It’s the jobs, stupid

LAST MONTH, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives approved an immigration bill that trumpeted a brilliant new approach to curbing the flood of illegal immigration. The legislation, which the Senate will probably take up next month, seeks to control illegal immigration by making it, well, more illegal.

A recent poll revealed that four in five Americans think the government is not doing enough to prevent illegal entries into the U.S. As a result, members of Congress are falling all over themselves trying to make it look like they’ve heard the public outcry.

But despite its supporters’ claims, the House bill -- which makes illegal entry into the U.S. a felony rather than a civil offense, imposes criminal penalties on social service agencies and church groups that offer support to illegal immigrants, and authorizes the construction of 600 miles of fence along the U.S.-Mexico border -- would do little to solve the problem at hand.

The bill’s fundamental flaw is that it focuses entirely on enforcement measures without taking into account the push and pull of the global economy that elicits mass international migration in the first place. Consider this: Since 1986, when the U.S. began adopting increasingly strict enforcement measures, the number of illegal immigrants has skyrocketed.

Indeed, in 1986, the Border Patrol had a budget smaller than that of the average municipal police department. By 1998, the Border Patrol’s budget was eight times higher and the number of agents had more than doubled -- it boasted more officers authorized to carry weapons than any branch of the federal government except the military.

Ironically, in the 1980s, the average annual flow of undocumented immigrants from Mexico was roughly 158,000 per year, but now that number has surpassed 480,000 annually. In 2004, the ineffective enforcement of the Southwestern border cost taxpayers $2 billion.

So why do so many politicians insist that ever-expanding enforcement is the answer? Because it gives the public the impression that decisive measures are being taken. In addition, many politicians naively believe that the federal government can legislate mass human migration out of existence.

For decades, immigration restrictionists have pointed to the Immigration Acts of 1921 and 1924 as examples of laws that put a halt to immigrant flows from Europe in the early 20th century. What they do not acknowledge, however, is the role demography and world events played in stemming the tide. In fact, several years before Congress made its 1920s stand, the outbreak of World War I forced a dramatic drop in the number of transatlantic crossings. The war’s 8.5 million battle deaths of mostly migrating-age males also drastically cut the pool of potential European migrants. By the 1930s, the global economic depression accelerated the decline in the number of immigrants.

Although he endorsed the lopsided House bill, President Bush seems to understand that enforcement is only one part of the solution. In November, he called for a comprehensive immigration plan that included a “rational” guest-worker program that “would take pressure off our border.” He said that matching “willing worker with willing employer on a job Americans won’t do” would help Border Patrol agents spend their time tracking down criminals and not job seekers.

But looking to act tough -- and grab headlines -- on immigration, House Republican leaders spurned the president’s comprehensive approach. GOP Rep. Jeff Flake of Arizona called the bill flawed, admitting, “we’re not so much making policy as making a statement here.”

With the House bill, GOP restrictionists chose symbolism over substance, punitive measures over real solutions. Rejiggering the obstacle course on the border and further criminalizing the undocumented without addressing our economy’s need for hundreds of thousands of new workers a year renders the bill hopelessly ineffective.

The Senate will probably consider a less hysterical solution, one that includes a guest-worker provision and maybe even a means by which undocumented workers can earn U.S. citizenship over time. But with GOP restrictionists fanning the flames of public discontent and promoting the myth that heightened border enforcement is the only answer, I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for a rational solution.

In the long term, it may be demographic shifts in Mexico that ultimately curb the tide of migration northward. Over the last 40 years, the average number of births to Mexican women has fallen from seven to 2.4 children. Within a decade, Mexico’s plunging birthrate will begin to significantly reduce the number of new annual entries into the workforce and the percentage of the population of migrating age.

None of this is to say that the U.S. should take a laissez-faire approach to illegal immigration. But if Congress and the public truly want to solve the problem, they will have to give up on the simplistic notion that heightened border enforcement is the only solution.