An Onion-esque headline from the LA Times today: "Federal agents arrest illegal immigrants leaving U.S."
To be fair, I understand there's merit to the strategy as an attempt to intercept contraband, address other illicit activities, et cetera. But draining resources on the effort hardly gets us any closer to that fond political goal, "securing the border." A phrase which itself--particularly given recent border debacles--manages to retain its political salience more in a triumph of symbolism than anything else.
What does illegal immigration track with? Not levels of border enforcement spending. Instead, unlike legal immigration, illegal immigration responds to the economy. In the late 1990s, for example, when the economy grew rapidly and job creation was high, illegal immigrants likewise peaked, even as the number of hours officers spent collectively policing the U.S.-Mexico border increased 300% from 1990-2005. And not workplace enforcement, either: the CBO recently estimated that such efforts would reduce federal revenue by $17.3 billion, as undocumented workers would simply be paid outside the system.
That, however, doesn't stop House Republicans--seemingly undeterred by their failure to make immigration a wedge issue--from continuing to try and force the issue. As Frank Perry notes in his very worthwhile recent interview with Firedoglake, by tacking right, members of the GOP can use the issue to distance themselves from an unpopular president.
But unlike Congressmen who have to run for office every two years, Bush has taken the long-term view. Like Karl Rove, he recognizes that by alienating a part of the electorate that's grown by 3 million in just past three years--particularly in swing states--the GOP is further consigning itself to its status as the minority party. John McCain knows that too, but since pushing the issue will alienate conservatives, he's rejected his past positions and pledged to "secure the border" first--a feeble promise doomed from the get-go.
--Te-Ping Chen
