Editor's note: Office Hours is a new feature that will regularly showcase submissions from professors, deans and other faculty members.
The topic of illegal immigration has been much discussed by the Republican presidential candidates, but it has generated a lot of heat and very little light. It is important that we are aware of issues that the candidates either don't mention or misrepresent.
The first thing to remember is that we have been here before. Immigration in general, and illegal immigration in particular, has been a hot-button topic for many generations. Given our political system, immigration reform invariably takes years of complicated political negotiation before legislation results. We are currently in the middle of one of those cycles, and it seems impossible to imagine any resolution that successfully addresses the many current problems. If history is any guide, there will be new federal legislation on the subject, though who knows when or how effective it will be.
It is also clear that the spate of immigration legislation by the states, most recently Alabama, is a response to what people see as Federal inaction. All this legislative activity reflects the perception of a change in the balance of power between the federal and state governments in matters of immigration. For more than the last hundred years, immigration was considered the sole province of the federal government now the courts are willing to recognize some state legislation on immigration. Of course such statutes, whether they are upheld or not, serve the political purpose of demonstrating the states' impatience with seeming federal inaction.
The GOP candidates are using the issue for the same political end and therefore the "truth" of their claims is less important than making political points. That is why the border fence is such a good subject for them to talk about. Candidates can support building a fence to keep illegal immigrants out, as if the fence did not currently exist along 670 miles of the border between the United States and Mexico. Candidates do not mention that vast amounts of money have already been spent on this fence, nor that it would be pointless to build it clear across the country, as Bachmann promises. The fence has traction because it is simple and has been the only thing Congress has actually been able to agree on in the last few years everything else in several more comprehensive bills was rejected. Some of the money has been spent to build a "virtual" fence, also a popular idea in the public mind. Unfortunately, the effort to build this "virtual" fence has mostly been a failure. It was recently cancelled after the expenditure of a billion dollars.
But the fence, real or virtual, can only do so much. People can and have tunneled under the fence and climbed over it. It is also evident, but not usually mentioned by the candidates, that the numbers of people crossing illegally has diminished significantly in the last couple of years. This appears to have been in part the result of the fence, and particularly more border agents policing the border at the fence, but also, of course, the recession. People do not cross the border to work in the United States when there are no jobs. We also must keep in mind that, as crossing has become more difficult and expensive, fewer illegal immigrants already present in the United States are willing to go home, as they used to do when it was possible to spend some time here earning money and some time at home. There is a further problem with the fence: It does nothing to remove the estimated 40 percent of illegal immigrants who arrived here legally, but who overstayed their visas.
Those of us involved in public policy know that the "truth" and "facts" are less important in political debate than an issue that politicians can exploit because it plays on people's fears. And right now, the fear that an illegal immigrant may "steal" the job of an American is a potent weapon in the arsenal of GOP candidates.
