Last week, President Obama stuck his toe into the water of the immigration debate. Not much happened largely because he needs to stick in more than a toe. I realize that there are other things going on in our country that, on the surface, appear to require more of his attention but this issue relates to many important aspects of our society.
As Jim Manzi wrote in his epic piece, "Keeping America's Edge," we need to look at the immigration issue from the standpoint of human capital. To begin with, we can't simply deport millions of undocumented workers and their children. It would be crushing to our economy (particularly the food industry) not to mention the really awful PR. Imagine train loads of Mexicans being shipped back to a country that already has crushing poverty and violence. Truly, a terrible idea.
But granting them amnesty, however, could increase revenue without raising taxes on most Americans. More importantly, making it easier for people to immigrate to this country means we can stay competitive in the global economy. As of right now, we are in a unipolar world with America being the central power. But that is changing and part of the reason for this is valuable human capital living elsewhere in the world (see: India and China). We need to encourage them to stay here.
All of this starts, however, with protecting and securing the borders, right? Let's take a look at how President Obama has done on that since he took office.
As of April 9, 2011, we have 20,759 border patrol agents in this country with 17, 659 stationed in the southwest. That's up from 17,499 border patrol agents at the end of September 2008, four months before Obama took office (an 18 percent increase).Singling out just the border patrol agents along the U.S.-Mexico border, the number has increased from 15,422 to 17,659 (a 14 percent increase).
In 2004, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security was created, reorganizing several federal agencies under a single roof. That year, the agency had 10,500 agents to patrol land borders. That number now stands at nearly 21,000. In the aftermath of 9-11, President Bush beefed up security along the border so he deserves the credit for starting this increase. President Obama continued it and, in the proposed 2012 budget calls for increasing the the number of border patrol agents to 21,370.
President Obama has also increased the number of deportation of illegal immigrants who have committed crimes. Deportation has to be a focused effort as President Obama has detailed.
But I want to emphasize we’re not doing it haphazardly. We’re focusing our limited resources and people on violent offenders and people convicted of crimes -- not just families, not just folks who are just looking to scrape together an income. And as a result, we’ve increased the removal of criminals by 70 percent.
That's where the complexity of this issue needs to be managed and he is doing a great job of it.
According to data provided by the Department of Homeland Security, the number of illegal immigrants "removed" rose about 6 percent -- from 369,221 to 392,862 -- between the end of September 2008 (four months before Obama took office) and the end of September 2010. But a much larger percentage of those deported were convicted criminals. In 2008, 31 percent were criminals; but by 2010, the percentage jumped to 50 percent. The raw number of convicted criminals who were deported went from 114,415 in 2008 to 195,772 in 2010. That's 71 percent.
Data for the first half of the 2011 fiscal year (which began at the end of September) suggests that trend is continuing, with about 52 percent of the deportations involving convicted criminals. And that's just where the focus should be-the violent offenders. On securing and protecting the borders, we are doing a better job and that is because of President Obama's policies.
So what does that leave? We need to embrace the the people we have here who are not violent offenders and integrate them into our economy, The DREAM act is a good start but we need to go further. There are 11 million undocumented workers in this country-the vast majority of which are simply trying to live a better life. If we grant them amnesty and put these people into our economy, we'd help ourselves out in a number of ways.We'd strengthen businesses and add revenue to city, state and federal governments.
More importantly, the "soft power" aspect of this policy would attract Manzi's much needed human capital from the rest of the world so we can keep pace with China and India-the two countries who are showing us every day that we are heading towards a multipolar world.
17 comments:
Let's see, a post in which Mark lays out his case eloquently with facts to back it up and talks about the success of specific policies of our president. Let's begin by attacking Mark personally, calling him stupid, accusing him of not specifically talking about the president's policies (I know, nuts, right? but it will happen-watch), and playing the race card. Oh, and let's add in how Mark knows nothing about the economy and is a stupid moron (I know I said stupid twice but that's how immature people operate). When faced with this asshattery, he will refuse to engage in discussion and then be labeled Brave Sir Robin by all you Needleses. You win!
Mark, you are an ugly stupid man who is not talking about Obama's specific policies because he is black.
You obviously know nothing about the economy and you are a stupid moron.
There you go sasquatch. Problem solved. Thank you for adding to the conversation.
Any premonition picks for the World Series?
Immigration is an interesting issue, in that the standard left/right polarization doesn't hold so well. A lot of the left aren't keen about immigration, and the libertarians (nominally on the right, at least according to the left) - and for as little as they actually count - tend to favor open immigration policy (though there are some anti-immigration libertarians). Many on the right aren't so much against immigrants as they are against people violating the law with impunity. [A position the left heartily hews to when it comes to corporate abuses.]
The populist position, both left and right, usually runs nativist/anti-immigrant. Businesses like a cheap source of labor; unions don't want the competition.
It takes a truly special mind to distill all of that down into what I want is the only valid position and all who oppose that are evil racist stupid motherfuckers.
Like many on the right, I think immigration needs to be made much simpler. My big problem with your ideas is that I think it's a dangerous and stupid precedent to set that disobeying the law gets you rewarded with head of line privileges.
Since you have made it clear over many years that you personally (and the majority of Democrat officeholders) don't think people should have to obey laws at all unless it's politically convenient for Democrats, and that in fact you consider unenforced laws to be a positive as long as Democrats benefit from it, I don't see that we have anything to discuss. Democrats have made it plain over more than a decade that they will not allow any forward movement on the immigration issue unless first, we reward those who break the law. Then, and only then, we'll discuss immigration reform if we can be bothered to get around to it.
When you begin from a premise of dishonesty, and insist on it being accepted as honest coin, why would anyone contract with you for anything?
When you start with the childishly dishonest premise that people would be "rewarded for breaking the law" and then continue to deride Democrats (offering no real solution of your own), you accomplish nothing. Mark, you've really hit the nail on the head on this one. They are incapable of being nothing but angry babies.
When you start with the childishly dishonest premise that people would be "rewarded for breaking the law"
Just to be clear, you've got no problem with ExxonMobil or GE or Goldman Sachs being rewarded (or at least, not punished) when they break the law. That would be childish and dishonest, right?
Hmm, no response. I guess I must have been right (particularly since these two morons have been posting on other topics).
It would seem that some laws are more equal than other laws.
I should write that idea down.
Write a book or something....
That's right, Santa. This would be why I won't continue discussion in this thread unless I see some evidence of attention to the complexities of illegal workers and less poorly drawn comparisons.
Then don't bring it up anymore then.
Well, I can always hope that someday you will see the complexities:)
M, yes there are complexities. How refreshing for you to not reduce it down to the usual me good, everyone else evil fucking heartless bastards - even if your political bedfellows did. Is there a point beyond your blind Obama worship?
One more bitch slap for the Nixon, oops, I mean the Obama administration.
In the interest of good conversation, can we agree to disagree over the idea of amnesty then?
Is that the sticking point?
Just trying to get a feel for the microcosm, in order to apply it to the macro...
For those who don't have an Orwellian memory hole: amnesty - been there, done that. And here we are debating it again. Santayana is surely spinning in his grave.
Now, if we could just kill every Buchananite "my disfavored parents got here so fuck yours", we might make some actual progress. But that will be bloody as there are an awful lot of those stupid shitsacks running around.
And thus, immigration is "complex".
When you start with the childishly dishonest premise that people would be "rewarded for breaking the law"
Can you give any reason why it's either childish or dishonest, much less both, other than "because I said so"? That's all you've given thus far.
Or is your gripe that "because I said so" isn't good enough by itself? This from the people who spent a week or so complaining about how conservatives "just believe"?
Nice Rove.
Wait, wait, I get it...
You're saying it's "childishly dishonest" to think that immigration laws are, in fact, laws, and that breaking them is actually breaking the law, right?
In other words you're defaulting to the usual Democrat Party position that laws shouldn't be considered "laws laws" if Democrats' favored constituencies would be expected to obey them, right?
Post a Comment