Monday, June 25, 2007

Deportations up, apprehensions and (hopefully) S1639 down

Interior Customs and Enforcement reports deportations are on track to reach 240,000 this year, an almost 30% increase from last year, which had marked a 15% increase over 2005. With S1639, the reincarnation of the Senate's stalled S1348, set for a likely make-or-break cloture vote tomorrow, the big business-media-religion are making a full court press. Geraldo Rivera used young girls as political props, Chris Matthews hosted Diane Feinstein and Trent Lott for discussion on the legislation (both are open borders champions in their respective parties), and ABC also featured a poor illegal child ("Won't somebody please think of the children?!"). Lourdes Garcia-Navarro of NPR's Morning Edition ran a sob piece that is encouraging even though it's not meant to be:
The majority of deportees are being sent back to Mexico, where the bulk of undocumented migrants originate. And some of the towns they come from — are feeling the strain, financially.

In the state of Guanajuato in Mexico, a recent visit to INTERMEX, a company that pays out remittances to families who have relatives working in other countries, the counters were completely empty, except for the tellers.

If remittances fall, it is a problem not only for families, who say they are struggling to make ends meet. It's a problem for this whole country. Money sent by migrant workers is the second-largest source of foreign income in Mexico, only exceeded by oil revenue.
Only the intro is textually archived, although Navarro's audio is available here. Notice immediately the sloppiness--an anecdote is assumed to be a trend. Nevermind that in 2006 around $25 billion was exported to Mexico (roughly $2,000 per Mexican living in the US) in exchange for menial net liabilities coming stateside. It is insinuated that no one is sending money home now.

The report is interesting in that it illustrates the shifting angles the open borders establishment is coming at the amnesty from, with condescension and facile economic arguments continuing to fail. The Navarro story features a family geographically split between Guanajuato and Florida. The reliably lugubrious piece laments the male's desire to return home to his family. It's supposedly not possible, as he, out of work (due to workplace raids, it is asserted), cannot scrape up enough to make it back home.

Now, this is NPR and accordingly the subject matter is only evaluated anecdotally (if you do not regularly listen to government radio, sample the story to understand why in spite of being reputedly the news source of choice for many academics and cosmopolitan types, listeners are less knowledgeable about current events than Rush babies, No Spinners, or Stoned slackers are), so the family's story may or may not becoming increasingly common.

Whether or not it is, there are a few points of interest. For one, the guy is a stone mason. The domestic construction industry isn't exactly booming. That's likely the elephant that's keeping him out of work, not the federal government's isolated high-profile workplace raids.

Secondly, he's allegedly been supporting a family in Mexico (and until recently they lived relatively well) but now is unable to gather up a few hundred bucks to return home? And I thought natives had a problem with their dismal savings rates.

It's also nice to see that the claim that underclass laborers are an economic necessity more-or-less being dropped (take a ten minute refresher course in the basic economics of supply and demand to see how fallacious such an assertion is), although Navarro does briefly relay the woman in Mexico's concerns that the "work isn't getting done" in the US. The idea that natives won't bus tables, no matter how well they're paid, is absurd. Employers of subsidized Latin labor have no inherent right to be able to employ enough people on whatever wages they feel like paying. If they can't find workers, they'll increases the wages they offer. If they can't stay in business doing so, they'll either invent more efficient ways of doing business or they won't belong in the world's most advanced, dynamic economy.

Most importantly, the story suggests the historically proven result of greater border and interior enforcement--that most illegal immigrants leave voluntarily through attrition as a consequence. During President Eisenhower's Operation Wetback, for every one that was deported, seven or eight left on their own volition.

The open borders crowd claims largescale deportations are impossible. That's not true, as the absolute number and rate of deportations has skyrocketed over the last year on an ICE border security supplemental increase of less than $2 billion (about the burn rate of one week in Iraq). As the anecdotal story does indicate, however, a few ostenstious raids send a much greater number of illegal aliens scurrying back across the border on their own than are picked up in this or that raid on a meat-plant. Notice that while deportations are up 30%, apprehensions at the US-Mexico border are down by a similar percentage. Clearly, we can control migration into the interior, as every sovereign nation should (and most, including Mexico, do).

A big chunk of the story is devoted to letting the Mexican woman emphasize how great Mexican migrants are. It's funny how the "family values don't stop at the Rio Grande" bromides illogically suggest that while Mexico is anarchical, thoroughly corrupt, and not particularly industrious, Mexicans are the polar opposite.

In reality, Mexican migrants in the aggregate are about as good as their counterparts who remain in Mexico. The border states, especially California and New Mexico, dispel the preposterous myth that ingesting more Mexicans will somehow make the US less like Mexico.

Tuesday another battle takes place. Contact your Senators and tersely let them know how you feel on 24 hour legalization, increased legal immigration, and a continued delay in the 700 mile fence that should've already been constructed along the US-Mexico border.

There are reasons to be encouraged--Trent Lott backed away from committing to vote for cloture at Feinstein's prompting on Matthews' show. If one of the more open borders members of the GOP is getting cold feet on the amnesty, and only 37 Democrats are supporting it, the outcome looks promising. But don't become complacent. It's critically important to vociferously make yourself heard now to send a lasting message to Congress about who they're supposed to be representing.


JSBolton said...

I just read a piece which mocked
our border defenses, and presumably also those of other countries, as something medieval and insufficiently offensive. That is, not that they
couldn't function defensively if extended, but that our policies
are not totally offensive, would have been the implication.
Actually we need both capacities, with the emphasis on defense.
Openness is questionable in so many ways as an ideal, which is why I've just published on that subject, and this site been given a place in the sidebar.
Very few raise the alarm over these issues, in an intelligent and articulate way, and it is much needed for more to do this.

Audacious Epigone said...


What's the site you're publishing from? I'd like to do the same.

JSBolton said...
please do take a loo
k at it,
especially since your site is in the sidebar links.
It's only a few days old, set up by a novice, myself, with imstructions and initial work done by a teenage relative.