By Karl Reiner
The controversial immigration issue is on its way to be taken up in Congress again. A diverse coalition of interest groups is pressing for action on comprehensive immigration reform. The Speaker of the House believes it could be included on the agenda sometime in 2010. Although most parties agree the current system is flawed, there is virtually no agreement as to a solution.
With two sharply divided camps contending for public support, the political battle over immigration reform will be more contentious than the brawl over healthcare. The pro-immigration groups want the undocumented immigrants now living in the country to be given legal status. The anti-immigration forces mostly want to see them deported, the border tightly controlled and the rate of immigration reduced. The issue does not stand alone; it is deeply intertwined with other national interests. The political choices that will have to be made will affect the national economy, security and foreign relations.
The global recession triggered by the collapse of America’s overheated housing market seriously deflated the U.S. economy. As a consequence of the sharp economic contraction and resulting rise in unemployment, the number of people illegally attempting to enter the United States from Mexico has declined. Even in the current recessionary times, however, the numbers remain staggering.
The U.S. Border Patrol arrested 540,865 undocumented people attempting to cross the U.S.-Mexico border between California and Texas in the fiscal year ending September 30, 2009. In Arizona’s Tucson sector, 241,673 individuals were apprehended, about 45% of the entire border’s total. Approximately 95% of those caught by the Border Patrol in the Tucson sector were from Mexico, the majority of the remaining 5% hailed from Central and South America.
The sagging economy has also caused a reduction in the undocumented immigrant population residing in the U.S. The Department of Homeland Security estimates that the number has dropped to 10.8 million. These people are a hot point of contention in the immigration debate. Under the “no amnesty” policy which has many vocal supporters, the undocumented immigrants would be deported. While deportation would reduce the U.S. unemployment rate in the short-term, the country could find itself short of workers when the economy recovers.
There are consequences to deportation that have to be taken into consideration by policymakers. Deporting nearly 11 million people will entail a loss to the economy estimated at approximately $2.5 trillion over the next 10 years. Although many see undocumented immigrants as a growing threat, people often forget that the vast majority entered the country to work, albeit illegally. As such, they are also consumers, paying rent, buying food, clothing and other necessities.
Along with economic dislocation, deportation will create another problem. The number of U.S. citizen children living with undocumented parents is estimated at between 3 to 5.5 million. If the parents are deported, what happens to the children? Will they become wards of the state? Or will they to be expelled along with their parents? The sticky issue raises family, moral and constitutional questions many politicians would prefer to avoid.
Another factor that must be considered is that the majority of the undocumented immigrants are from Mexico. Deporting them in bulk will help destabilize an already shaky Mexican society much dependent on remittances from the U.S. Caught in the backwash of the U.S. recession, the percentage of the Mexican population believing democracy is preferable to any other type of government has fallen from 53% to 42%.
The problems caused by uncontrolled immigration are not new. Foreign observers have often questioned why the U.S. has long tolerated the movement of undocumented workers into the country. And why it has ignored the need to push economic reform in the countries south of the border. As a result, much of Mexico and Central America remain ensnarled in a poverty trap that cripples development and forces people to move north to look for work.
Mexico suffers from a long-term economic growth failure going back more than 30 years. Over time, the Mexican economy has grown about 4 % annually, far below the 7% needed to sustain growth and trim down the poverty rate. Due to the current recession, the economy will be lucky to grow 3% in 2010. In Mexico, extreme poverty is defined as being unable to buy enough food. The rate is rising. It is approaching the 20 million mark.
Mexico has been plagued by a lack of emphasis on development and an inconsistent regulatory environment. The system frustrates and holds back entrepreneurs. As a result of regulatory strangulation, about a third of the work force is employed in the informal sector. Mexico’s business community is slow to embrace more efficient technology and change outmoded businesses practices. The country is home to a legendary corruption problem estimated to cost the nation approximately $60 billion per year.
Although barely mentioned in the immigration arguments, fostering economic development is going to have to be a component of any policy seeking to resolve the problem. Along with everything else, the administration is going to have to figure out why Mexico and its Central American neighbors can’t boost themselves into the same economic growth league as Brazil, China and India.
Trade ties are important to the economies of the U.S. and Mexico. Mexico is our second largest export market taking 2009 shipments valued at $128.9 billion. The exports of Arizona firms amounted to $4.54 billion last year. Mexico is the third largest supplier to the U.S. Its 2009 shipments amounted to $176.5 billion. Although the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) went into effect in 1994, the government’s inability to prepare for changes resulted in an uneven impact on the Mexican states. Among those hard hit were Mexico’s many small inefficient farmers, they were left in the lurch.
The value of illegal drugs consumed in the U.S. is approximately $65 billion per year. A number of the drug cartels servicing the ravenous cravings of Americans are based in Mexico, some of the transit routes run up through Arizona. The Mexican government’s drug suppression effort has proved costly. Much of the country is being shot to pieces as the government battles the gangs fighting over the right to supply the insatiable demand for drugs in the U.S.
In the last three years more than 15,000 people have been killed in Mexico in battles between the cartels, police and army. In Nogales, Sonora, there were 136 killings in 2009. The murder rate in 2010 will most likely set another record. With the State Department warning about the dangers of travel to Mexico, the city’s tourist industry has been decimated as visitors stay away.
More than 2,600 people were killed in Ciudad Juarez (across the border from El Paso, Texas) in the drug wars last year. Juarez now holds the distinction of being the world’s deadliest city not located in a war zone. Although the Mexican government has sent 10,000 troops to pacify the city, the results have been mixed. As the drug battles continue, the city implodes. Approximately 200,000 of its residents have fled, 30% of its businesses have closed and 100,000 jobs have been lost.
The United States and Mexico are linked by geography, history, normal commerce and the illegal drug trade. What happens in one country can have an effect on the other. The current immigration imbroglio has at its roots the simple reality that people tend to move from places with no opportunity to locations where work is available.
This issue has become as tough and complex as the geological rock layers underlying Arizona and Senora. In light of the high jinks running rampant in the nation’s capital, there is a good chance that a reasonable resolution will disappear in a political firestorm. In tackling the immigration issue, the government has to also avoid crimping Mexico’s development prospects. As we belatedly grope among the unattractive options, we need to make sure we don’t make things worse by creating a hostile, beleaguered state on the other side of a 2,000 mile fortified border.