Stevens 1 Lemuel Stevens Kim Younger English 1213, Section 0680, Proposal Argument 31 March 2006 Attrition, Congressional Support, and Diplomacy: A Solution to America’s Immigration Woes Who or what is an immigrant, and where should the line be drawn in determining the difference between immigration, and illegal immigration? According to the second edition of the Oxford American Desk Dictionary and Thesaurus, an immigrant is an individual who migrates or travels to a country and becomes a permanent resident of that country (Oxford University 405). Many countries, such as the United States, have passed many laws and policies regulating the flow of immigrants migrating to the country each year; and each year many immigrants are said to have illegally immigrated into the United States. Illegal immigration is therefore the act of an individual migrating to another country, temporarily or permanently, and in violation of the laws of that country, which regulate immigration or settlement in that country. Some people argue that immigration is often promoted as a means to solve global problems such as poverty, corruption, and overpopulation. However, immigration merely shifts global problems to the United States. The impact of illegal immigration upon American society is already overbearing, as it affects almost every aspect of America’s neighborhoods, as well as the employment factor, and numerous violent and drug trafficking related crimes. Although measures have been taken by the government of the United States to aid in curbing the flow of illegal immigrants, the impact of illegal immigration raises questions about the very stability of America. From a national perspective, America can get illegal immigration under control only if the will to do so exists;
Stevens 2 unfortunately that will has not yet existed. Only until Americans force their leaders to address the problem of illegal immigration, will levels of illegal immigrants be significantly reduced. As it is already too late to completely redesign or rethink its strategies on illegal immigration, the government of the United States needs to take a look at what policies were in existence before this eminent threat, and seek to reevaluate the effectiveness of these policies. The problem of illegal immigration in the United States may be solved by means of attrition, increased involvement of Congress, and United States establishment of closer ties with the governments of the countries with the major illegal immigrant percentages. The United States has been the world’s leading provider of economic, political, and social opportunities to immigrants of foreign countries. “This experience, among other things, has served as a laboratory for studying immigration as a means of adjusting population to resources” (Salera 3). The field of immigration research may be relatively new, however, the existence of immigration “is as old as humanity itself” (James ix). The founders of the United States were unique immigrants in that they were motivated by the idea of freedom and equality for all (James ix). However, current United States immigration policy fails to adequately safeguard the rights of certain immigrant groups. Immigration policy has also “varied from the unrestricted flow of colonial times, to exclusions and restrictive quota systems, to preference systems, and to post-September 11 security consciousness” (Becker v). America’s views toward immigration have changed considerably over the decades, especially since the American government has passed through the hands of two different political parties, each with their own ideas on immigration reform. According to an article from the summer 2004 issue of St. John’s Law Review, “today, there is a marked focus both in the political arena and in general public discourse on the problems caused by illegal immigration
Stevens 3 from Central and South America, and in particular from Mexico, to the United States” (“Border Security” 933). The department of homeland security for the United States’ government has documented a yearbook of immigration statistics, for immigrants and nonimmigrants that have entered the United States over periods of time. Mexico, a nation of Hispanics, has been documented as the country with the leading Hispanic immigrant entrees with totals of 115,864 in 2003, 219,380 in 2002, and 206,426 in 2001. Other continents such as Asia has produced a considerable number of legal immigrants to the United States with numbers of 244,759 in 2003, 342,099 in 2002, and 349,776 (HS 8). Of course, the focus here is on illegal immigration, and as illegal immigrants, there are generally limited ways of tracking the exact numbers on a year to year basis. “According to the 2000 census, Mexicans make up 30% of all foreign-born people in the United States, qualifying as the largest group of immigrants, both legal and illegal, in this country” (“Border Security” 934). Why, then, are laws passed (such as the Border Security and Immigration Improvement Act of 2003) that intend to restrict society to a select few? Why should immigration not be as free as it once was? These questions may not be amongst the list of most commonly asked questions, but they are certainly worth the while asking. Many experts have come up with different methods of dealing with illegal immigration which include mass roundups and deportation of illegal aliens as well as amnesty which was proposed by the president of the United States of America in 2004, George W. Bush, in his proposal for a “New Temporary Worker Program” (“President”). However, none of these may provide the required assistance needed to stop the continuous stream of illegal aliens flowing into the United States’ borders. Fortunately, there is the method of attrition, which can be considered a lot more humane, but at the same time, much more effective. Attrition by itself means the gradual wearing out of a
Stevens 4 particular subject (Oxford University 48). When tied to immigration, it is the process of restricting the illegal population through consistent, nationwide law enforcement, to bring about an annual reduction in the illegal population, rather than the annual increases that have accelerated for more than a decade. Over a few years, the number of illegal aliens would drop significantly, shrinking the problem from a crisis to a manageable nuisance. As a reminder, the purpose of immigration law enforcement is to stop illegal immigration, and not to persecute individuals. When looking at attrition, two main issues have to be taken into consideration: the effectiveness of current immigration polices, and the current technologies used at the nation’s borders. An overview of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), according to Marion L. Smith, shows that in 1891, the federal government assumed total control over immigration issues. “The immigration act of March 3, 1891 authorized the establishment of the U.S. Office of Immigration under the Treasury Department” (qtd in Becker 8). This first law was basically to restrict those immigrants that were suffering from some type of chronic disease; much different to the laws of today, which restrict immigrants based on location, economic means, United States policy with the immigrant’s country, as well as a host of other factors. Statistics show that the immigration rate from then on, rose steadily to a million per year. “However, it declined to less than 325,000 per year from 1915 through 1919 due to World War I” (Becker 9). It may be sadistic in thinking that maybe the United States needs to experience an internal war for the levels of illegal aliens to decrease. However, if current trends continue, then because of the rises in violence and drug trafficking that many illegal aliens take part in, it may seem that a war would be a suitable option. In 1907, another immigration act was passed that disallowed immigrants with mental disorders entry to the United States. The theory behind this restriction
Stevens 5 was that these defects would prevent them from earning a suitable living. Over the next couple of years, numerous laws were passed restricting immigrants on many different conditions. The problem of illegal immigration actually started with the Quota laws of 1921 – 1924, and has continued to plague the United States from then on. The Quota laws “limited the number of aliens of any nationality who could enter the United States to 3% of the number of foreign-born persons of that nationality who lived in the United States…” (Becker 10). Subsequently, the Border Patrol was created in 1924 by Congress to aid in maintaining the nation’s borders, in an attempt to restrict illegal aliens. Today, because of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA), there have been overwhelming rises in illegal alien migration to the United States (Becker 16-18). As this law attempted to solve the problems of job loss to illegal aliens, costs of services and welfare for illegal aliens, social fragmentation, and the loss of power at the nation’s borders, immigrants became much more desperate in finding ways to illegally attain residency. There was also another huge overhaul of the United States immigration policies in 1990, when two senators, Edward Kennedy, and Alan Simpson, “began work to change the Immigration and Nationality Act Amendments of 1965” (Becker 19). The changes made facilitated more employment based immigration, as well as a diversity based program, which allowed immigrants from those countries which were ignored before, easier access to nationalization status (Becker 19). After the Border Patrol Act of 1924, a system of appeals and deportation actions occurred (Becker 10). Out of this act, the US Border Patrol was created, and it is a “uniformed law enforcement arm of the CBP, [which] is responsible for the detection and apprehension of illegal aliens and smugglers of aliens at or near U.S. land borders – a difficult, sometimes dangerous, and often frustrating job” (Becker 79). Evidently, one would think that the United States, as
Stevens 6 powerful a nation as it may be, should not have problems securing its borders; apparently, this is not the case, as more money is appropriated for defense outside of the United States than for defense at the nation’s borders. The United States is divided into twenty-one Border Patrol Sectors; nine of those are stationed along the southwest border (Becker 79). According to a report from the Federation for American Immigration Reform In reality, most of the 2,000 mile southern border is so rugged and inhospitable that fencing is unnecessary. From the Mexican side, getting to the border often involves a 10 to 50 mile hike. Reaching a road after entering the U.S. often involves another arduous trek through mountains and desert. For this reason, the vast majority of illegal aliens who enter the U.S. cross within just a few miles of major U.S. cities. [In 1988] for example, 60 percent of all illegal aliens entering the United States were apprehended just 60 miles of borders south of EL Paso, Texas, and San Diego, California. Secure fences on those 60 miles of border alone would do a great deal to stop illegal immigration. (FAIR 10) There are 10 main border sectors of the United States: San Diego, El Centro, Yuma, Tucson, El Paso, Marfa, Del Rio, Laredo, McAllen, and the Canadian Border (FAIR 34 – 77). Only a small portion of the border can or should be fenced. The scale of illegal immigration along most of the border does not yet warrant construction of physical barriers. Instead, enforcement efforts along these sections of the border should be augmented by more Border Patrol personnel and should also be coupled with increased use of sensors and imaging devices. Various equipment used to monitor the borders today are seismic sensors, magnetic sensors, infra-red sensors, canine sensors, infra-red scopes, low light television (LLL-TV), and night vision goggles. For transportation, a wide range of vehicles is used in the detection, apprehension, and repatriation of
Stevens 7 illegal aliens. These include four-wheel drive vehicles, all terrain vehicles, airplanes, helicopters, horses, vans, and buses (FAIR 19-25). As difficult as it may seem for someone to illegally cross any of the borders, “under current practice, virtually no penalty is levied against persons apprehended illegally entering the United States…illegal aliens are generally given a free meal and a quick bus ride back…” (FAIR 26). It may seem that illegal aliens apprehended at the border, are given royal treatment; and hence, the reason why so many of them attempt to cross the United States’ borders on a daily basis. In reality, the biggest problem is monitoring the multi-million number of Americans that are processed and cleared through US air, land, and sea ports. However, it would seem that the amount of focus given to the three entry points, is not balanced across the board, and this lack of security has proven disastrous for the American society, especially after the September, 11 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center in New York. Obviously, no matter what immigration policies or border control technologies are in effect, immigrants will still find someway to illegally enter the United States. The strategy of attrition is not a fantasy, or the idle beginnings of a fictitious policy. Theoretically, there is an already significant upset in the illegal population, which can be used to accelerate the decline in overall numbers. According to a 2003 report from the Immigration and Naturalization Service, thousands of people are subtracted from the illegal population each year. From 1995 to 1999, an average of 165,000 illegal aliens per year went back home on their own after residing here for at least a year. The same number got some kind of legal status: about 50,000 were deported, and 25,000 died, for a total of more than 400,000 people each year subtracted from the resident illegal population. The problem is that the average annual inflow of new illegal aliens over that same period was nearly 800,000, swamping the outflow and creating an average annual increase
Stevens 8 of close to 400,000 (“Estimates” 1-19). A strategy of attrition would seek to reverse this relationship, so that the outflow from the illegal population is much larger than the number of new illegal settlers from abroad. This would be a measured approach to the problem, and would not be one that aspires to an immediate, magical solution. It also does not imply that illegal aliens should simply declare surrender. Why not mass deportations? If the goal is to reduce the size of the illegal population, why not stage a reprise of the ill-named Operation Wetback, the 1954 effort that used neighborhood sweeps to arrest and deport a large portion of the illegal Mexican population, in an attempt to prevent the huge Bracero temporary worker program from resulting in permanent settlement (Hoffman 1174). It is also true, that random raids at workplaces and elsewhere will always be needed as an enforcement tool. These raids may come in the form of speed traps or random tax audits, and the main purpose behind each raid would be to ensure that every illegal alien understand that he/she may be detained at any time. However, mass roundups will not occur because of two main reasons. First, the United States simply does not have the capacity to find, detain, and deport 10-12 million people in a short period of time. This is simply not a matter of needing more officers, buses, detention beds, or more modern technologies for border control, but exits because of the invention of new rights for illegal aliens over the past 30 years, and the growth of numerous attorneys whose mission is to obstruct enforcement of the immigration law by any, and all means necessary. Second, even if the United States had the capacity to magically relocate the millions of illegals, the economic disruption from such an abrupt change would make the transition much more painful than it needs to be for those businesses that have become addicted to illegal labor. According to Cynthia S. Becker, there are 6 or 7 million illegal aliens in the American workforce, concentrated in farm work, construction, hotels, and restaurants (93-
Stevens 9 101). The remarkably flexible and responsive market economy of the United States can easily adjust to the absence of these illegal workers, but it has to be stressed that it will not happen overnight. Of course, any new commitment to enforcement is going to result in short-term difficulties for some employers, but phasing in the new enforcement regime, will be necessary. One should bear in mind that attrition does not justify a significant increase in deportations. However, the numbers of deportations are quite low to begin with, so even a big increase will not address the whole problem. In fiscal year 2004, approximately 50,000 aliens were actually deported from the United States, a decrease of 5 percent from the previous year. Thus, if there are 10 million illegal aliens and United States actually deports only about 50,000 a year, deportations would have to be increased by a factor of 200 in order to solve the illegal-alien problem by attrition alone. A more realistic goal of doubling or tripling the number of deportations, as important and as beneficial as that would be, would by itself have only a small numerical effect on the total illegal population; this means that self-deportation is essential. Attrition, therefore, involves five common steps: removal of policies that create chances for loopholes, increased penalties for employers of illegal immigrants, the creation of a new employee ID system to record the status of every American over 6 month periods, tougher penalties for illegal aliens caught at the border, as well as increases in the number of random raids and tax audits at selected sites. Attrition alone cannot solve the immigration problems of the United States. However, any other solution, must be exclusively tied to attrition in order to effectively solve the illegal immigration problem. Another reasonable yet less detailed solution to illegal immigration in the United States is for Congress to start giving more support and funding for immigration reform. Although Congress has taken steps to curb the flow of illegal aliens, and immigration on a
Stevens 10 whole, more should be done. One such legislation passed by Congress was the employer sanctions legislation in the fall of 1986 which placed sanctions on those employers who knowingly hired illegal aliens (FAIR i). However, this has not stopped the flow of illegal aliens pouring into the country. Congress can do much more to improve the United States’ capacity to deport illegal aliens, by increasing resources and radically streamlining the appeals process, but the government has permitted the illegal population to grow so large that simply arresting them all is truly not possible. One such legislation that could be passed by Congress could be the levying of a $2 per person crossing fee at the nation’s borders. According to the Federation for American Immigration Reform, as this would make border enforcement self-funding, the United States could raise over $500 million a year to help improve immigration law enforcement. “These funds can be used to construct physical structures, to repatriate illegal aliens to the interior of their home countries, and to improve the service capability of the INS at busy ports of entry” (FAIR ii). But, one might reasonably ask, is not the United States already enforcing the law? Is not Congress already doing most of what would be needed to downsize the illegal population? If not, then what has been taking place for the last 20 years now? Some politicians think that the answer lies in the old Soviet joke: "We pretend to work and they pretend to pay us." The immigration law is designed to look tough but not be enforced. This has been the case since at least 1986, when Congress enacted the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA), which traded an illegal-alien amnesty for a first-ever ban on the employment of illegal aliens (Becker 16-18). The point was to weaken the job magnet, which is the main reason illegals migrate to the United States in the first place. More than 2.7 million illegals got legalized up front, with promises of future enforcement. However, only if employers had a means of verifying the legal
Stevens 11 status of new hires against Social Security or INS databases could the new system succeed; Congress refused to require the INS to start developing such a verification system. Instead, employers were expected to do the verifying themselves, by examining a bewildering array of easily forged documents, and then they were threatened with discrimination lawsuits by the Justice Department if they looked too hard. It would be hard to imagine a system more obviously intended to fail. This along with many other recent laws passed by Congress, is an example of a supposedly tough-law that has never really been enforced. If America wants to solve the illegal immigration problems, they must force Congress to give much more support, and instead of making new laws, rigidly enforce the laws that are already present. A classical example of the laid back approach to immigration would be to look at how much financial aid Congress supports the fight for illegal immigration. Billions of dollars of tax payers hard earned money is appropriated each year for defense; barely enough is appropriated for immigration reform. Is it not time for Congress to take more action on this issue? They have already seen the direct results of their laid back approach to the matter. Will they want to bare the burden of another 9 11 disaster? Supposedly the right question to ask at this time would be, is illegal immigration not inevitable? According to the INS report of 2003, “immigration can take place only if there are networks of relatives, friends, and countrymen directing immigrants to a particular place” (“Estimates” 12). These networks are a creation of government policy, either through proactive measures, such as guest-worker programs or visa lotteries, or through permitting such networks to grow through non-enforcement of the law (Becker 19). As an example, the Philippines and Indonesia are both populous, poor countries, on the other side of the world, and yet the 2000 Census found about 19 times more Filipino immigrants in the United States than Indonesians, 1.4
Stevens 12 million versus 73,000 (HS 9-11). This is simply because the United States ruled the Philippines for fifty years as a colony and maintained a major military presence there for another fifty years, allowing extensive networks to develop, whereas the United States have historically had little to do with Indonesia. When looking at diplomacy between the United States and the governments of the countries with the major illegal immigrant percentages, much emphasis has to be given to ties between the US government and the Mexican government. Ironically, these ugly trends are occurring at a time when Mexico and the United States appear to be moving forward together in fields of trade and economic interchange. In general, both nations seem to be enjoying “an era of cordial relations which is unprecedented in recent decades” (James 7). Both presidents have repeatedly demonstrated their desires for making the new relationship permanent. “They even speak of a future in which the economies of the two neighbors will be integrated” (James 7). Yet, illegal immigration stands to make serious impacts on this unprecedented virtue. Unless a satisfactory solution is reached soon, “not only could bilateral relations suffer a severe setback, but U.S. society as a whole could become torn by schisms” (James 8). If, for example, the economic and political conditions of Mexico and the remaining illegal immigrant producing nations were to deteriorate any further, the number of illegal aliens “compelled under those circumstances to cross into the United States illegally could reach the proportions of a human tidal wave” (James 8). The question of who may immigrate into a country is held under international law to be the exclusive right of the recipient nation to determine. From a global perspective, immigration tends to draw towards the United States. Many nations around the world are not as open to immigrants as the United States is. Mexican officials for example, whom are guilty of
Stevens 13 questioning the sovereignty of the United States, are the first to uphold the sovereignty of Mexico in immigration matters (James 29). Hence, as the pull factor in the United States is employment, immigration both legal and illegal will continue to have severe impacts on the United States. What would happen if the United States decided to stop accepting immigrants? How would this policy affect the rest of the world, and how would these other nations treat the United States after? As the United States is one of the richest nations today, does it not seem sane for the United States to start working on the problems of illegal immigration at the source itself? Sure enough, while attrition and congressional laws may aid in the control of illegal immigration inside the United States, the United States should begin campaigning against illegal immigration in the countries that are the major illegal immigrant producers: increased support for global human rights, more support for the fight on poverty, as well as educational programs about immigrating to the United States and what is expected of immigrants. It is important to recognize that human rights agendas provide the right of emigration, but not immigration. In other words, people everywhere should have the right to leave their country to go to a country that accepts them, but human rights’ agendas do not provide the unconditional right to break the laws of a sovereign country, including that of the United States of America. On one other note of importance regarding diplomacy, the United States needs to lead by example. Although the United States is often perceived as a model for economic and military power, democracy, and individual rights, a multitude of problems such as inability to stabilize United States population, wasteful consumption, and excessive corporate power urgently need fixing and are a poor example for the rest of the world. According to John Stuart Mill, “the only way in which a human being can make some approach to knowing the whole of a subject[,] is by hearing what can be said about it by persons
Stevens 14 of every variety of opinion and studying all modes in which it can be looked at by every character of mind” (qtd in Williams 7). Supposedly, the obvious question here is, why consider opposing viewpoints to immigration? Most opposing viewpoints would generally come from those individuals who are directly or indirectly affected by the problems of illegal immigration in the United States. Others may come from the officials of INS who may state that the technologies and policies in use today are essential to stopping the constant flow of illegal immigrants. With regards to the solutions provided to curb the flow of illegal immigration, opposing viewpoints may be broken down into two categories. First, attrition is indeed a fictitious plan that will never be instituted, and if it is, will only be an overbearing cost to the United States’ government. Second, Congress is already doing enough to fight the war on illegal immigration, and besides, there are more pressing factors to be considered such as social security, welfare, defense, and education before much more focus can be given to immigration. If this is the claim, then the United States is better off as the way it is. However, any opposing viewpoints to solutions that may assist the problem of illegal immigration, has to be prefixed with the question of how serious a problem is illegal immigration. To those people who may say that the technologies and methods in existence today, are necessary, then refuting this claim will be a simple statement of dire necessity; the technologies still have to be incorporated with complete overhauls of Americans’ attitude towards illegal immigration, both on the state levels and on the federal level. Congress needs to do more about illegal immigration and stop disregarding the obvious fact of it not truly supporting the fight against illegal immigration. The United States can bring about an annual decrease in the illegal-alien population, rather than allowing it to continually increase. The point, in other words, is not merely to curtail illegal immigration, but rather to bring about a steady reduction in the total number of illegal
Stevens 15 immigrants who are living in the United States. The result would be a shrinking of the illegal population to a manageable nuisance, rather than today's looming crisis. An effective strategy of immigration law enforcement requires no booby traps, no tanks, or no special laws to counteract illegal immigration. The consistent application of ordinary law-enforcement tools along with attrition, congressional support, and better diplomatic relations are all that is needed, in a modern world, to fight the problems associated with illegal immigration. Until the American society decides to do something about illegal immigration, then the jobs available for legal immigrants and American born citizens will continue to vanish to the hopes of illegal aliens, who have come to the American shores to escape the degradation and destitution of their birthright countries.
Stevens 16 Annotated Work Cited Becker, S. Cynthia. Immigration And Illegal Aliens Burden Or Blessing? Farmington: Thompson Gale, 2006. Immigration and Illegal Aliens: Burden or Blessing? is part of the Information Plus Reference Series. The purpose of each volume of the series is to present the latest facts on a topic of pressing concern in modern American life. This book, consists of nine chapters and five appendices, each of which totally devoted to a particular aspect of immigration in the United States. This book was chosen because of its reliability and because of the tendency for the series to provide up to the minute information regarding current issues. “Estimates of the Unauthorized Immigrant Population Residing in the United States: 1990 to 2000.” Home Page. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Apr 2003. 17 Mar 2006 . On March 1, 2003, services formerly provided by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) transitioned into the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) under U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services (USCIS). In support of the DHS overall mission, the priorities of the USCIS are to promote national security, continue to eliminate immigration case backlogs, and improve customer services. The USCIS will continue efforts to fundamentally transform and improve the delivery of immigration and citizenship services. They provide the global world with information regarding immigration statistics in the United States as well as give yearly reports on immigration activity. Federation for American Immigration Reform. Ten Steps to Securing America’s Borders. Washington D.C.: GPO, 1989. The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), the oldest and largest immigration reform organization in the United States, is
Stevens 17 keenly aware of the strengths and limitations of the new immigration law. This report, is a result of a 1987 study of the American borders, and was chosen because of its detailed outlook on the technologies in use at the borders, and the many cases of criminal violence enacted at those borders. Hoffman, Abraham. “Operation Wetback Book Review.” American Historical Review 86.5 (1981): 1174. Academic Search Premier. EBSCOhost. Cameron Univ. Lib., Lawton, OK. 20 Mar 2006 . Reviews the book Operation Wetback: The Mass Deportation of Mexican Undocumented Workers in 1954, by Juan Ramon Garcia. Homeland Security. 2003 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics. Washington D.C.: GPO, 2004. The Yearbook of Immigration Statistics presents information on migrants who apply for different legal statuses and immigration law enforcement activities. The first few chapters focus on the major legal status categories available to aliens in the United States including temporary and permanent residence, refugee status, asylum, and naturalization. Other chapters focus on enforcement actions including apprehensions of persons who violated immigration law, investigations involving criminal cases, work site enforcement, fraud, and anti-smuggling activities, and the removal of aliens refused admission or apprehended within the United States. James, Daniel. Illegal Immigration An Unfolding Crisis. Maryland: Univ. P of America, 1991. This report is the first to be published by the Mexico-United States Institute. It provides a look into the problems with illegal immigration as far as the Mexico/United States feud is concerned. It takes a look at a number of pressing issues including violation of United States sovereignty, the burden on social services and public
Stevens 18 assistance, the effects on the labor market, the increase in border violence, illegal arms and the drug traffic, the threat of urban racial and ethnic tension as well as a host of other problems. Oxford University. Oxford American Desk Dictionary and Thesaurus. 2 nd ed. New York: Berkley, 2001. Another dictionary produced by Oxford University which provides definitions for most of the commonly used words today. “President Bush Proposes New Temporary Worker Program.” Home Page. The White House. Jan 2004. 17 Mar 2006 < http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/01/200401073.html>. This site is the official news release site of the White House, and gives reports on any talks made by top officials at the white house. There are also some reports made by lesser ranked officials, but are of great importance to American society. Salera, Virgil. U.S. Immigration Policy and World Population Problems. Washington D.C.: American Enterprise Association, 1960. This book considers neglected aspects of the immigration question and does so by raising and seeking to clarify two broad issues. One has mainly a national focus, and the other an international focus. Both issues entail the contributions made by immigrants to the United States and the question of how much help the United States has given to these immigrants and the countries they come from. “The Border Security and Immigration Improvement Act: A Modern solution to a Historic Problem?” St. John’s Law Review 78.3 (2004): 933-934. Academic Search Premier. EBSCOhost. Cameron Univ. Lib., Lawton, OK. 17 Mar 2006 . This article analyzes the effectiveness of the proposed legislation on illegal immigration in the United States and its possible consequences on the migration relationship between the country and Mexico. Effects of the United States.
Stevens 19 immigration policy on Mexican migration; Problems faced by the United States due to illegal immigration from Mexico; Comparison between the Border Security and Immigration Improvement Act and Past Domestic Temporary Worker and Illegal Immigration Legislation in the United States. Williams, E. Mary. Ed. Immigration Opposing Viewpoints. Farmington: Greenhaven, 2004. This collection of opposing viewpoints to immigration was all that was needed to evaluate the claims of this report. Although none of the opposing viewpoints were directly used, this book provided sound evidence towards what opposing viewpoints may exist for the solutions provided.