Number Of Undocumented Immigrants In US At A 25-Year Low

Written by Walter Ewing

Contrary to President Trump’s claim that “large-scale unlawful migration” across the southern border constitutes a “national emergency” that requires building a wall, research suggests that undocumented immigration across the U.S.-Mexico border is actually the lowest it’s ever been in the past 25 years. The Center for Migration Studies (CMS) has issued a report with this conclusion, which reinforces the findings of a similar report released by the Pew Research Center in November 2018. 

According to CMS, the total number of undocumented immigrants in the United States has decreased by one million since 2010 and now stands at about 10.7 million. At the same time, apprehensions at the border have dropped dramatically, falling from 1.6 million in 2000 to about 300,000 in 2017—a decline of more than 80 percent. These numbers would not seem to signal an “emergency” at the border. 

CMS also reports that from 2010 to 2016, about two thirds of new undocumented immigrants became undocumented by overstaying temporary visas, while only one third entered across the southern border without authorization. A wall is clearly not going to have an impact on visa overstays. 

According to the report, the undocumented population is shrinking mostly because there are more undocumented immigrants leaving the country than coming. Undocumented arrivals fell from 1.4 million in 2000 to about 550,000 in 2007 and have continued near that level. But the number of undocumented immigrants who left the country—either of their own volition or because they were deported—kept increasing and grew from 370,000 in 2000 to 770,000 in 2016. 

This is occurring despite the fact that the U.S. labor market is in reasonably good shape, meaning that the economic “pull” factors which have traditionally drawn undocumented immigrants to the United States are not exerting nearly as much force as they once did. CMS points to heightened immigration enforcement in the United States and improved economic conditions in Mexico as likely causes of this new pattern. 

CMS points out that the official statistics they use to estimate new undocumented arrivals are likely inflated to some degree by the erroneous inclusion of Central American asylum seekers. Asylum seekers are exercising a right recognized under international and domestic law to request safe haven in another country—meaning that they are not undocumented immigrants. But in official statistics, asylum seekers and the undocumented are frequently conflated with each other. 

The declaration of a “national emergency” at our southern border may be politically expedient for the Trump administration, but it has no basis in fact. Migratory pressures along the border are at all-time lows. 

Nevertheless, the situation of asylum seekers who are being stymied by the Trump administration in their quest to seek protection in the United States is a serious problem that must be addressed. But it is a problem that a wall is not going to fix.

Source: http://immigrationimpact.com/

http://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a4039-number-of-undocumented-immigrants-in-United-States-decreases.html

Border Towns Are Among The Safest In The United States

Written by Melissa Cruz

On Monday evening in El Paso, Texas, two very different images of the U.S.-Mexico border emerged.

President Trump held a rally to make the case for his border wall again, repeating his usual talking points on the supposed dangers lurking in the region. Just a block away, former Democratic Representative from El Paso, Texas Beto O’Rourke held an opposing rally to counter the president’s claims on immigrants, refugees, border town safety, and the need for a wall. Both events were characterized as a final attempt to sway congressional leaders, who must come to an agreement on whether to provide border wall funding by Friday.

These two demonstrations show just how easy it is to stir up the public around the issue of immigration, particularly when the backdrop is the southern border region. However, the truth is the communities along the U.S.-Mexico border are among the safest in the United States.

El Paso, the site of the two rallies, has been considered one of the safest cities in the nation for the last 20 years, long before any border fencing was built.

In fact, in the last week, two governors of border states ordered their National Guard troops to withdraw from patrolling the border, calling Trump’s recent decision to deploy troops there as nothing but “political theater.”

New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham was the first to withdraw troops from her state’s southern border last week. In total, 118 National Guard troops had been called to New Mexico, traveling from Arkansas, Kansas, Kentucky, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Wisconsin.

In a statement announcing the withdrawal, Grisham said:

“I reject the federal contention that there exists an overwhelming national security crisis at the southern border, along which are some of the safest communities in the country. …New Mexico will not take part in the president’s charade of border fear-mongering by misusing our diligent National Guard troops.”

On Monday, California Governor Gavin Newsom also ordered troops to be withdrawn from his state’s southern border with Mexico. He echoed Grisham’s sentiment, saying the president had created “a manufactured border crisis.”

Other elected officials from border regions have opposed Trump’s rhetoric on the state of the border. Republican congressman Will Hurd, whose Texas district has the longest border with Mexico, called a concrete border wall “the most expensive and least effective way to do border security.” And Texas Representative Vincente Gonzalez recently pointed out that the border town of McAllen, Texas had zero murders in 2018 and ranks as the seventh safest city in the United States.

Government statistics back this up. FBI data shows that border towns have statistically lower violent crime rates than other parts of the country. Former Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Commissioner David Aguilar even testified that “border communities are safer than the interior locations of each of the border states.”

The reality of many of these border communities is simple—they have low crime rates, residents feel safe, and their elected officials understand border security does not mean a border wall. In making its decision on border security funding this week, Congress should take a closer look at where the real problems are.

 

Source: http://immigrationimpact.com/ 

http://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a4019-Border-Towns-The-Safest-In-The-United-States.html 

Promise to ‘Build the Wall’ Hurts Businesses and Residents Along the Border

Written by Tory Johnson

As the partial government shutdown stretches on, many individuals, families, and businesses around the country are struggling. At the heart of the shutdown and budget standoff is President Trump’s promise to “build the wall.” Yet for many people and businesses along the border, this is the last thing they want. 

Ahead of President Trump’s visit to the U.S.-Mexico border last week, business owners and leaders spoke out against the president’s continued demand to build additional fencing along the border. 

Business leaders in San Diego say that President Trump hyper-focusing on the wall is bad for the local economy and also an ineffective way to use taxpayer money, in part because the wall itself and the construction process can make it harder for people to cross the border at legal ports. With an estimated 90,000 northbound daily crossings at the San Ysidro port of entry, it is vital that business employees, customers, and goods or services can cross the border smoothly and efficiently. 

Businesses and communities throughout the border region have long voiced concern about the border wall and militarization stifling cross-border commerce, literally creating barriers that cut into vital revenue and relationships. 

According to Karim Bouris, executive director of Business for Good San Diego, San Ysidro businesses lost upwards of $5 million in November when the government closed the busy border crossing for several hours to install additional security barriers. In Santa Cruz County, California, businesses near the Tumacácori National Historical Park suffered when there were fewer visitors and tourists coming to the park from the Mexican side. 

Fewer tourists and shoppers means less money for the city of Nogales in Arizona, which relies on its sales taxes to pay for important services like law enforcement and sanitation. In border towns like Nogales, thriving businesses that attract new and return customers are vital to the local economy. 

But it can be hard to do this when customers can’t get across the border—or don’t want to. City Councilmember Marcelino Varona told Arizona Public Media that because of new barbed wire fencing in Nogales, “the frontier here—the border—looks like a prison system instead of a community.” 

In addition to U.S. businesses relying on shoppers coming from the Mexican side of the border, increased military presence and border fortifications negatively impact Americans visiting Mexico. For example, the U.S. government recently purchased a public parking lot in Nogales close to the border. Rather than sitting in long car lines to cross the U.S.-Mexico border, U.S. residents have parked in the lot and gone through the pedestrian crossing into Mexico, which is often a more efficient way to cross for short trips. 

The lot is currently inaccessible. After the government bought it, they closed the lot to the public and started filling it with military equipment. Without access to the lot, border residents have to park further away or skip the trip altogether—meaning fewer dollars added to the local economy and ultimately less money for public services in Nogales. 

When it comes down to it, border businesses and residents have been dealing with the presence of military personnel, equipment, physical barriers, and yes—a wall—for years. The border wall already exists and shutting down the government in an attempt to get money to build even more is a poor economic and policy decision. 

Ask those who see and cross the border every day—taxpayer dollars should fund policies that make ports of entry more efficient, safe, and support the people and businesses that make the border a viable place to live and visit.

Source: http://immigrationimpact.com/
http://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a3993-Build-the-Wall-Hurts-Businesses-and-Residents.html

2018 Closes On a Week Filled With Immigration Victories and New Challenges

Written by Aaron Reichlin-Melnick

2018 proved that the only thing you can predict about the Trump administration’s immigration policy is it’s unpredictable. On Wednesday, two separate court decisions dealt blows to the Trump administration’s efforts to deter asylum seekers. On Thursday, the administration announced an unprecedented new plan to force asylum seekers to remain in Mexico, overturning current practices in use for decades And on Friday, the president held Congress hostage as he continued to threaten to shut down the government over $5 billion in border wall funding

The most recent rollercoaster began on Wednesday morning when a federal court in Washington, DC struck down part of former Attorney General Jeff Session’s efforts to prevent victims of domestic violence or gangs from receiving asylum. The ruling prevents the administration from applying the new limits at the credible fear interview stage, the initial screening for many asylum seekers apprehended at the border. However, the ruling did not prevent Sessions’ limits on asylum from being applied in affirmative asylum interviews or immigration court proceedings. 

Later on Wednesday, a federal judge in San Francisco issued a preliminary injunction in a case challenging the Trump administration’s asylum ban for individuals who entered the United States between ports of entry. The injunction extends a previous order which had halted the plan only days after it went into effect. On Friday afternoon, the Supreme Court voted 5-4 to reject the Trump administration’s request to put the decision on hold, a further blow to the asylum ban. 

On Thursday morning, the Trump administration announced that it had taken yet another major action to halt asylum seekers from coming to the United States. It rolled out a new plan to return to Mexico those asylum seekers who arrive at U.S-Mexico border for the duration of immigration court proceedings in the United States. Details of the plan, including who it will apply to, how it will work, and where it will be used in Mexico, remain vague. 

Mexican officials expressed total surprise at the announcement, and many were wary about the effects the plan might have on border cities. One official in Tijuana told Buzzfeed News that “We don’t want that. It will create a huge problem for us.” However, the government of Mexico responded by announcing they would issue humanitarian visas and work permits to asylum seekers waiting for U.S. immigration court hearings. 

Finally, by the end of the week, the President made yet another surprising move to shut down the government over a bipartisan plan that would have funded the government into February without providing any additional money for a border wall. Despite declaring last week that he would take proud ownership of a government shutdown, on Friday morning the President instead tried to shift the blame to Democrats for voting against a bill that would provide an additional $5 billion to build a wall along the southern border. It is possible that a shutdown would continue through January 3rd, when Democrats take control of the House of Representatives. 

Rather than offering well-reasoned plans that can both survive court challenges and advance American prosperity, the administration remains relentlessly focused on obstructing asylum seekers and attacking the immigrant community. As we move into 2019, we should expect more of the same. But the time and energy spent on these efforts should instead be directed toward working with Congress to build legislative compromise to achieve what is best for the nation.

 

 

Source: http://immigrationimpact.com/ 

http://www.inmigracionyvisas.com/a3976-2018-a-year-of-immigration-victories-and-new-challenges.html

History Shows That Border Walls Don’t Work

Written by Walter Ewing in Border Enforcement

A border wall is a powerful symbol of exclusion: “We” are going to keep “them” out. And, by doing so, “we” are going to protect our people, our way of life, our society and economy from the threat that “they” represent. It’s a concept that is elegant in its simplicity. It’s the concept that launched the presidential campaign of Donald Trump when he gave a speech lauding the “beautiful southern border wall” he was going to build once in office—thereby stopping drugs, terrorists, and undocumented immigrants from entering the country from Mexico. But this is a fantasy. 

In the real world, walls don’t actually guarantee “security” in any sense of the word. It is telling that an October 14 New York Times story on the prospect of a U.S.-Mexico border wall found that “the closer you get to the border, the fewer people think that it might work—even among Trump supporters and law enforcement officials.” 

The United States is not the only country to embrace the notion of “the wall.” According to a report released on October 5 by the Migration Policy Institute (MPI), border walls have become all the rage. There weren’t even five on the planet at the end of World War II; a figure which had risen only to 15 when the Berlin Wall fell in 1989 before jumping to nearly 70 today. 

However, these walls do not live up to the hype. Even the storied Great Wall of China was not actually a single wall built at a single point in time, nor did it “work” in terms of keeping out the Mongols. Today, border walls are being built to stop people in poor countries from migrating without permission to wealthier countries. They are built to prevent refugees from Syria and Iraq from reaching Europe. And they are built to keep out ISIS terrorists. 

Border walls are not particularly effective in doing any of this. In fact, if the U.S. experiment with a Mexican border wall is any indication, the Hungarians and the British may be disappointed. The New York Times story notes that in Nogales—where fencing was built at a cost of $4 million per mile and supplemented with cameras, vibration sensors, drones, and Blackhawk helicopters—drug traffickers and undocumented immigrants still make it through. 

MPI points to three main reasons for the relative ineffectiveness of border walls. 

1. Undocumented immigrants and smugglers simply go around the most heavily guarded sections of border wall to those that are not well guarded. The obvious solution would seem to be heavily guarding a wall that covers the full length of the border, but this is easier said than done. Building and guarding a wall along all 2,000 miles of the U.S.-Mexico border—which includes deserts, mountains, and canyons—would be a monumental undertaking. 

2. As smugglers have demonstrated repeatedly, contraband goods or undocumented immigrants can be smuggled through ports of entry (hidden in vehicles) or under parts of the wall (through tunnels). 

3. Walls have no bearing on the sizable share of immigrants who come to the United States on valid visas and then over-stay when those visas expire. 

Walls may be symbolically imposing, but they don’t get to the root of the problem. A wall doesn’t put a stop to the gang warfare and extrajudicial killings that drive Central American refugees to the United States. Nor does a wall correct for the global inequalities and differences in opportunity which motivate a migrant from Mexico to search for available jobs in the United States that cannot be reached under exiting legal limits on immigration. Walls make a political statement, but they don’t actually solve anything. 

Far more effective than walls are targeted enforcement efforts and rational immigration policies. If smugglers are evading border controls, then focus on disrupting the smuggling organizations rather than detaining the undocumented immigrants they exploit. If labor demand in some sector of the economy exceeds the limits on visas for that sort of labor, then raise the limits. The demand for unauthorized labor would largely evaporate. Measures such as these yield tangible results and get to the heart of the matter in ways than walls cannot. 
Photo by Wonderlane. 

Source: ImmigrationImpact.com 
http://inmigracionyvisas.com/a3451-History-Border-Walls.html