The New York Times is in a tender mood over I.C.E. deporting illegal immigrants who haven’t killed, raped, robbed or otherwise turned to a life of crime—at least as far as we know— being deported by I.C.E. In the deliberately deceitfully-headlined “ICE Arrests Soar as People With No Criminal Record Are Increasingly Targeted” (Uh, no, illegal immigrants are being targeted. I, for example, qualify for the group “People With No Criminal Record,” and I am not being “targeted”), the New York Times writes today,
A majority of the immigrants arrested in July were people who were accused of violating civil immigration laws but who had not been charged with or convicted of a crime, an analysis of newly released federal data shows. The share with a past violent criminal conviction fell to less than 4 percent. Overall, immigration arrests rose to record highs with 43,000 ICE arrests in June and 49,000 in July. Two fatal shootings involving Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, in Texas and Maine, drew outrage but did not meaningfully slow the pace of arrests…ICE now appears closer than ever to meeting a recent goal of 2,000 daily arrests…Immigration arrests are near all-time highs in almost every state. Even sparsely populated Montana and Vermont saw spikes, with arrest rates more than doubling…
…Deportations have averaged well over 1,000 people a day since last summer, and there are signs that they are picking up speed. The number of deportation flights began rising in the spring, and in July reached a record of at least 329 flights out of the country, according to ICE Flight Monitor, a tracking effort run by Human Rights First.
My one word analysis of that report, which the New York Times presumably thinks will outrage its readers: Good. (And why would, or should, two fatal shootings involving ICE agents slow down appropriate law enforcement?)
Hey, but just for perspective and giggles, let’s see what appreciative Times readers (there are some sane comments in there too) are saying about the article:
Ethics Alarms 
There isn’t one. There is only obfuscation and denial that those in our country illegally haven’t committed a crime by doing so.
That’s my impression, but who knows? Maybe the elusive truth is out there….
When you look at the research, the ‘good’ illegal immigrants benefit upper-middle to upper class families, especially in suburban and urban environments.
The ‘good’ illegal immigrants provide less expensive nanny services that you can get from American citizens. In fact, ‘good’ illegal immigrants have been so successful in this that there are few American citizens even available for these jobs. It seems that at least 94% of nannies are legal or illegal immigrants. Illegal immigrants are cheaper and allow ‘lower’ income couples to afford nannies.
Over 50% of house cleaners seem to be legal or illegal immigrants. Same argument as above, illegal immigrants allow for cheaper house cleaning for affluent families.
Over 70,000 H2B visas are issued for landscaping workers. The number working illegally is probably similar or more. Without the illegal immigrants, the lawncare industry couldn’t find workers for what they pay.
In all three of these industries, hiring American workers would require drastically higher pay. This would have a detrimental affect on the businesses and people who rely on that low-cost labor they get from illegal immigrants.
Agriculture has the same argument.
That is the best honest argument that I can find. Of course, you could substitute slave for illegal immigrant and get the same argument from 1860. Slave labor drives out free labor.
In other words, they are exploiting illegal workers in order to pay them less. Since they are illegal, their wages are not being reported and they don’t pay into social security, either.
The Leftists who oppose removing illegal immigrants from our country, make a campaign issue out of affordability while at the same time maintaining that Americans can pay “a little more” for their pet projects, defend this how?
They do pay SS, albeit on stolen numbers. A quick look at the books (nudge-nudge, wink-wink) shows that all employees have SS numbers, fine and dandy! I can hardly believe that officials really don’t know that this goes on, but many industries rely on the cheap labor, and they don’t have to provide benefits, which also saves them a bundle. Illegals have no recourse but to take what they can get and can’t complain. I have read more than one jaw-dropping article (guess which side of the aisle they’re from) along the lines of “if you get a pension, thank an illegal worker “. I saved a quote from one of these articles. As I couldn’t believe what I’d read:
”The senior actuary of the Social Security Administration estimated that, in 2010, illegal immigrants working on borrowed or forged Social Security numbers, contributed over $10 billion into the Social Security Trust Fund, of which they will never see a dime. And that this amount has likely increased since.
If you’re over 65 and receiving Social Security, you should thank those illegal immigrants that are helping fund your retirement. ‘
That amount is recently estimated at 25 billion annually. They pay, but can’t collect, and this is touted as a benefit of illegal immigration. Shameless.
“Estimated” “Likely” I call bullshit.
Actually could be close. A quick search of illegal immigrant population estimates that 8-10 million out of 14 million are in the workforce. The math works out to salaries of $16-20k annually per illegal employee, assuming the employer is withholding and remitting. There are strong incentives to do so, as payroll tax audits are not a trifle and penalties are severe.
The cash economy, of course, does not capture payroll taxes.
According to the Social Security Administration (SSA) and non-partisan groups like the Bipartisan Policy Center and the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities:
I’ve been reading articles referring to this issue for years. Americans are finding themselves in court due to defaulted loans, DUI’s, and other issues, and it’s their first realization that their SS has been stolen.
Harm Caused to American Victims
One single recent ICE raid yielded 100 cases of identity theft.
They may be strictly prohibited from collecting Social Security benefits, but they are also strictly prohibited from
*entering the country illegally
*getting federal healthcare benefits
*SNAP
*registering to vote and voting
*using a fake Social Security number or fraudulently using another person’s Social Security number
*buying firearms
and yet all those things are happening (I believe the Des Moines, IA superintendent did almost all of those, and dealt drugs as well). Don’t pretend they aren’t getting Social Security benefits when they have a Social Security number and a fake identity. Any economist who says that they don’t draw benefits should not be believed about anything.
Don’t forget raping, stealing and killing, and having sex with a 10 year old because “it’s a thing in my country.”
“Law breaking have some beneficial effects too!” strikes me as similar to “Hitler did some good things too!” Is “It’s not all bad!” on the Rationalization List? Heck, now I’m going to have to check.
The Ethics Imbalance Rationalization or “Don’t Judge By Their Worst Day”:
It’s ethical to show compassion to someone who made a serious mistake; however, there is a tipping point. “Don’t judge someone by their worst day” asks us to dismiss a significant wrong by trying to balance some minor positives.
In your example of Hitler, Nazi Germany was one of the first modern countries to have laws protecting the treatment of animals. Hitler also was on record in opposition to smoking and its harmful effects. These are both positive things but it does not negate his worst offenses. Same is true of Jim Jones – civil rights activist and advocate for the poor – who led most of the people he claimed to care about to kill themselves.
Good catch, there. I don’t think there is one on the list quite like this one.
They probably are collecting.
What is jaw-dropping and gives me a headache every time I read one of these articles is that SS spokespersons and politicians quoted in these articles are using ‘we bilk illegals aliens for your benefit, they contribute billions they cannot collect, don’t complain that they’re here’ as a valid argument. Totally shamelessly.
Yes, it is suppressing the wages of American workers to the benefit of the American upper class. I didn’t say it was a good argument. I said it was an honest argument.
It is not exploiting if people come here for even that pay and even illegally.
Very often they come based on information from connections already here.
The people I have encountered that are really surprised are the legal immigrants who thought this is the land flowing with milk and honey. I have several legal friends who have immigrated under legal refugee pathways, arriving to be flabbergasted at the cost of living.
I don’t go around looking for illegals to ask them their perspective, but how can it be considered exploitation?
It is exploitation because much of what is called ‘undocumented workers’ is human trafficking. You look at the Pennsylvania packing plant that fired its American workers and hired a staffing firm that shuttled up Haitians (I believe) in buses. These workers worked in the factory, were shuttled to work from the corporate housing and from work to the corporate housing by the staffing company, and the packing plant paid the staffing company who was supposed to pay the workers. There was also a government subsidy that went (again I think) to the staffing company. Were those people slaves?
Slave labor drives out free labor.
Canada can have some really hyperbolic viewpoints on what they refer to as America. Like it is a single thing. What they don’t understand is that we are 50 very nearly sovereign states. No, America doesn’t really care much about Canada. American’s can hardly afford extra eggs with which to care for a neighbor let alone another country that wants the benefits that a state has without being one. Upset that we don’t congratulate them for how great they are like they do for each other. Can you tell my sarcasm co es from aggravated experience? I really have never met a Canadian I did not like though I have been baited into an attempt to prove that I fit some derogatory American stereotype.
When Canadians throw dirt like the comment you referenced they both believe and don’t believe what they are saying.
I have been convinced that comments such as that represent hurt they feel for derogative views of Canada they perceive Americans think of them. Though there is the sincerely held lunatic view that America has plans to steal all of Canada’s fresh water due to climat change.
I personally know multiple people that believe that they may not be let back into Canada if they cross the border or will not be allowed back into the US if they are on a green card.
I am convinced these people have massive unhealed emotional trauma and the medias portrayal of Trump feeds that hurt and it blossoms into mental terror.
Their comments are as unhinged as drowning victim frantically trying to climb on top of a rescuer, drowning them and ultimately their self. Is this unethical?
Now the part about being let back into the US is based on a kernel of truth. My brother was in a class in college with 5 Saudi students. One Monday, only one of the students showed up. He asked where the other 4 were and he was told “they got deported”. He thought the guy was kidding. Apparently, when you apply for a student visa, there is a checkbox to make the visa a ‘reentry visa’. All 5 had gone to the strip clubs in Windsor that Saturday night and when they got to the tunnel to come back, he was the only one who had checked the ‘reentry visa’ box on the application. He was allowed back into the US, the other 4 were held and then deported back to Saudi Arabia.
Ouch. Was that during the current Ambrosia salad presidency?
But, point taken. For clarity, I was more narrowly focused on valid green card holders being denied re-entry solely on the grounds of being non-citizens.
No, it was during the Clinton presidency.
My point is that these things do happen to legal foreign residents of the US. It is a small step to rumors that it is happening to green card holders.
I can’t give a reason to oppose deporting anyone who isn’t lawfully present, but I will say that our country required the support and grew at a pace that was incompatible with current / existing legal immigration quotas. At some point when the enforcement machine is well-oiled and people realize that there isn’t an excuse that will stave-off deportation, we, as a country, need to really show that the legal avenues are working and that outcomes for people in those pathways are much better.
I’m obviously not an economist by trade or competence, but my impression is that our economy is hiding a crash – people are carrying on, hoping to work through it and avert crisis. Part of it I would attribute to Mamdani’s pied-a-terre tax which showed that many rich NYers had bought cheap FL homes to claim FL residency to pay no income tax while they actually/secretly lived in NY. His tax flipped that dynamic because now people are getting hit with a “You own a residence in NY that you say you don’t live in”….but now all of a sudden they’re like…”Wait! I DO live here!”…..ok….where’s your income taxes?
So, now they’re all selling their cheap Florida homes…but there’s a missing class of people because there were quite a few people who didn’t have legal status. Which is fine…but we still probably need to backfill these gaps. New citizen ceremonies should be, in my opinion, running at full speed. We need to show “the good illegals” that there is a process, it works, and they should accept the offers to self-deport and cash a check* for an opportunity to come back the correct way and be welcomed with open arms.
*There are current efforts for people to accept voluntary self-deportation which comes with a one-way airfare and a $2,600 check. (From Gov’t perspective, cheaper, faster, and less man-power required than forced-removal proceedings.)
We can’t have a rational immigration system that lets in the legal immigrants we need when we have to ‘allow’ for the uncontrolled influx of illegal immigrants. We have to clear up the system so we can allow the immigrants we need in with a rational system.
I have had friends with Ph.D.s in physics and chemistry forced to leave the US despite need. We can’t keep them because we have to allow for the illegal immigrants in the number of people entering the US. One of the Ph.D. physicists wanted to stay because he was going to return to Iran and forcibly enrolled in their nuclear weapons project. We sent him back to work on the project that we are now spending taxpayer dollars and lives on to dismantle. But on the upside, some ‘good’ people got to enter and not commit too many crimes.
I’m sorry, I am still not over the fact that the nearby city has a foreigner who has raped a different woman each week for the last 3 weeks (that we know of) in the same park, has been arrested each time, and had been released to rape another woman each time because the judges don’t want him to get deported. The judges are afraid that if they hold him in jail, that ICE might come for him.
What about all the people who legally went through the process and were denied because we ‘didn’t have enough spaces’? They get the option first. The people that jump the line must go to the back of the line.
I had a coworker from Brazil who was a world-class soccer coach. He had to go back because he couldn’t get his green card when his work authorization expired. It takes an Indian professor over 10 years on average to get a green card in this country all the while trying to keep their work authorization from expiring. There needs to be fairness for the people doing it right.
Thanks for your 2 comments – were they directed at me though? They don’t seem to jive as responses to what I wrote….
I was reading a book by Victor Davis Hansen, “The Soul of Battle”, which examined the careers of Epaminondas, who crushed the Spartans; William Tecumseh Sherman, who crushed the South; and George Patton, who struck terror into the heart of the Germans and probably could have crushed them had he been given the material he needed.
One particular thesis that Davis kept returning to was the problem of slavery. And the issue he addressed was less the problem of treating human beings as chattel, and more the general stagnation that slavery built. The Spartans and the South were stagnating under their slave-driven economies. Freeman labor was more expensive, and that encouraged businesses to innovate better ways of conducting business; slaves were cheap, so one didn’t need to innovate, just acquire more slaves. Moreover, freemen were able to choose where to place their economic output as befit their talents and inspiration. Slaves were kept to manual labor and were largely uneducated. Thus the North became an industrial powerhouse while the South languished behind in both technological and economic development.
All of this is to say that arguments regarding the economic pitfalls of removing illegals from farm work and other low-wage sectors are myopic. Yes, there will be short term spikes in the cost of produce and nannies. But it is quite likely that this surplus of low-wage labor has caused a stagnation in these fields. We don’t need better means of picking strawberries, because we have so many illegals that will accept peanuts for payment. In sense, the minimum wage experiments in California and New York prove the point: making the worker more expensive leads to innovations in doing business in order to cut costs.
Moving away from VDH’s thesis, I would like to briefly offer a thought of my own about the differences between the present and the era where the United States was expanding. If we look at the Homestead Act of 1862, we had a lot of federal land that was unoccupied, and individuals could get the title to chunks of that land if they moved to it, built something on it, and lived there for at least five years. (This helped draw enough people to Wyoming that statehood became a possibility.) However, this Act was eventually discontinued because, to a large extent, all the really good land had been snapped up. Today, we have the whole of the country effectively allocated, and one has to pry federal land from the government’s cold, dead hands in order to develop on it. (Or so it feels out here…)
The upshot is, when there is plenty of open, good land to occupy and develop, limiting immigration is a moot point. There’s plenty for everyone. But once everything is locked up, now we have to manage inflow. There’s plenty of development going on, but that development isn’t as expansive as it was in the past. It can be overwhelmed, especially in today’s economic environment where new construction is so expensive. So now tightly regulating immigration is necessary to ensure we don’t over-pressure the system. This is especially true out here in the West, where we’ve been in drought conditions for the past 25+ years, and now we’re looking needing to take drastic measures to ensure we don’t drain the Colorado River dry.
Thus all those comments looking at the unhindered immigration in the past are really missing the point that situations change, and with changing situations come changing policies.
So many of the arguments in defense of illegal immigrants are emotional and irrational – they just want a better life – is always the lament.
There are at least three billion people on this planet who really could use a chance at a better life. How many can we take in? Certainly not all. The answer, as always, is to implement smart foreign policy to encourage more robust economies everywhere. The trick is to do this without letting all the money fall into the hands of scalawags and scoundrels. (Dirty Rotten)
Deporting all the illegal immigrants should free up real property and reduce rental costs, and should increase wages through market forces. Refining the legal process to attract desirable talent and reduce wait times is also a great idea.
ICE – big fan.
I can think of one concern that I didn’t see brought up here. Do you have any recommendations for people who were illegally brought to the United States as young children? Is it helpful to send them to a country they never grew up in?
What Joel Mundt said. I would be in favor of something like a fast-track system for children of illegals. I would be okay with bringing back Obama’s DREAM Act, but only if there was a time limit, wherein those who who turn 18 after being brought over illegally have one year to check in with immigration services. After that year is up, no more cutting to the front of the line. This is to discourage more families from crossing illegally.
Sorry, that is not our problem. That is a problem cause by their parents. It isn’t my job to fix all the problems that people cause themselves. What about someone who is brought up by a parent in witness protection and later finds that there are problems associated with that or a parent who commits an infamous crime and it seriously affects their life? I didn’t cause those problems and they aren’t mine to fix. When parents commit crimes, it can impact their children.
There’re multiple factors that could be in play in such situations, so there’s no one simple answer. NO solution, however, should involve the child acting as an anchor for the parent who brought it here. Classic moral hazard.
Yes. When you’re deported to the country with which you’re not familiar, do your best to re-enter this great country using legal means.
I would counter the economic benefit argument with respect to lawn care with “The fat Americans can get off their fat rear ends and push a lawn mower if they can’t afford a dirt cheap serf.”
Or, simply recalibrate expectations to have a lower maintenance environmentally pollinator healthy lawns.
This is one of the Democratic talking points that makes it evident how elitist that party really is. During debates over deporting illegal immigrants, numerous Democratic politicians have made statements to the effect of “Who is going to mow the yard?” or “Who is going to clean your toilet?”. I just keep thinking, “The same guy who is doing it now”. I also wish that my wife would pay the guy doing it now more for the job. In the last 3 homes I lived in, I couldn’t see a house from my yard that paid someone to mow their yard or clean their toilets. Internet sources say 80-90% of American households who have a yard mow it themselves (depending on how you define that). The Democratic Party really is such a party of elites that their members don’t even know an average American.
I agree that their parents caused this problem but it just might be politically advantageous to offer some compassion to the now adult children of illegal immigrants. I suggest a 30-year path to citizenship, starting now. An interim Dreamer card so they can work and live within our system. Military service could cut the path, one or two years for each year of service. Conviction of a felony – deportation. There was a suggestion to allow one year for Dreamers to check in and register – be vetted for crimes committed, receive the card. Something along these lines. Start with 30 years, negotiate to 20, put in a lot of legalese to prevent changing the rules.
It is a path, it shows that Conservatives can be realistic and compassionate – it could work.