I recently saw one of those “little known facts” chain messages that proliferate on the internet and cover just about every topic imaginable.
The one in question dealt with immigration, and had 19 items, all them supporting the standard conservative position that illegal immigration is bankrupting America and the only answer needed or wanted is more and better enforcement.
However, that’s only one part of the picture. So here are a few more immigration facts you might not have known.
- Immigration is one of the most over-regulated activities in America. Immigration law is so complicated and byzantine that even trained immigration lawyers are incapable of knowing it all. To get a sense of just how complex it is to legally become a U.S. citizen, take a look at this chart from the Reason Foundation.
- Large numbers of illegal immigrants pay taxes. No one denies that illegal immigrants are paying sales taxes and property taxes (built into rent payments if they’re renting). But did you know that many illegal immigrants also pay U.S. federal income taxes and that they are in fact legally required to do so?
- Immigrants, both legal and illegal are a vital part of the national economy. As study after study has determined that increasing participation in the labor force yields positive effects for household well-being, wages, and GDP. In contrast, aggressive enforcement of immigration laws is correlated with decreases in the national economy.
- When it comes to legal immigration, there is no line for most people to get into. No matter how much a person would like to come legally to the United States, if they are a low-skill worker the odds are overwhelmingly high that there is no legal path available.
- If a Mexican wishes to obtain a visa to immigrate to the United States, they must obtain it in Ciudad Juarez, one of the most dangerous cities on the planet.
- Hispanic immigrants are no more prone to criminal activity than white Americans. In fact, evidence shows they fall right about in the middle of the white national distribution.
- America’s current immigration policy is radically different than the one the Founders created. The United States actually had open borders from its inception up until 1882 and in fact cited interference with free migration as a reason for going to war with England in the Declaration of Independence.
- Immigration and naturalization aren’t the same thing. It is quite possible to have legal presence in the United States without being a citizen. In fact, the majority of current immigrant visa classes do not offer a path to citizenship.
- The 14th Amendment was always meant to grant birthright citizenship to the children of immigrants. The only children exempted are those whose parents were not obliged to obey U.S. laws, namely diplomats and Native Americans who did not pay taxes to the U.S. government. It was never intended to deny citizenship simply because one or both parents were still citizens of another country.
- The border is as secure as it is realistically going to get. Even the anti-immigration Center for Immigration Studies has acknowledged that we are seeing diminishing returns from investments in Border Patrol.
Follow on Twitter
Add on Facebook
E-mail Me
Kevin,
You are conflating two separate issues here. Is our system of legal immigration over-regulated and Byzantine? You bet. Should it be easier for those who wish to do so to come here legally and eventually become citizens? Of course. That has nothing whatsoever to do with what should be done vis a vis those who have come here in violation of existing law.
Also, children born to non-naturalized immigrants were NOT given automatic citizenship in the late 19th and early 20th century. I have seen the naturalization papers of three German-born great grandfathers, and in all three cases their US born minor children (and in one case, a US born wife) became citizens only when they did. It was called derivative citizenship, and was ended only in the 1920s.
While I’ll concede my knowledge on birthright citizenship in the 18th century is lacking, it is most definitely the case that birthright citizenship was the law of the land in the United States from at least 1898 onward.
In the case of United States v Wong Kim Ark the Supreme Court ruled that the 14th Amendment did in fact grant citizenship based to Wong, who was the son of Chinese immigrants and born in San Francisco.
I’m unfamiliar with the concept of derivative citizenship, but I’ll look into it as I don’t see how it could overlap with the Wong decision.
As for the first point you raise, I would argue the two issues are really one and the same. If we don’t offer a reasonable system for legal migration, it renders our immigration laws unjust and without moral force. And if there is no moral obligation to obey immigration law, then it clearly plays a role in how we should deal with current illegal immigrants.