On June 15, 2012, President Obama announced a policy at the White House that would save around 800,000 illegal immigrants in America from deportation. These people are eligible for work permits and a two-year deferred action as long as they:
-
were brought to the United States before they turned 16 and are not above 30;
-
have been in the country for at least five continuous years;
-
have no criminal record;
-
have graduated from a U.S. high school, earned a GED or have served in the military.
Obama’s announcement has left members of the Latino community celebrating around the country and the GOP furiously reacting to his decision. Putting the public response aside, the impact of the policy change may not be quite positive as some may think. Even though the policy change represents a humanitarian effort intending to push Congress to pass the DREAM Act, it is problematic in its reasoning, temporary in its effect and narrow-ranged in its targeted population.
At first glance, relieving 800,000 young and “good” illegal immigrants from their lifelong fear of deportation seems to be “the right thing to do” — as declared by President Obama during the Rose Garden address. These young people were brought to the United States illegally by their parents with “no idea that they (were) undocumented.” Many have assimilated into American culture and society through education. They have adopted all the U.S. identities culturally and nationally except one — the legal identity. Therefore, Obama’s policy is a humanitarian effort that alleviates thousands of young illegal immigrants from bearing the burden of their parents’ wrongdoing and provides them with a bright future.
Yet, the humanitarian idea behind Obama’s policy is deeply problematic. It benefits the youngsters who were brought to the United States illegally before they turned 16. But how about their parents who brought them here? If a humanitarian policy means removing the unfair burden from the young illegal immigrants, how is it humane when such policy also means breaking their families apart?
Supporters of the new deportation policy may argue that such a dilemma can be resolved by pushing forward the DREAM Act. Under the bill, young illegal immigrants who qualify for similar requirements listed under Obama’s deportation policy stand a chance to attain permanent residency. Once they become permanent residents, these young people can sponsor their parents to apply for permanent residencies on the basis of family reunification.
However, opponents of the DREAM Act rebut that the influx of those immigrants could potentially hurt the already suffering U.S. job market. This is true. Traditionally, the inflow of unauthorized immigrants has arguably supported the U.S. economy, as most of them take up the low-end jobs not favored by the native-born Americans. Yet what the DREAM Act will unleash is a group of educated and skilled immigrants, once bounded by illegality, who will pose strong competition to the native U.S. workers.
A similar argument is made by the Republicans regarding Obama’s deportation policy. Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, commented: “How can the administration justify allowing illegal immigrants to work in the U.S. when millions of Americans are unemployed?” Yet, such a remark is an overstatement. These newly authorized young workers are facing the same job market as anyone else. They too have to face the fierce competition of the job market and the risk of unemployment. On a local scale, they will consider themselves members of the formal workforce and are unlikely to settle for a lower wage, as their predecessors traditionally have. This will allow local employers to consider them and native workers equally, without harming the locals’ job prospects. Thus, the impact of Obama’s deportation policy on the U.S. job market is insignificant.
Unfortunately, the new policy “is not a permanent fix,” President Obama recognized in his announcement. “This is not amnesty … this is not a path to citizenship.” These young people will only be able to apply for a citizenship or permanent residency after Congress passes the long-stalled DREAM Act. With the fierce opposition from the Republicans, the DREAM Act will unlikely be passed in the near future. That means if one day these newly authorized minors lose their jobs after their work permits expire, they will again face the risk of deportation.
The effect of the new deportation policy is also narrow-ranged. It excludes a potentially large number of young illegal immigrants who satisfy most but not all of the policy requirements. These youngsters generally grow up under impoverished conditions and receive poor attention from parents and teachers. They are prone to academic inadequacy and minor misconduct, which are at least partially the result of their parents’ and teachers’ irresponsible actions. Compared to qualified individuals, these young illegal immigrants bear a heavier burden of their parents’ wrongdoing. If it is morally imperative to relieve the 800,000 qualified illegal immigrants from the burden of their parents’ misbehavior, then why not the “almost-qualified” individuals too?
President Obama’s bombshell announcement of the new deportation policy before the upcoming presidential election may simply be “a political act.” Yet, parties of concern should recognize the overall impact of the policy. The deportation policy may endow thousands of young, inspired and talented people the freedom to pursue a brighter future, but it will leave many more brokenhearted, as it relieves neither the parents of these youngsters nor the many “almost-qualified” individuals from the risk of deportation.
Shi Yi is a UC Berkeley junior.
Comment Policy
Comments should remain on topic, concerning the article or blog post to which they are connected. Brevity is encouraged. Posting under a pseudonym is discouraged, but permitted. The Daily Cal encourages readers to voice their opinions respectfully in regard to the readers, writers and contributors of The Daily Californian. Comments are not pre-moderated, but may be removed if deemed to be in violation of this policy. Click here to read the full comment policy.
I’d have to give a grudging nod of appreciation to the Daily Cal for printing this author’s point of view. Maybe the DC can be fair and balanced once in a while. Hopefully in 6 months the author can follow up with an article examining these issues:
1. If the illegal aliens are allowed to work, do they pay income and social security taxes? Unemployment insurance? Disability insurance?
2. If Obamacare covers every U.S. citizen, will these illegal aliens also be covered when they start working? Do they pay penalties if they opt out of buying insurance? Will their illegal alien spouses, gay domestic partners, and non-citizen children also be eligible for full Obamacare coverage?
3. By law illegal alien males must register for the U.S. draft or be denied many government benefits. If the “dreamer” illegal aliens did not register for the draft, can they be deported?
Thank you! I will keep an eye on it.
1. This policy is only in effect as long as Obama is President, another six months.
2. Illegals cannot serve in the US Military so it makes no sense why that is even mentioned. To enlist requires a green card. To commission as an officer requires citizenship.
Open the doors and shores
You can protest, but can you think? Reason about what would happen if the doors and shores were open. Any Cal student should be able to recognize how that kind of immigration policy would affect them.
Reason is simply above BP’s pay grade. If it’s more involved than some trite slogan that will fit on an Occupy poster or the bumper sticker of a Prius, it’s beyond his ability to comprehend.
If you believe people born outside America shouldn’t compete with Americans for jobs, shouldn’t you also be against letting companies outsource their operations to other countries? If you’re really for the free market, how can you justify restricting the movement of people to compete for jobs?
Completely ludicrous argument on your behalf. We have a process for legal immigration. These people are breaking the law.
Yes, but a job loss for an American-born citizen through legal immigration, illegal immigration or outsourcing is the same from that point of view. Someone who truly believes in the free market should not support any limits to the movement of people across boundaries, except as needed to protect the security of people (i.e. screen off criminals). That means no quotas or other means to limit the influx of people competing for jobs with people already in the country.
A free market does not mean a meritless admission process. We award citizenship to immigrants who have valuable skills or large investments in America’s economy. We deny citizenship to terrorists, criminals, unskilled bums, and those who broke our immigration laws already. A free market means we get to pick and choose who we want and charge whatever price the market will bear for American citizenship. If you truly believe in a border-less America, then make sure everyone in the world pays income taxes, capital gains taxes, and property taxes to our government first.
There’s a huge difference in outsourcing. First of all, it’s legal. Secondly, unlike illegal immigration where the general taxpaying public has to subsidize the health care and social services of those illegals who use our system to compensate for the low wages they receive, those costs are borne only by those who choose to buy those products. I would much rather have Mexican nationals working in Mexican factories to make goods to sell at Wal-Mart or Costco in the US than have them over here, where I have to subsidize their health care and the education of their children.
@Guest: Have we forgotten that there are these pesky little things called laws in this country? Corporations who outsource jobs to other countries are not breaking the law while illegal aliens working in the US is. There are reasons why all countries have immigration laws. Because of high unemployment in the US, can a US citizen just walk into any country and get a job? The US has a process of changing laws that are not fair but millions have decided they’re above the law.
well, I don’t support a free movement of people across border too. But “Corporations who outsource jobs to other countries are not breaking the law”? well, it turns out that most of them pollute the environment, exploit resources, and infringe human rights. Erm.. not breaking the law.. or may be its because those countries don’t have or can’t enforce “the laws” as we do? If Mexico has an economy (rel. to US) like three-four decades ago, I don’t think these people would have so much incentives to come here.
[well, I don't support a free movement of people across border too. But
"Corporations who outsource jobs to other countries are not breaking the
law"? well, it turns out that most of them pollute the environment,
exploit resources, and infringe human rights]
The usual progressive blather. Most likely you have never seen the inside of any manufacturing environment, much less outside the US. As a process and equipment engineer, I have seen the inside of manufacturing plants owned by American companies in places such as Mexico and Malaysia, and in fact, worked myself in a maquiladora in Mexico for nearly a year. They don’t “pollute” any more than any plant elsewhere, nor are human rights abused. The workers aren’t exploited either. Yes, the wage scale is less than American workers, but that’s the law of supply and demand, especially if the workers lack a basic education and job specific training. OTOH, the cost of living in these places is a lot less than in the US. Still, pay scale AND working conditions in these plants are far better than what you would find in comparable employers in their own country. The locals don’t seem to have the same sentiments as you do, as I recall that lines 2-3 blocks long to fill out applications would form whenever these companies announced they were hiring even a dozen new personnel. But then again, I have been there – you clearly have not.
You will probably notice that most of us who don’t like illegal immigration are also not supporters of unrestricted outsourcing. I am not for totally free markets, because our country’s infrastructure can’t handle unrestricted immigration. Boundaries have to be set up with just about everything to keep the whole thing from collapsing. That is why we have a representative government with a judiciary instead of a pure democratic government. Otherwise some groups could face the direct wrath of the voters. It is also why we don’t have completely free markets. Doing that would decimate some other countries like Mexico and the US as most of some countries’ population would move to the US.
As with everything, moderation is a better policy.
["A similar argument is made by the Republicans regarding Obama’s
deportation policy. Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, commented: “How can the
administration justify allowing illegal immigrants to work in the U.S.
when millions of Americans are unemployed?” Yet, such a remark is an
overstatement."]
How is it an “overstatement”? The rationale given for turning a blind eye to illegal immigration is that they are “doing the jobs Americans won’t do”. When our country is facing real double-digit unemployment, and those communities that traditionally relay on illegal labor have local unemployment figures in the 20-30%, that argument simply won’t fly. It’s ludicrous to refuse to enforce our immigration laws when millions of our own people are on unemployment or food stamps. It’s all about votes for Obama and the Dems by flooding the country will millions of poor, unskilled and educated people who are dependent on government handouts, and would gladly vote for the political hacks who would give them a free ride at the taxpayer’s expense.
Well. I would check the stat on 20-30%. First, it is not millionS of people we are talking about in this case. Even Pew Hispanic Center’s large estimate of a 1.4 million the qualified people will not “flood” the country in such a way as you reckon; be mindful that undocumented immigrant population is increasingly distributed to states other than the ones neighoring the Mexican border, so locally the impact is much smaller. Second, undocumented immigrants pay tax. Yes they do. I will leave it to you to find that out. And plus, once they are in the job market, they have their tax deducted from their salaries too. Third, it is not just about enforcing border control and deportation. That’s a control measure, not a management measure. The action – deporting people away is far less positive than giving them the freedom to live, work and contribute to US. You don’t manage a company by kicking all the guys who you dislike away, do you? Fourth, unauthorized immigrants do contribute to the US economy. Who do you think is more likely to work their blood-and-sweat off under the scotching sun on one of our cali farms, an undocumented immigrant or an unemployed local worker? Job preference plays a big role here. Also, if we deport them away, how much extra cost will be imposed on the local business? farm, meat-packing factories etc.. these are another line of resistance against over-deportation, business will be harmed too. Republican leaders know that. It’s not about voting for Obama and the Democrats. Check out the response from the Republican leaders regarding the policy, Thanks for the reply.
[undocumented immigrant]
Why don’t you use the correct term as defined in Section 8 of the US Code, which is illegal alien?
Not every one is comfortable with the word “illegal alien”. This is not about legally correctness.
Number 1: The issue here IS about legal correctness (not political correctness).
Number 2: I don’t care WHAT you are comfortable with or not. The fact of the matter is when people start babbling that type of crap, it means they aren’t interested in dealing with the facts. Don’t waste your time here (or ours) if you’re too “uncomfortable” to deal with the truth…
How about just “illegal” with not description? Stop the game playing. A half million Mexican-Americans and illegal Mexicans marched in LA a few years ago for an amnesty. It was self serving, because if we had 13 million illegal Russians, Chinese, or Arabians, none of them would be out there marching for the amnesty. If there were 13 million Muslims marching for amnesty instead of Catholics, you would not see all those priests marching for amnesty along side them.
Legal aliens, who sign the guest list on the way in, will work just as hard as an illegal alien, we will know who they are, the tax payer is not over burdened with the health, education, transportation, or even the criminal activity of their children as an added burden. Do we as citizens have any choice in this matter?
When this Country thought we had a problem in Vietnam, I was drafted and had to serve two years, and put my life on the line. Today we have a real problem in that we cannot compete for labour with the rest of the world. Therefore, we should bring back the draft and have all these spoiled American kids spend two years picking produce, working on projects re-building bridges and roads, aid in failing hospitals, and in failing American industries, and generally working to clean up this Country. It would be good for the Country, teach a new generation respect for those who do this kind of work, and they would feel they have invested something in this Country. We teach nothing to our children if someone else has to come in and clean their behinds.
If you want people to believe that illegals pay taxes, then you need to tell them how. Outside of sales taxes, they wouldn’t pay taxes unless they have also illegally acquired a social security number.
This is not about kicking out the guys you don’t like. Any employer should have ethics, and they should fire any employee who is doing something illegal at work. Also there isn’t anything other than anecdotal pro-illegal tales about how illegals work harder than citizens. Travel the country, and you will see lots of states where citizens do all the work that illegals in California do, and those citizens are working hard. Based on your fourth point, you think of illegals as one step above slaves. You like that business can circumvent minimum wage laws and pay illegals next to nothing to increase business profits, and provide you cheaper goods.
[If you want people to believe that illegals pay taxes, then you need to
tell them how. Outside of sales taxes, they wouldn't pay taxes unless
they have also illegally acquired a social security number.]
In addition, even if they are using a fraudulent (or fraudulently acquired SSN), the amount of taxes they are paying are negligible compared to what these same illegals consume in social services, public health care, and the like. Many hospitals and health care centers in California, Arizona and Texas are in financial ruin because they are required to provide emergency health care services to anyone who walks in the door. While most of us understand that from a humanitarian perspective, the fact of the matter is that illegals often use the emergency room as a form of free clinic. For anyone to suggest that illegals are making any type of meaningful net contribution to the tax base is simply ludicrous, and the pro-illegal crowd needs to be called out when they use this particular tactic.
This is a good point you raise. It is arguably unfair when undocumented immigrants get to pay in-state college fees and use free emergency service w/o paying the necessary tax. The point I brought up earlier is that these ppl pay tax, but do realize that I didn’t make any claim that equate their tax to the locals’. These ppl go shopping too, they eat-out/go to supermarkets too, many even have cars and places to live. You really think they pay little tax? well not as much as we do.
[These ppl go shopping too, they eat-out/go to supermarkets too, many
even have cars and places to live. You really think they pay little tax?]
Oh come on now, sales tax is NOT the major tax source for states, and it certainly doesn’t pay into the federal budget. The primary sources of tax are personal and corporate income taxes, and the fact of the matter is that both at the federal AND state levels, the bottom 50% of the income spectrum pays between 3-5% of those taxes. Most illegals are clearly at the bottom of the wage scale, and in fact a considerable number of those work “under the table” and pay no income taxes whatsoever. Therefore, it’s clear that the share of individual income tax receipts can’t be more than 1.0-1.5%. OTOH, illegals DISPRORTIONATELY use taxpayers resources including healthcare and social services. Once again, you’re peddling nonsensical crap here…
I am sorry. “you think of illegals as one step above slaves”? Or YOU think of illegals as one step above slaves?
“pay illegals next to nothing”? Do you know the wage difference? Have you checked how much more they get paid here than back in their battered hometowns?
“You like that business can circumvent minimum wage laws”? I “like” that? from where did you find my affinity to such matter? I am stating the fact that these businesses will suffer if their own employees are deported. I am saying that these people are still here because there is a reason that you apparently refuse to see.
“to increase business profits, and provide you cheaper goods”? Do you think they are “increas[sing]” business profits at this time of year? And “provide you cheaper goods”, okay, so lets raise the commodity price and see how every one, including you and me will “like” it or not.
What I get out of your reply is that you like how business exploits illegal immigrants for your benefit. Instead of paying legal wages, you would prefer that our businesses pay illegals less so we don’t have to pay more. Ethical people would pay more for their purchases to ensure that laborers are treated fairly. Comparing illegal workers’ wages in the US to that in their original countries isn’t a correct comparison, because our wages are set for people to live in this country, and using that comparison, illegals are paid a lot less than they would if our laws were enforced.
The whole issue of how much illegals pay in taxes is irrelevant because they never should have taken those jobs away from American citizens in the first place. Paying taxes is just one of the inconvenient consequences they willingly put up with in order to keep getting paid illegally. It’s like a car thief stealing a car, paying for some gasoline, and then saying he should be allowed to keep that car since he now contributes to the economy.
Very good point. I will be sure to use it.
Well. I would check the stat on 20-30%.
Here you go, directly from the BLS website for April 2012:
http://www.bls.gov/web/metro/laummtrk.htm
Unemployment Rates for Metropolitan Areas
362
Bakersfield-Delano, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area
14.5
363
Stockton, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area
15.4
364
Madera-Chowchilla, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area
15.5
365
Hanford-Corcoran, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area
15.6
366
Fresno, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area
15.8
367
Visalia-Porterville, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area
16.2
368
Modesto, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area
16.4
369
Merced, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area
18.8
369
Yuba City, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area
18.8
371
Yuma, AZ Metropolitan Statistical Area
26.0
372
El Centro, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area
26.8
Once again, the pro-illegal crowd peddles the mantra that we need more illegals to do the work Americans won’t do, even though the highest unemployment in the country is in those agricultural regions that are the traditional magnet for those illegal aliens that we supposedly need so badly. I don’t suppose you have been anywhere near Fresno as of late, or you would know that there’s now a homeless camp west of the tracks near downtown that covers about 10-12 city blocks. There are similar areas in Bakersfield, El Centro, and Yuma where large numbers of clearly indigent people, primarly hispanics, are camped out in cars and tents on the edge of town, clearly homeless and unemployed. Of course, you won’t see coverage of this in the lamestream media, because as far as they are concerned, the only time this country has a “homeless” problem is when there’s a Republican administration in DC. You really, really need to get out of Berkeley a lot more often…
It is interesting how you quote the last 11 metro stat area on a list of 372 metro areas… 20-30%? I only see two of them. 330 out of 372 of the metro areas have unemployment rate below 10%…. “traditional magnet for those illegal aliens that we supposedly need so badly”, so I wonder who work on the farms when the currently unemployed people were once employed? now they are unemployed, so the group of undocumented immigrants should be deported? local gov can make the env hard to live for those immigrants, but guess what, they move to other states. Have you thought of the shear amount of $ and resource put into deportation? Why does obama annouce this “pro-illegal” policy when the deportation stats under his adm is the higher any other in history, including the Republican adms?
It is nice that you bring up these local areas. Lets talk about that.
El Centro, yes, worse-hit city in US for 2 years. Yes, lots of unemployed workers.
Have you thought of the reason why they are unemployed?
Farms do not need that many ppl to pick lettuce/asparagus. Agricultural work is seasonal, both “illegal aliens” and native workers can’t find their jobs.
Housing market crash sends thousands of construction workers out of job. Is that a problem of the undocumented immigrants?
Tighten border control, taking hours as opposed to 20 mins a decade ago, send far less visitors to El Centro, shops and restaurants suffer. A problem of the “illegal aliens”?
Is deporting them away going to solve the problem? throwing all the money on deportation? You think we don’t need any “more illegals to do the work”, guess what, here is somebody from El Centro — In the last year or so, Mr. Hargrave has laid off more than half of his roughly 40 employees. Most of them live in Mexicali, he said, and few return. “People used to say they were coming to take your jobs,” he said. “Now, we know that’s not true. They are coming to make your jobs.” http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/17/us/17elcentro.html?pagewanted=all
Okay, so its from the nytimes. So you will blame on the mainstream media? and you will blame our governor? the current administration? So changing the administration is going to solve the problem? Who left the debt on us? So your brother didn’t flush the toilet, and left it to you, you tried to flush but the stinky ‘debt’ just refused to go down. So I guess it was your fault that you ruin the toilet then? :D
Thanks for finding the BLS data!
[It is interesting how you quote the last 11 metro stat area on a list of 372 metro areas... 20-30%? I only see two of them.]
It’s interesting how you pretend not to see what’s directly in front of your face. The official numbers have improved slightly over the last 8-10 months, as when I previously checked, there were 6 areas with figures over 20%. However, anyone who knows a damn thing about the real world knows that the “official” rate actually understates actual unemployment, as illegals, people who aren’t collecting/applying for unemployment, and people who have plain given up looking for work aren’t counted. My main point still stands: there’s abnormally high unemployment in this country, particularly in the jobs and locales where the apologists for illegal aliens claim that we need all this extra labor. The argument that the crops with wither in the field and die because there aren’t enough people to pick them simply won’t fly. So why does the Left still insist we need more illegals, even when working-class American citizens are dealing with the worst economy since the Great Depression? It’s all about votes, and granting citizenship to people whose ultimate loyalty won’t be to America, but to the Democrat Party or any other group that promises them handouts and freebies (of course paid for by the rest of us with our tax dollars). But go ahead and play your silly games, if you must. It just indicates your own intellectual dishonesty on this issue…