Yes, the 2009/2010 debate season is upon us. At Thornton High School we have a new Coach. I am the President of the team and my partner Dillon is Vice President. If you are interested in joining - give us a shout. Our topic is:
Resolved: United States policy on immigration should focus on attrition through enforcement rather than amnesty.
400,000 illegal immigrants cross the borders of the United States every year looking for brighter future than they had in their homeland. They join the ranks of 10 to 12 million illegal immigrants currently living in the United States. And current political climate is not welcoming them with open arms. I visited the Statue of Liberty this summer and read Emma Lazarus’ “The New Colossus.”
Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
“Keep ancient lands, your storied pomp!” cries she
With silent lips. “Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”
Not so much, anymore (that’s my addition)
But why has our attitude toward immigrants changed? In 1883 when Emma wrote The New Colossus, the United States was on the verge tremdous change that was result of new inventions and the transcontinental railroad. We needed warm bodies who would work as cheap labor. Social programs were unheard of. Immigrants worked long hours for little money and were happy to have the work. Without a workforce who was willing to work for low wages, we would not have become the leader of the industrial revolution.
Today, the United States has transformed into a country that cares deeply about civil liberties and goes to great lengths to curb abuses. We pay taxes to support this infrastructure … and questions about economic effects, providing social services, national security issues, human trafficking connections with drug trade, weigh heavily on our citizens minds. As Americans look at their wallets, they become very vocal about how their ever increasing tax burden is spent.
So what does “focus on attrition through enforcement” mean? Attrition through enforcement means utilizing existing immigration and workplace laws as the tool to discourage immigrants from entering illegally. In other words tighten border security and make it difficult for immigrants to live and work in the United States. This solution also includes forcibly removing the 10 to 12 million illegal aliens currently residing in the United States. This solution relies on the principle that you can deter illegal activity through the credible threat of enforcement. By pushing the burden to workplace employers, the IRS, and border security illegal immigrants will just go home. Why would they stay if they couldn’t find work and couldn’t access our infrastructure of social services? The cost of deportation (if we want to go to the extreme) is estimated at about $41.2 billion annually for five years, according to the Center for American Progress. This amount would exceed the entire budget for the Department of Homeland Security for FY 2006 ($34.2 billion).
What would “amnesty” mean? This solution would provide steps for the 10-12 million illegal aliens in the United States to become citizens and provide legal channels for additional legal immigration into the United States. According to one study, amnesty considered by the U.S. Senate in 2007 would have cost the United States $2.6 trillion over ten years. Yikes. But what would happen if we grew our population and these immigrants began paying taxes? Could we provide amnesty to any illegal immigrant who had a sponsor and showed employment? Who showed that they would be productive member of society? Obviously we wouldn’t want to make the United States a Welfare state, where those given amnesty became a burden on society. Would the United States be more competitive in the global marketplace if we had a ready supply of workers willing to produce goods for minimum wage? And wouldn’t we have more tax dollars to spend if these individuals paid taxes on their income?
Are immigrants yearning to be free? Are they willing to work their butts off for a better life and future for their families? or are they looking for a free ride at our countries expense? I think that’s the real question, and I don’t think it can be answered with a broad sweep of the pen. I think it needs to be made on an individual case basis, with emplathy and without bureacracy.
Now, I may argue and debate this differently to win the match …