House protesters hold signs declaring 'selves illegal immigrants? - PolitiFact