Immigration - Borders, Laws, Walls

In my most previous post I argued that people needed to stop arguing over or refusing to accept proven facts, and instead begin to discus the varying perspectives that are held about those facts.  Someone asked me if I would please present such an argument about immigration in full in my blog.  Well, I could write that, but it would be more like a book than a blog. 

Most important issues are complex, require not just having the facts, but thinking about them and their interactions with other facts and considering the many ramifications of various courses of actions.  It also requires an examination of one’s own beliefs and values and an understanding how they interact with various perspectives on and solutions to current facts and issues.

So, immigration discussions might need to begin with a discussion of what is, and what do we want a country or nation to be.  The definitions (these are facts; these are how the words are defined today) are as follows:  A nation is “a large aggregate of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory.”  A country is defined as “a nation with its own government, occupying a particular territory.” 

One can have opinions about the positive or negative ramifications of those definitions.  In the context of immigration this becomes a debate about whether one favors open or controlled borders (some aspects of that discussion are presented HERE 

Reaching an agreement that we need controlled, not open borders leads to the discussion of how to control them.  We cannot discuss that unless and until we agree that there must be some form of control. A person who adamantly advocates for open borders is not interested in controls.  At least some Democrats are advocates for open borders.  They are not interested in discussion ways to fix current problems with our methods of controlling our borders.

(As an aside here, I would note that it is not at all productive for those who seek open borders, or even borders more open than we currently have, to call those who favor controlled borders racist or similar epithets.   Nor is it useful to use the border and its openness or not as a political weapon in the ongoing campaign to destroy the president.)

When we finally get to a discussion of the immigration problem today, it can be focused entirely on whether or not to build a wall or other barrier, or on whether we need to revise our immigration laws and if so, in what ways and areas should they be revised.  In both instances, there are provable facts that cannot be ignored or denied.  And these discussions might also be couched in terms of whether we have a crisis at the southern border.

Facts must play into all of these discussions.  Currently, our country does not have open borders; that is a fact and is why we have immigration laws and procedures for allowing and welcoming immigrants into our country, both temporarily and permanently.  The existence of those laws, as well as their text, are facts; another fact is that some of those laws are being enforced, and some are blocked.  I happen to think that if we have laws, they should all be enforced uniformly against all violators, and it is the President’s job to see that is so (that it is the President’s job is a fact under our Constitution). 

Many of the relevant facts regarding legal admissions are compiled by various agencies and departments and can be found on the Homeland Security website.  LINK .  In the first quarter of 2018 approximately 264 thousand aliens obtained lawful permanent resident status.  Fifty-three percent of these were admissions adjusted status while within the United States, and 47 percent entered as new arrivals.  New arrivals were primarily from 6 countries:  Mexico, Cuba, the People’s Republic of China, India, the Dominican Republic, and the Philippines.  About 44 percent obtained status as immediate relatives of U.S. citizens and an additional 18 percent obtained status under a family preference category. Employment-based preference categories and refugees were the next-largest classes of admission, each accounting for 14 percent of new arrivals. 

As to refuges, over 5,000 refugees were admitted in the first quarter of 2018.  Refugee arrivals increased by 19 percent from the previous quarter.  For the first quarter of 2018, 83 percent of refugees were from six leading countries of nationality: Bhutan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Burma, Ukraine, Eritrea, and Russia.

Naturalization data is also available on the Homeland Security web site and includes the following.   A total of 163 thousand aliens were naturalized in the first quarter of 2018 compared to 106 thousand in the same quarter in 2017.  Roughly 43 percent were from Mexico, India, the People’s Republic of China, the Philippines, Cuba, and the Dominican Republic. These were also the six leading countries of nationality during each quarter of 2017.

Finally, there are non-immigrant admissions which include Visitors entering for pleasure or business which comprised 79 and 11 percent, respectively of all non-immigrant admissions in 2017, followed by temporary workers and families (5.1 percent) and students and dependents (2.5 percent).

I would argue that we are enormously generous when it comes to legal immigration.  With such generous acceptance of those entering our country legally, I believe we can justly deal harshly with those who break our laws and enter illegally.  Those who would accept illegal aliens and ignore that their first act on entering is one of breaking the law, are in essence advocates of open borders.

By the very fact that illegal immigrants are breaking the law and thus not inclined to announce their presence, the exact numbers of illegal immigrants has to be an estimate.  However, statistics and other research can provide fairly accurate estimates.  The figure is estimated at slightly below 12,000,000.  (see full report with its reference bibliography HERE)  

The Department of Homeland Security is required to keep detailed records of known unlawful entries and of apprehensions.  Their detailed report is HERE.  A report from the office of immigration statistics on efforts by DHS to estimate Southwest border security and dated  dated 2017 (see full report HERE).  includes the following:  the U.S. Border Patrol made 408,000 southwest border apprehensions in 2016; survey data, mathematical models, and USBP assessments suggest that a growing share of attempting crossers between ports of entry are apprehended or interdicted; USBP’s observation-based estimate of known got away was 106,000 in 2016.

There is a significant problem with people, especially on the southern border, entering illegally.  As to those entering illegally, some end up in custody upon entry (for example, here are statistics for those in custody as of September, 2017 HERE . We also know (from a variety of reports, and from other research, that illegals enter the country for a variety of reasons:  some simply are unwilling to wait through the legal process of immigration; some are encouraged to come here perhaps as political pawns by entities such as “Pueblo sin Fronteras”; some are child or drug traffickers, gang members, or other form of criminal; some who enter respect and seek to assimilate into American culture while some are in one form or another anti-American.  There are also estimates on things like employment statistics, education, needs for various public services, etc.

The bottom line, as I see it after considering the above, is that we do have an illegal immigration problem.  It is the duty of our leaders to secure and protect our country (this is a fact – see the Constitution).  If they refuse to address the border issue they are failing in their responsibilities to us the citizens.   I find our laws, for the most part, to be good if they would be enforced and not thwarted by things like sanctuary cities and endless litigation.  I would like to see requirements that those seeking entry show that they want to participate in our nation, not change it to some other model; that those seeking citizenship should be eager to give allegiance to our country and its government and institutions, and that there should be some way in which their immigration will benefit this land.  Chain migration (where one legal immigrant can essentially bring scores of family along) should be limited to spouses or other similarly close family member.  And, there should be methods of keeping track of those whose legal entry is for a limited time and a requirement of deportation when that time ends unless there is a renewal of the entry permit. 

Our real problem is with illegal entry and the acceptance of such illegality by many of our politicians.  Not only is allowing this to continue in essence signaling an approval of those who ignore our laws, it is unjust and unfair on many levels.  It is also dangerous to those legally in this country.  Failure to recognize this, to stand for our laws and our people, is gross neglect of their responsibilities and oaths by those politicians who refuse to even negotiate on border security.  We have laws and those laws include a controlled border intended to keep our country secure.  We have methods of changing those laws, but until they are changed, unless we have open borders, the laws and the border controls must be enforced.  Emotional responses to the alleged plights of illegals does not justify failure to follow the law. 

(As an aside, I fail to understand why the anti-Trump politicians who have also become anti-controlled border, seem to place the welfare of those who are not part of our country above those who are.  Similarly, I find it interesting that they now seek all sorts of medical facilities on our very rural and isolated borders where residents of this country have always lived without such concern or facilities.) 

I would do away with our catch and release policy which essentially allows individuals to enter illegally, be detained, promise to return for a court hearing, and be released freely into our country.  While many do return, others do not; some of those that do not have a variety of criminal intents.   Of course, enforcing the immigration laws becomes much easier if there are limited ports of entry into the country.  This is where the wall comes in.  Most defined nations have some sort of barrier around and defining its borders.  Sometimes that is a natural geographic occurrence, and sometimes it is manmade.  But, in my opinion some form of barrier is necessary if one is to maintain, protect, and sustain their nation. 

In the case of the United States, we do not have natural boundaries at many of our borders.  Hence we need some sort of man-made device.  It seems that the wall (or fence as it was called by previous administrations) is what those who have studied the situation seem to find as the best form of border barrier (that includes not only the current President, but also former presidents Clinton, Bush, and Obama).  I, personally, would like to have more information about technological capabilities such as drone technology to substitute or supplement border security in places where a wall is not feasible.  But, as a nation, we must protect our borders and a barrier is the first step in that protection. 

With a barrier in place to stop the flood of illegal entries, we can then thoughtfully consider how best to amend and improve our immigration laws and policies.  This is such a complex issue; it will not be resolved overnight.  But it will never be resolved if Democrats continue to use it as simply another way of hating Trump.  I do not understand how, given the facts relevant to illegal entries and illegal immigrants, that the Democrats can stand by and do nothing while urging that our current laws not be enforced.

Tonight the President will talk to the nation about the border.  It is his job to do so and to provide to the nation the assurance that its laws will be enforced and that its border will be secure.  The congress should be helping the President to carry out those duties rather than refusing to even discuss solutions.  If the Democrats have a better solution than the President’s proposal of a wall, then they should present it for discussion.  Ignoring the given facts - that we are a nation that has a controlled border with laws allowing legal entry by compliance with our laws and that those laws are being regularly violated - is not a solution to our problem.  Ours, like most nations, is not one with open borders and to pretend it is in order to further some political goal is a gross neglect of elected office and one which we the people should not stand for, regardless of how we may feel about the President.