September Topic Overview

Resolved: United States policy on immigration should focus on attrition through enforcement rather than amnesty.

Introduction and Background

There are between 10 to 12 million illegal immigrants currently living in the United States. Motivated by the prospect of jobs, improved living conditions, and the "American dream", an estimated 400,000 cross the border each year.  Often a dangerous journey, hundreds of thousands risk their lives often in pursuit of a better life for themselves and their families. The typical Mexican worker earns one tenth his American counterpart.    Yet many important issues are raised with such a large influx of undocumented migrants entering the United States. Questions about economic effects, providing social services, national security issues, human trafficking connections with drug trade, and citizenship have spurred several attempts at comprehensive immigration reform. Most recently reform was undertaken unsuccessfully by President Bush in 2007. President Obama has likewise signaled he will attempt reform in 2010.

The September topic proposes two solutions to the problems of illegal immigration. First, attrition through enforcement seeks to enforce existing immigration and workplace laws to discourage immigrants from entering illegally. This solution focuses on tightening border security and making it difficult for immigrants to live and work in the United States. Teams may also argue that attrition through enforcement may include forcibly removing the 10 to 12 million illegal aliens currently residing in the United States.  The second solution, amnesty, provides a pathway for legalizing the existing 10-12 million illegal aliens in the United States and providing legal channels for additional legal immigration into the United States.

Affirmative

Attrition through enforcement entails a multifaceted approach to illegal immigration. Elements of the attrition through enforcement strategy include increased border security, mandatory workplace verification of immigration status, measures to reduce misuse of Social Security and IRS identification numbers, increased state and local law enforcement, and state and local laws which discourage illegal settlement.   Though this strategy sounds complex and expensive, affirmatives can argue that it is a very cost effective and proven strategy for reducing illegal immigration. Aiming to reduce government involvement and cost, the purpose of attrition through enforcement is to increase the probability that illegal aliens will return home without the intervention of government agencies.

There are several arguments available to affirmative teams.   First, the strategy of attrition through enforcement is one which is used in enforcing nearly any other law: deterrence of lawbreaking through the credible threat of enforcement.  Kris Kobach, professor of law at the University of Missouri, makes an analogy to speeding.  If it is known that on a stretch of highway no one will get ticketed for speeding, people will speed. The longer there is no enforcement, the more speeding occurs. To restore the rule of law, no one would seriously suggest that the only two options are ticketing every speeder or abandoning the speed limit. A third option is much better. Having a patrol officer on the stretch of highway ticket a small percentage of drivers completely changes the situation. Drivers recognize the threat of enforcement is real and modify their behavior accordingly. Similarly, by enforcing immigration and workplace laws where the treat of enforcement is real, illegal aliens will begin to return home. Illegal aliens will make a rational decision faced with risks of detention and involuntary removal and difficulty obtaining unauthorized employment.

Many laws for attrition are already on the books, they are simply not being enforced. Numerous cities across the United States have become "sanctuary cities" by not allowing municipal funds or resources to be used to enforce federal immigration law and by not allowing police or city employees to inquire about one's immigration status. This legitimizes and encourages illegal immigration by making it clear that immigration laws already in place will not be enforced. Just as speeders will continue to speed without threat of enforcement, so too will illegal immigration with amnesty.

Seond, attrition through enforcement is much more cost effective than providing amnesty and government benefits for the estimated 10 to 12 million illegal aliens in the United States. According toone study, the amnesty considered by the U.S. Senate in 2007 would have cost the United States $2.6 trillion over ten years.  On the other hand, attrition through enforcement would be relatively expensive and effective. It costs very little when aliens self deport. According to one study, a nationwide attrition through enforcement strategy including the elements of workplace verification, additional border security, and implementation of state and federal laws to discourage the settlement of illegal aliens, would cost about $400 million per year for five years. This amount is less than one percent the budget of the Dept. of Homeland Security. It is estimated that for this relatively inexpensive price the United States could reduce the illegal population by 5.9 million or a 51% reduction. 

Experience with this strategy on the state level has shown that this strategy is cost effective. In 2007, Arizona became the first state to require all employers to verify the legal status of employees through the federal government's "e-verify" system. This system makes it very difficult if not impossible for illegal aliens to obtain a job. Reports began to show that illegal aliens were self deporting in response to the new law even before it became effective and enforceable.

Third, as opposed to attrition through enforcement which punishes breaking the law and provides disincentive for illegal immigration, amnesty provides an incentive to break the law and encourage illegal immigration. There are several arguments for the avoidance of perverse incentives brought about by amnesty. One, amnesty and non enforcement minimizes the distinction between citizens and non-citizens in such a way that the value of being a U.S. citizen is diminished. Furthermore, affirmatives can argue that amnesty disregards the thousands of immigrants currently in the process of legally obtaining work permits, residency, and citizenship. It clearly is not fair to punish those who have followed the law and reward those who disregarded the law. This not only rewards illegal activity but does nothing to prevent it from occurring in the future.

Fourth, affirmatives can note that expanding immigration will expand the number of people who receive social services like health care and education.  Many immigrants will rely on these services but pay little in taxes to support them because they have low paying jobs.  Affirmatives can argue that this may potentially bankrupt social service programs.

Finally, experience with illegal immigration has shown an intricate link between Mexico's drug cartels and human trafficking.   The movement of people across the border has become an important source of revenue for Mexico's drug cartels which have destabilized the border with violence and corruption spilling to both sides of the border. Enforcing immigration laws would crack down on the violence and exploitation promoted by these cartels, which under amnesty would go unpunished and even encouraged.  Because of this, affirmatives can turn this into a national security debate.

Negative

There are several arguments with which negatives can succeed. Remember that you are refuting the idea that enforcement should be the focus. As such, you do not have to abandon any notion of law enforcement on the border, but merely that a well-designed amnesty program is favorable to a focus on enforcing existing laws.

The biggest debate on this topic will most likely be about the effectiveness of enforcement and punishment in deterring illegal immigration. Obviously, you want to disprove the idea that illegal aliens can be deterred with threats of punishment. There are several arguments that you can use to disprove this idea. First, you can claim that illegal immigrants do not have adequate access to information about these punishments. Many illegal aliens have poor internet access and might have trouble navigating the internet or telephone labyrinth in order to find out these punishments. This is particularly true of immigrants from extremely impoverished places, where people may be illiterate or only speak a language for which we have few translators.  Information access is key, since immigrants cannot be deterred by a punishment they didn't know about. You might go a step further and say that it is unjust to punish someone when they were ignorant of the punishment.

You can also undermine deterrence by pointing out the disproportionate incentives involved. Enforcement of existing laws will not deter because they, however thoroughly enforced, do not actually punish illegal aliens that much. Even if punishments were made harsher, potential illegal aliens might see this as a minute possibility, given that there's a high chance we won't catch them. Greater enforcement will mitigate this factor, but not eliminate it. That means that the negative incentives resulting from punishment would not be enough to counter the incentives to live in America. There are obvious incentives such as freedom of speech, better police protection, higher material living conditions, and better public infrastructure. There are also perceptions that influence how people react to incentives. There is a perception that America is intangibly more "free," in a way that many peoples' home countries are not. The notion of the "American dream" is a perception that has lingered in spite of many recessions, depressions, and downturns. Thus, you can point out disproportionality between the incentives to immigrate and the disincentives resulting from punishment.

Another argument is that an enforcement-based immigration policy is bad for U.S. soft power because we send illegals back to their country of origin. This tends to strain Mexico's more fragile social infrastructure. Moreover, harsher enforcement of our immigration policies will be reciprocated on Americans visiting or emigrating to other nations. Perhaps North Korea would have had a decent argument for detaining Lee and Ling (2 US reporters who infiltrated North Korea's border with China) for longer by pointing out that they were simply "enforcing" their immigration policy.
Third, you can claim that a system of amnesty ensures that firms comply with labor standards. Because amnesty seeks to put illegal aliens along the path to green card status or citizenship, which often requires proof of permanent employment, labor standards will be more rigorously enforced on firms that were once able to take advantage of cheap illegal labor.

Fourth, you can argue that amnesty offers a clear track to legal residence, but only under certain conditions (for example, demonstrating permanent employment, English-speaking abilities, etc.). You can claim that amnesty offers real incentives for illegal immigrants to meaningfully assimilate into American society. Amnesty has historically operated on a points-based system, which gives more points for English language skills. Bilingualism might undermine American nationalism, so negatives can argue that this is an important goal. Bilingualism has undermined Canadian nationalism and contributed to the Quebec independence movement.

Fifth, the affirmative is likely to point out how much we spend on illegal immigrants, but will ignore how much more we'll spend if we tighten enforcement. Prison overcrowding, already at crisis levels in many states, will only worsen. For states like California, who are already outsourcing prisoners to other states, this could prove to be a nightmare. Enforcement also entails increased police budgets, and hiring more bilingual officers. Enforcement will also further strain an already back-logged INS bureaucracy.  If affirmatives argues for forcibly removing all of the current illegal immigrants you can argue that the cost would be prohibitive.  Aside from the enormous social and economic consequences and the logistical nightmare mass deportation would be, the upfront cost of such an undertaking would amount to $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). 

Sixth, you can argue that amnesty ultimately would attract wealthier non-citizens, since the process of legal residence under amnesty can be quite costly. At a minimum, one must return home and re-enter the country as part of the process, meaning that wealthier non-citizens will benefit most from this reform. Attracting wealthier non-citizens would be desirable since they would strain social services less and offer more taxable income that can be used to narrow the federal government's growing deficit. Given skyrocketing Social Security and Medicare costs, perhaps this additional tax revenue would come in handy.