SEATTLE (AP) — U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement reached its highest number yet of companies audited for illegal immigrants on payrolls this past fiscal year.

Audits of employer forms increased from 250 in fiscal year 2007 to more than 3,000 in 2012. From fiscal years 2009 to 2012, the total amount of fines grew to nearly $13 million from $1 million. The number of company managers arrested has increased to 238, according to data provided by ICE.

The investigations of companies have been one of the pillars of President Obama’s immigration policy.

When Obama recently spoke about addressing immigration reform in his second term, he said any measure should contain penalties for companies that purposely hire illegal immigrants. It’s not a new stand, but one he will likely highlight as his administration launches efforts to revamp the U.S. immigration system.

“Our goal is compliance and deterrence,” said Brad Bench, special agent in charge at ICE’s Seattle office. “The majority of the companies we do audits on end up with no fines at all, but again it’s part of the deterrence method. If companies know we’re out there, looking across the board, they’re more likely to bring themselves into compliance.”

While the administration has used those numbers to bolster their record on immigration enforcement, advocates say the audits have pushed workers further underground by causing mass layoffs and disrupted business practices.

When the ICE audit letter arrived at Belco Forest Products, management wasn’t entirely surprised. Two nearby businesses in Shelton, a small timber town on a bay off Washington state’s Puget Sound, had already been investigated.

But the 2010 inquiry became a months-long process that cost the timber company experienced workers and money. It was fined $17,700 for technicalities on their record keeping.

“What I don’t like is the roll of the dice,” said Belco’s chief financial officer Tom Behrens. “Why do some companies get audited and some don’t? Either everyone gets audited or nobody does. Level the playing field.”

Belco was one of 339 companies fined in fiscal year 2011 and one of thousands audited that year.

Employers are required to have their workers fill out an I-9 form that declares them authorized to work in the country. Currently, an employer needs only to verify that identifying documents look real.

The audits, part of a $138 million worksite enforcement effort, rely on ICE officers scouring over payroll records to find names that don’t match Social Security numbers and other identification databases.

The audits “don’t make any sense before a legalization program,” said Daniel Costa, an immigration policy analyst at the Economic Policy Institute, a Washington, D.C., think tank. “You’re leaving the whole thing up to an employer’s eyesight and subjective judgment, that’s the failure of the law. There’s no verification at all. Then you have the government making a subjective judgment about subjective judgment.”

An AP review of audits that resulted in fines in fiscal year 2011 shows that the federal government is fining industries across the country reliant on manual labor and that historically have hired immigrants. The data provides a glimpse into the results of a process affecting thousands of companies and thousands of workers nationwide.

Over the years, ICE has switched back-and-forth between making names of the companies fined public or not. Lately, ICE has emphasized its criminal investigations of managers, such as a Dunkin’ Donuts manager in Maine sentenced to home arrest for knowingly hiring illegal immigrants or a manager of an Illinois hiring firm who got 18 months in prison.

Many employers also wonder how ICE picks the companies it probes.

“Geography is not a factor. The size of the company is not a factor. And the industry it’s in is not a factor. We can audit any company anywhere of any size,” Bench said. He added ICE auditors follow leads from the public, other employers, employees and do perform some random audits.

But ICE auditors hit ethnic stores, restaurants, bakeries, manufacturing companies, construction, food packaging, janitorial services, catering, dairies and farms. The aviation branch of corporate giant GE, franchises of sandwich shop Subway and a subsidiary of food product company Heinz were among some of the companies with national name recognition. GE was fined $2,000.

In fiscal year 2011, the most recent year reviewed by AP, the median fine was $11,000. The state with the most workplaces fined was Texas with 63, followed by New Jersey with 37.

The lowest fine was $90 to a Massachusetts fishing company. The highest fine was $394,944 to an employment agency in Minneapolis, according to the data released to AP through a public records request.

A Subway spokesman said the company advises franchise owners to follow the law. A Heinz spokesman declined comment.

Bench didn’t have specifics on what percentage of fines come from companies having illegal immigrants on their payroll, as opposed to technical paperwork fines in recent years.

Julie Wood, a former deputy director at ICE who now runs a consulting firm, said she’d like to see the burden of proving the legality of a company’s workforce go from the employer to the government. She’d like to see a type of program, such as E-Verify, be implemented with the I-9 employment form. E-Verify is a voluntary and free program for private employers that checks a workers eligibility.

“At the end of the day, the fine is the least of it,” she said. “Usually the company will spend more on legal fees. But it is a huge headache for the company to lose workers.”

Wood said she’d like to see the agency go after more criminal charges and focus on companies that treat workers inhumanely.

Copyright 2012 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

• Immigration
• The Economic Logic of Illegal Immigration

Council Special Report

The Economic Logic of Illegal Immigration

Author: Gordon H. Hanson, Professor of Economics, University of California, San Diego

Download Now

Order Print EditionPublisher Council on Foreign Relations Press

Release Date April 2007

Price $10.00

56 pages
ISBN 978-0-87609-401-3
Council Special Report No. 26

Overview

Immigration reform is one of the most divisive issues confronting U.S. policymakers.

The rise in the number of illegal immigrants in the United States over the past ten years—from five to twelve million—has led to concerns about the effects of illegal immigration on wages and public finances, as well as the potential security threats posed by unauthorized entry into the country. In the past year alone, the governors of New Mexico and Arizona have declared a “state of emergency” over illegal immigration, and President Bush signed into law the Secure Fence Act, which authorizes the spending of $1.2 billion for the construction of a seven-hundred-mile fence along the U.S.-Mexico border.

In this Council Special Report, Professor Gordon H. Hanson of the University of California, San Diego approaches immigration through the lens of economics. The results are surprising. By focusing on the economic costs and benefits of legal and illegal immigration, Professor Hanson concludes that stemming illegal immigration would likely lead to a net drain on the U.S. economy—a finding that calls into question many of the proposals to increase funding for border protection. Moreover, Hanson argues that guest worker programs now being considered by Congress fail to account for the economic incentives that drive illegal immigration, which benefits both the undocumented workers who desire to work and live in the United States and employers who want flexible, low-cost labor. Hanson makes the case that unless policymakers design a system of legal immigration that reflects the economic advantages of illegal labor, such programs will not significantly reduce illegal immigration. He concludes with guidelines crucial to any such redesign of U.S. laws and policy. In short, Professor Hanson has written a report that will challenge much of the wisdom (conventional and otherwise) on the economics behind a critical and controversial issue.

Part of the Bernard and Irene Schwartz Series on American Competitiveness.

More on… United States, Immigration

Share

More About This Publication

• Reviews & Endorsements
• The Author

Read the Economist review.

To submit a letter in response to a Council Special Report for publication on our website, CFR.org, you may send an email to CSReditor@cfr.org. Alternatively, letters may be mailed to us at:

Publications Dept.
Council on Foreign Relations
58 East 68th Street
New York, NY 10065

Letters should include the writer’s name, postal address, and daytime phone number. Letters may be edited for length and clarity, and may be published online. Please do not send attachments. All letters become the property of the Council on Foreign Relations and will not be returned. We regret that, owing to the volume of correspondence, we cannot respond to every letter.

Subscribe to This Month in Geoeconomics

Receive monthly updates on how economic and political forces are interacting to shape world affairs, from CFR’s Maurice R. Greenberg Center for Geoeconomic Studies.

• View this month’s enewsletter
• Sign up for other CFR enewsletters

CFR Blog: Renewing America

Edward Alden and others explore ideas and initiatives for rebuilding American economic strength.

---

• Playing Fast and Loose with the Debt Limit
• Policy Initiative Spotlight: Oklahoma City MAPS Out Revitalization
• The Folly of State Subsidies, Part Two

Receive Blog Posts by EmailSubscribe to the Blog Feed

Ebook on Iran’s Nuclear Regime

• Iran: The Nuclear ChallengeIn what may be the clearest picture of Iran’s nuclear program to date, CFR scholars map the objectives, tools, and strategies for dealing with one of the most vexing issues facing the United States and global community today.

  Available in Kindle, Nook, Sony Reader, iBook, Kobo, and paperback versions

• Read an excerpt

Subscribe to Foreign Affairs

Nov/Dec 2012 IssueBroken BRICs: The Myth of the Rise of the Rest

Asia Pivot: Obama’s New Policy Is Unnecessary

Why It’s Hard to Make It in America

subscribe now

---

Published by the Council on Foreign Relations since 1922

Independent Task Force Reports

• U.S.-Turkey RelationsThis Independent Task Force asserts that Turkey is an increasingly influential regional and economic power and calls for the United States and Turkey to forge a new partnership.
• U.S. Education Reform and National SecurityThis Independent Task Force report asserts that fixing the nation’s underperforming K-12 public schools is critical for strengthening the country’s security and increasing its economic competitiveness.

• About Independent Task Forces at CFR
• Complete list of Task Force reports

Permissions Requests

To request permission to reprint or reuse CFR material, please fill out this permissions request form (PDF), referring to the instructions on page 1.

More on This Topic

Book

Renewing America

Skilled Immigration Today

Authors: Jagdish N. Bhagwati and Gordon H. Hanson
March 2009

While immigration reform usually refers to unskilled labor, skilled immigration requires different policy action. Bhagwati and Hanson bring…

Must Read

Transition 2012

Politico: The GOP’s Immigration Jam

Authors: Jim Vandehei and Mike Allen
December 10, 2012

The GOP is facing some internal conflict as Republicans are finding themselves divided over the issue of immigration reform under President…

Video

The Immigrant Exodus: Why America is Losing the Global Race to Capture Entrepreneurial Talent

Speaker: Vivek Wadhwa
Presider: Edward Alden
October 5, 2012

Vivek Wadhwa discusses his work with AnnaLee Saxenian of Berkeley on the critical contributions of immigrant entrepreneurs to the rise of…

Audio

“The Immigrant Exodus: Why America is Losing the Global Race to Capture Entrepreneurial Talent” (Audio)

Speaker: Vivek Wadhwa
Presider: Edward Alden
October 5, 2012

Vivek Wadhwa discusses his work with AnnaLee Saxenian of Berkeley on the critical contributions of immigrant entrepreneurs to the rise of…

STOPfakes.gov

IPR information and assistance

Advanced Search

Latest Releases

	Inmate population in jail jurisdictions reporting on the number of confined non-U.S. citizens, midyear 2000-2008
	Reported number of non-U.S. citizens held in state or federal prisons, by gender, region, and jurisdiction, June 30, 2007-2008
	Prisoners in 2007
	Number of detainees held by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), by facility type, December 31, 2006 and 2007
	Number of detainees in custody by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement authorities, by offense type, December 31, 2007

MORE LATEST RELEASES

FAQs

• What is the difference between jurisdiction and custody counts?

MORE FAQs

Home | Corrections | Special populations | Immigration and Customs Enforcement

Immigration and Customs Enforcement

On This Page

About this Topic Publications & Products

Terms & Definitions

About this Topic

BJS collects data on both noncitizens held in state or federal prison or local jail, and on persons held by the U.S. Immigration of Customs and Enforcement (ICE). Note – there is an important difference between the terms noncitizens and inmates held by or for ICE. See Terms and Definitions for more information.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement detainees - BJS obtains yearend prison counts of persons detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), formerly the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, an agency within the Department of Homeland Security. The Annual Survey of Jails also collects jail counts persons held for ICE. ICE inmates may be held for immigration violations in federal, state, and locally operated prisons and jails, privately-operated facilities under exclusive contract, and ICE-operated facilities.

Summary Findings

From Prisoners in 2007:

Appendix table 7. Estimated number of sentenced prisoners under state or federal jurisdiction, by gender, race, Hispanic origin, and age, December 31, 2007

	Malea							Femalea
Age	Totalb		Whitec		Blackc		Hispanic		Totalb		Whitec		Blackc		Hispanic
Total	1,427,300		471,400		556,900		301,200		105,500		50,500		29,300		17,600
18-19	23,700		6,400		10,200		5,000		1,000		400		300		200
20-24	207,900		58,800		84,200		49,600		11,600		5,400		3,000		2,300
25-29	246,000		65,300		102,100		61,500		16,000		7,300		4,400		3,200
30-34	237,200		69,800		96,200		55,300		18,400		8,900		5,000		3,200
35-39	225,000		74,200		89,200		46,600		20,900		9,900		6,000		3,300
40-44	201,700		74,800		76,700		36,100		18,100		8,700		5,200		2,700
45-49	135,200		52,400		50,500		22,800		10,700		5,200		3,100		1,500
50-54	75,000		31,000		26,600		12,500		5,000		2,400		1,400		700
55-59	38,600		18,600		11,700		6,200		2,100		1,200		500		300
60-64	18,900		10,500		4,600		2,900		900		600		200		100
65 or older	15,500		9,000		3,600		2,200		600		400		100		100
Note: Sentenced prisoner counts are based on estimates by gender, race, Hispanic origin, and age from the 2005 Survey of Inmates in State Correctional Facilities and updated form jurisdiction counts by gender at yearend 2007. Federal sentenced prisoner counts are based on data from the BJS Federal Justice Statistics Program from September 30, 2007, and updated from jurisdiction counts at yearend 2007.
aSentenced prisoners are limited to those sentenced to more than 1 year.
bTotal includes American Indians, Alaska Natives, Asians, Native Hawaiians, other Pacific Islanders, and persons identifying two or more races.
cExcludes Hispanics and persons identifying two or more races.

Appendix table 18. Number of detainees held by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), by facility type, December 31, 2006 and 2007

Facility type			2006		2007		Percent change, 2006-2007
Total			27,368		30,431		11	%
	Intergovernmental Service Agreement and Bureau of Prisons		17,753		20,711		16.7
	ICE owned and contract		9,615		9,720		1.1
Note: Not comparable with numbers reported prior to 2006. The classification of categories have changed.

Appendix table 19. Number of detainees in custody by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement authorities, by offense type, December 31, 2007
				Change, 2006-2007
Reason held		2006	2007	Number of detainees		Percent change
Total		27,368	30,431	3,063		11.2	%
	Immigration law violation	13,427	13,580	153		1.1
	Criminal offense	11,687	12,889	1,202		10.3
	Pending charge/disposition	2,254	3,962	1,708		75.8

From Jail Inmates at Midyear 2008 – Statistical Tables–

Table 9. Inmate population in jail jurisdictions reporting on confined persons being held for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, midyear 2002-2008

					Confined persons held for ICE
Year		Number of reporting jurisdictions		Total number of inmates		Number	Percent
2002		2,961		626,870		12,501	2.0%
2003		2,940		637,631		13,337	2.1
2004a		2,962		673,807		14,120	2.1
2005		2,824		703,084		11,919	1.7
2006b		2,784		698,108		13,598	1.9
2007c		2,713		683,640		15,063	2.2
2008		2,699		704,278		20,785	3.0
aBased on revised data for 2004. bBased on revised data from selected jail jurisdictions for 2006. See Methodology for a description of revised data. cBased on revised data from selected jail jurisdictions for 2007. See Methodology for a description of revised data.

Confined non-U.S. citizens in local jails:
BJS obtains annual jail counts of non-U.S. citizens through the Annual Survey of Jails. The following table is from Jail Inmates at Midyear 2008 – Statistical Tables:

Table 8. Inmate population in jail jurisdictions reporting on the number of confined non-U.S. citizens, midyear 2000-2008

Non-U.S. citizens
Year	Number of reporting jurisdictions	Total number of inmates	Number	Percent
2000	2,775	455,590	27,680	6.1%
2001	2,693	444,430	27,147	6.1
2002	2,747	453,641	32,067	7.1
2003	2,718	511,957	33,392	6.5
2004	2,737	536,862	35,984	6.7
2005	2,513	516,199	30,082	5.8
2006a	2,393	477,323	33,428	7.0
2007b	2,416	504,370	38,842	7.7
2008	2,363	533,249	47,934	9.0
aBased on revised data from selected jail jurisdictions for 2006. See Methodology for a description of revised data.
bBased on revised data from selected jail jurisdictions for 2007. See Methodology for a description of revised data.

Confined non-U.S. citizens in state or federal prison:
BJS obtains annual prison counts of non-U.S. citizens through the National Prisoner Statistics. The following table is from Prison Inmates at Midyear 2008 – Statistical Tables –

Table 20. Reported number of non-U.S. citizens held in state or federal prisons, by gender, region, and jurisdiction, June 30, 2007-2008

		2007			2008
Region and jurisdiction		Total	Male	Female	Total	Male	Female
U.S. Total		87,235	83,666	3,569	94,724	88,061	3,888
	Federal	31,469	29,348	2,121	28,995	26,908	2,087
	State	55,766	54,318	1,448	65,729	61,153	1,801
Northeast		9,055	8,726	329	9,036	8,751	285
	Connecticuta	788	734	54	742	710	32
	Maine	15	14	1	16	16	0
	Massachusetts	958	917	41	914	874	40
	New Hampshire	52	49	3	/	/	/
	New Jersey	/	/	/	/	/	/
	New Yorkb	6,716	6,496	220	6,334	6,148	186
	Pennsylvania	507	500	7	1,008	985	23
	Rhode Islanda	/	/	/	/	/	/
	Vermonta	19	16	3	22	18	4
Midwest		3,238	3,175	103	3,243	3,131	112
	Illinois	/	/	/	/	/	/
	Indiana	450	439	11	468	454	14
	Iowa	200	195	5	186	183	3
	Kansas	281	276	5	283	278	5
	Michigan	621	614	7	615	608	7
	Minnesota	284	275	9	311	302	9
	Missourib	447	423	24	440	411	29
	Nebraska	175	174	1	187	184	3
	North Dakota	16	15	1	12	11	1
	Ohio	699	660	39	685	644	41
	South Dakota	65	64	1	56	56	0
	Wisconsin	/	/	/	/	/	/
South		16,169	15,717	452	23,240	22,582	658
	Alabama	108	105	3	117	113	4
	Arkansas	174	168	6	174	168	6
	Delawarea	307	295	12	360	342	18
	Florida	/	/	/	6,101	5,885	216
	Georgia	1,906	1,849	57	1,766	1,738	28
	Kentucky	44	43	1	83	80	3
	Louisiana	107	100	7	106	103	3
	Marylandb	570	549	21	686	663	23
	Mississippi	/	/	/	/	/	/
	North Carolina	1,461	1,430	31	1,687	1,641	46
	Oklahomac	339	326	13	363	348	15
	South Carolina	309	303	6	376	371	5
	Tennesseeb	233	227	6	250	243	7
	Texas	9,422	9,185	237	9,940	9,700	240
	Virginia	1,187	1,135	52	1,223	1,179	44
	West Virginia	2	2	0	8	8	0
West		27,304	26,740	564	30,210	26,689	746
	Alaskaa	14	14	0	14	13	1
	Arizona	4,874	4,797	77	5,605	5,497	108
	Californiad	18,447	18,060	387	17,010	16,575	435
	Coloradob	1,123	1,093	30	1,112	1,082	30
	Hawaiia	99	94	5	99	92	7
	Idaho	292	282	10	324	312	12
	Montana	5	5	0	13	13	0
	Nevadae	1,053	1,029	24	2,775	/	/
	New Mexico	156	156	0	120	120	0
	Oregon	/	/	/	1,746	1,643	103
	Utah	232	229	3	263	260	3
	Washington	945	918	27	1,075	1,029	46
	Wyoming	64	63	1	54	53	1
/Not reported.
aPrisons and jails form one integrated system. Data include total jail and prison populations.
bNon-U.S. citizen defined as foreign-born.
cNon-U.S. citizen defined as inmates held by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) or categorized as being of alien status.
dNon-U.S. citizen defined as inmates held by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
eNevada was unable to provide gender breakouts for 2008.

Back to Top

Publications & Products

•  Publications 
•  Data Tables 

•  Press Releases

Prisoners in 2007 Presents data on prisoners under jurisdiction of federal or state correctional authorities on December 31, 2007, collected from the National Prisoner Statistics series.
	Press Release | PDF (194K) | ASCII file (34K) | Spreadsheet (Zip format 39K) | To order paper version Part of the Prisoners Series
Prisoners in 2006 Reports the number of persons in State and Federal prisons at yearend, compares the increase in the prison population during 2006 with the previous year, and presents prison growth rates since 2000.
	Press Release | PDF (268K) | ASCII file (20K) | Spreadsheet (Zip format 22K) | To order paper version Part of the Prisoners Series
Prisoners in 2005 Reports the number of persons in State and Federal prisons at yearend, compares the increase in the prison population during 2005 with the previous year, and presents prison growth rates since 1995.
	Press Release | PDF (229K) | ASCII file (32K) | Spreadsheet (Zip format 23K) | To order paper version Part of the Prisoners Series
Prisoners in 2004 Reports the number of persons in State and Federal prisons at yearend, compares the increase in the prison population during 2004 with that of the previous year, and gives the prison growth rates since 1995.
	Press Release | PDF (193K) | ASCII file (43K) | Spreadsheet (Zip format 23K) | To order paper version Part of the Prisoners Series
Prisoners in 2003 Reports the number of persons in State and Federal prisons at yearend, compares the increase in the prison population during 2003 with that of the previous year, and gives the prison growth rates since 1995.
	Press Release | PDF (602K) | ASCII file (33K) | Spreadsheet (Zip format 21K) | To order paper version Part of the Prisoners Series
Prisoners in 2002 Reports the number of persons in State and Federal prisons at yearend, compares the increase in the prison population during 2002 with that of the previous year, and gives the prison growth rates since 1995.
	Press Release | PDF (335K) | ASCII file (40K) | Spreadsheet (Zip format 46K) | To order paper version Part of the Prisoners Series
Immigration Offenders in the Federal Criminal Justice System, 2000 Describes the number of immigration offenders prosecuted in Federal court between 1985 and 2000.
	Press Release | PDF (385K) | ASCII file (42K) | Spreadsheet (44K) | Codebooks and Datasets | To order paper version
Prisoners in 2001 Reports the number of persons in State and Federal prisons at yearend, compares the increase in the prison population during 2001 with that of the previous year, and gives the prison growth rates since 1995.
	Press Release | PDF (168K) | ASCII file (40K) | Spreadsheet (Zip format 63K) Part of the Prisoners Series
Prisoners in 2000 Reports the number of persons in State and Federal prisons at yearend, compares the increase in the prison population during 2000 with that of the previous year, and gives the prison growth rates since 1990.
	Press Release | PDF (104K) | ASCII file (43K) | Spreadsheet (Zip format 52K) Part of the Prisoners Series
Profile of Jail Inmates, 1996 Presents data about local jail inmates: their demographic characteristics, offenses, conviction status, criminal histories, sentences, time served, drug and alcohol use and treatment, family background, physical and mental health care, and conditions of confinement.
	Press Release | PDF (138K) | ASCII file (49K) | Spreadsheet (Zip format 49K) | Codebooks and Datasets

MORE PUBLICATIONS & PRODUCTS

Back to Top

Terms & Definitions

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detainees	ICE holds persons for immigration violations in federal, state, and locally operated prisons and jails, as well as in privately-operated facilities under exclusive contract and ICE-operated facilities. Persons serving time in a local jail or in state or federal prison for either a criminal or immigration offense may be turned over to ICE after completing their sentence.

Back to Top

Bureau of Justice Statistics About Us BJS Data Quality Guidelines BJS Statistical Principals and Practices Scientific Integrity Statement OJP Freedom of Information Act Legal Policies and Disclaimers Jobs

Web Site Home Site Map Related Links FAQ Terms and Definitions Help A-Z Topical Index Department of Justice

Partners Crime SOLUTIONS.gov Federal Bureau of Investigation Federal Justice Statistics Resource Center National Archive of Criminal Justice Data (NACJD) Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics

Stay Connected Contact Us Subscribe to “JUSTSTATS” BJS RSS Feed GOV Delivery: Start, Change or Cancel Your Subscription

Page last revised on 12/23/2012

Page Last Reviewed or Updated: December 20, 2012

Illegal immigration to the United States is the act of foreign nationals entering the United States, without government permission and in violation of United States nationality law, or staying beyond the termination date of a visa, also in violation of the law.

The illegal immigrant population of the United States in 2008 was estimated by the Center for Immigration Studies to be about 11 million people, down from 12.5 million people in 2007.^[1] Other estimates range from 7 to 20 million.^[2] According to a Pew Hispanic Center report, in 2005, 56% of illegal immigrants were from Mexico; 22% were from other Latin American countries, primarily from Central America;^[3] 13% were from Asia; 6% were from Europe and Canada; and 3% were from Africa and the rest of the world.^[3]

A warning sign at the international boundary between the United States and Canada in Point Roberts, Washington.

Profile and demographics

Illegal immigrants continue to outpace the number of legal immigrants —a trend that’s held steady since the 1990s. While the majority of illegal immigrants continue to concentrate in places with existing large Hispanic communities, increasingly illegals are settling throughout the rest of the country.^[4]

An estimated 14 million people live in families in which the head of household or the spouse is in the United States illegaly .^[4] The number of illegal immigrants arriving in recent years tend to be better educated than those who have been in the country a decade or more. A quarter of all immigrants who have arrived in recent years have at least some college education. Nonetheless, illegal immigrants as a group tend to be less educated than other sections of the U.S. population: 49 percent haven’t completed high school, compared with 9 percent of native-born Americans and 25 percent of legal immigrants.^[4]

Undocumented immigrants work in many sectors of the U.S. economy. According to National Public Radio in 2005, about 3 percent work in agriculture; 33 percent have jobs in service industries; and substantial numbers can be found in construction and related occupations (16 percent), and in production, installation, and repair (17 percent).^[4] According to USA Today in 2006, about 4 percent work in farming; 21 percent have jobs in service industries; and substantial numbers can be found in construction and related occupations (19 percent), and in production, installation, and repair (15 percent), with 12% in sales, 10% in management, and 8% in transportation.^[5] Illegal immigrants have lower incomes than both legal immigrants and native-born Americans, but earnings do increase somewhat the longer an individual is in the country.^[4]

A percentage of illegal immigrants do not remain indefinitely but do return to their country of origin; they are often referred to as “sojourners: they come to the United States for several years but eventually return to their home country.”^[6]

Breakdown by state

As of 2006,^[7] the following data table shows a spread of distribution of locations where illegal immigrants reside by state.

Number of illegal immigrants

According to the Government Accountability Office (GAO), different estimates of the total number of illegal immigrants vary depending on how the term is defined.^[8] There are also questions about data reliability.^[8]

The GAO has stated that “it seems clear that the population of undocumented foreign-born persons is large and has increased rapidly.”^[8] On April 26, 2006 the Pew Hispanic Center (PHC) estimated that in March 2005 the number of illegal immigrants in the U.S. ranged from 11.5 to 12 million individuals.^[9] This number was derived by a statistical method known as the “residual method.”^[8] According to the General Accounting office the residual estimation (1) starts with a census count or survey estimate of the number of foreign-born residents who have not become U.S. citizens and (2) subtracts out estimated numbers of legally present individuals in various categories, based on administrative data and assumptions (because censuses and surveys do not ask about legal status). The remainder, or residual, represents an indirect estimate of the size of the illegal immigrant population.^[8] Using the residential method, several different estimates of the number of illegal immigrants present in the United States have been derived:

• In August, 2006, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) placed the illegal immigrant population at 10.5 million as of January 2005 and indicates that if recent trends continued, the figure for January 2006 would be 11 million.^[10]
• The Pew Hispanic Center’s indirect estimate of the number of illegal immigrants as of 2006 was 11.5 million to 12 million. These estimates represented roughly one-third of the entire foreign-born population.^[11]
• According to the General Accounting Office, DHS had variously estimated the size of the illegal immigrant population as of January 2000 as 7 million and 8.5 million.^[8]

Some unofficial private estimates put the number even higher^[12]

From 2005 to 2009, the number of people entering the U.S. illegally declined by nearly 67%, according to the Pew Hispanic Center, from 850,000 yearly average in the early 2000s to 300,000.^[13]

Births

The Pew Hispanic Center determined that according to an analysis of Census Bureau data about 8 percent of children born in the United States in 2008 — about 340,000 — were offspring of illegal immigrants. In total, 4 million U.S.-born children of illegal immigrant parents resided in this country in 2009 (alongside 1.1 million foreign-born children of illegal immigrant parents).^[14] These infants are, according to the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, American citizens from birth. These children are sometimes pejoratively referred to as anchor babies by those aggressively opposed to this method of citizenship attained outside of the legal immigration process.^{[citation needed]}

The majority of children that are born with illegal parents fail to graduate high school, averaging two fewer years of school than their peers. But once the parents do gain citizenship the children do much better in school. Reason for this decline in school is thought to be because of many issues not limited to but including stress, pressure to work at a younger age, and not having the economic resources needed to get higher education. ^[15]

Present-day countries of origin

According to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the countries of origin for the largest numbers of illegal immigrants are as follows (latest of 2009):^[7]

The Urban Institute estimates “between 65,000 and 75,000 undocumented Canadians currently live in the United States.”^[16]

Definition

People can be termed illegal immigrants in one of three ways: by entering without authorization or inspection, by staying beyond the authorized period after legal entry, or by violating the terms of legal entry.^[17] Their mode of violation breaks down as follows: If the suspect entered legally without inspection, then the suspect would be classified as either a “Non-Immigrant Visa Overstayer” (4 to 5.5 million) or a “Border Crossing Card Violator” (250,000 to 500,000). Together, legal entries account for 4.5–6 million illegal migrants, just under half of the total population. If the suspect entered illegally without inspection, then the suspect would be classified as having “Evaded the Immigration Inspectors and Border Patrol”. This mode of entry accounts for 6 to 7 million people, slightly more than half of the total population.^[18]

Illegal entry

The Pew Hispanic Center estimates that 6–7 million illegal immigrants came to the United States via illegal entry, accounting for probably a little over half of the total population.^[18] There are an estimated half million illegal entries into the United States each year.^[18][19]

A common means of border crossing is to hire professionals who smuggle illegal immigrants across the border for pay. Those operating on the US-Mexico border are known informally as “coyotes”.^[19]

Visa overstay

According to Pew, between 4 and 5.5 million illegal immigrants entered the United States with a legal visa, accounting for between 33–50% of the total population.^[18] A tourist or traveler is considered a “visa overstay” once he or she remains in the United States after the time of admission has expired. The time of admission varies greatly from traveler to traveler depending on what visa class into which they were admitted. Visa overstays tend to be somewhat more educated and better off financially than those who entered the country illegally.^[20]

To help track visa overstayers the US-VISIT (United States Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology) program collects and retains biographic, travel, and biometric information, such as photographs and fingerprints, of foreign nationals seeking entry into the United States. It also requires electronic readable passports containing this information.

Visa overstayers mostly enter with tourist or business visas.^[18] In 1994, more than half^[21] of illegal immigrants were Visa overstayers whereas in 2006, about 45% of illegal immigrants were Visa overstayers.^[22]

Border Crossing Card violation

A smaller number of illegal immigrants entered the United States legally using the Border Crossing Card, a card that authorizes border crossings into the U.S. for a set amount of time. Border Crossing Card entry accounts for the vast majority of all registered non-immigrant entry into the United States – 148 million out of 179 million total – but there is little hard data as to how much of the illegal immigrant population entered in this way. The Pew Hispanic Center estimates the number at around 250,000–500,000.^[18]

Causes

The United States is viewed worldwide as a highly desirable destination by would-be migrants. International polls by the Gallup organization have found that more than 165 million adults in 148 foreign countries would, if they could, move to the US, which is the most desired destination for migrants.^[23] Most immigrants who come to the United States come for better opportunities for employment, avoidance of political oppression, the opportunity to rejoin their loved ones, for the prospect of providing better lives for themselves and their children, and for the educational and medical services benefits.^[24]

Causes by region

In general illegal immigrants from Mexico and Central America come for economic reasons, but also sometimes due to political oppression.^[24] From Asia, they come for economic reasons but some come involuntarily as indentured servants or sex slaves.^[24] From Sub-Saharan Africa, they come for economic activities and there is some chance of slave trade.^[24] From Eastern Europe, they come for economic activities and to rejoin family already in the United States. However, there are also some who come involuntarily who work in the sex industry.^[24] From the Middle East, they come for economic activities, similar to all listed above. However, there is a small number from areas where Al-Qaeda is influential, that may come with the intention of committing acts of terror upon American citizens and institutions.

Economic incentives

The continuing practice of hiring unauthorized workers has been referred to as “the magnet for illegal immigration.” As a significant percentage of employers are willing to hire illegal immigrants for higher pay than they would typically receive in their former country, illegal immigrants have prime motivation to cross borders.^[25]

In 2003, then-President of Mexico, Vicente Fox stated that remittances “are our biggest source of foreign income, bigger than oil, tourism or foreign investment” and that “the money transfers grew after Mexican consulates started giving identity cards to their citizens in the United States.” He stated that money sent from Mexican workers in the United States to their families back home reached a record $12 billion in 2003.^[26] Two years later, in 2005, the World Bank stated that Mexico was receiving $18.1 billion in remittances and that it ranked third (behind only India and China) among the countries receiving the greatest amount of remittances.^[27]According to the World Bank, in 2002 half of the Mexican population was living in poverty and one fifth of the population was living in extreme poverty. The National Poverty Center at the University of Michigan^[28] found in 2009 only 14.3 percent of the population in the US lived in poverty.

As shown in the section causes by regions, economic reasons is the most popular reason as to why people illegally immigrate to the United States. The United States is attractive for economic reasons because United States employers hire illegal immigrants at wages substantially higher than they could earn in their native countries.^[29] A study of illegal immigrants from Mexico in the 1978 harvest season in Oregon showed that they earned six times what they coud have earned in Mexico, and even after deducting the costs of the seasonal migration and certain additional expenses for living in the United States, their net U.S. earnings were three times their Mexican alternative.^[30] It is also important to consider the higher availability of this type of job. In the 1960s and early 1970s, Mexico’s high fertility rate causes a large increase in the population size. While the growth of the population has slowed in more recent times, the large numbers of people born in the 60s and 70s are now in prime working age looking for jobs.^[31]

According to Judith Gans, Immigration Policy Program Manager at the University of Arizona, United States employers are pushed to hire illegal migrants for three main reasons – global economic change, the inadequacy of channels for legal economic migration, and ineffective employer sanctions.^[29] Global economic change is one cause for illegal immigration because information and transportation technologies now foster internationalized production, distribution and consumption, and labor. This has encouraged many countries to open their economies to outside investment, then increasing the number of low-skilled workers participating in global labor markets and making low-skilled labor markets all more competitive.^[29] This and the fact that developed countries have shifted from manufacturing to knowledge-based economies, have realigned economic activity around the world.^[29] Labor has become more international as individuals migrate seeking work despite governmental attempts to control this migration.^[29] Because the United States education system creates relatively few people who either lack a high school diploma or who hold PhD’s, there is a shortage of workers needed to fulfill seasonal low-skilled jobs as well as certain high-skilled jobs. To fill these gaps, the United States immigration system attempts to compensate for these shortages by providing for temporary immigration by farm workers and seasonal low-skilled workers, and for permanent immigration by high-skilled workers.^[29] The third cause of illegal immigration — the ineffectiveness of current employer sanctions for illegal hiring — allows migrants who are in the country illegally to easily find jobs. There are three reasons for this ineffectiveness – the absence of reliable mechanisms for verifying employment eligibility, inadequate funding of interior immigration enforcement, and the absence of political will due to labor needs to the United States economy.^[29] For example, it is unlawful to knowingly hire an illegal immigrant, but according to Judith Gans, there are no reliable mechanisms in place for employers to verify that the immigrants’ papers are authentic.^[29] Evidence is accumulating that the numbers of illegal immigrants is diminishing because of increased border security and tougher immigration laws, and because there are fewer jobs in the American economy.^[24]

Inadequate channels for legal migration

The United States immigration system provides only limited channels for legal, permanent economic migration, especially for low-skilled workers.^[29] The United States immigration system rests on three pillars (family reunification, provision of scare labor) as in agricultural and specific high-skilled worker sectors and protecting American workers from competition with foreign workers.^[29] The current system sets an overall limit of 675,000 permanent immigrants each year; this limit does not apply to spouses, unmarried minor children or parents on U.S. citizens. ^[32] Outside of this number for permanent immigrants, 480,000 visas are allotted for those under the family-preference rules and only 140,000 are allocated for employment-related preferences.^[32] The current system and low number of visas available, make it impossible for low-skilled workers to legally and permanently enter the country to work, so illegal entry becomes the way migrants respond to the lure of jobs with higher wages than what they would be able to find in their current country.^[29] Another reason for the large numbers of illegal immigrants present in the United States is the termination of the bracero program. This program existed from 1942 to 1964 to supply low-skilled Mexican workers to harvest fruits and vegetables in the United States. Many legal workers became illegal when this program ended because the change in law was not accompanied by a change in economic incentives for Mexican workers and the American growers. ^[33]

Chain immigration

This section requires expansion. (August 2008)

According to demographer Jeffery Passel of the Pew Hispanic Center, the flow of Mexicans to the U. S. has produced a “network effect” – furthering immigration as Mexicans moved to join relatives already in the U.S.^[34] The Pew Hispanic Center describes that the recent dramatic increase in the population of illegal immigrants has sparked more illegal immigrants to cross borders. Once the extended families of illegal immigrants cross national borders, they create a “network effect” by building large communities.^[34]

According to the Migration Policy Institute, increasing allowances for family members to immigrate to the US, and processing those applications faster, would reduce the number of illegal immigrants in the US.^[35]

Further Incentives

Lower costs of transportation, communication and information has facilitated illegal migration. Mexican nationals, in particular, have a very low cost of migration and can easily cross the border. Even if it requires more than one attempt, they have a very low probability of being detected and then deported once they have entered the country.^[36]

Lobbying

Several ethnic lobbies support immigration reforms that would allow illegal immigrants that have succeeded in entering to gain citizenship. They may also lobby for special arrangements for their own group. The Chairman for the Irish Lobby for Immigration Reform has stated that “the Irish Lobby will push for any special arrangement it can get — ‘as will every other ethnic group in the country.’”^[37][38]

International controversies

Mexican federal and state government assistance

The US Department of Homeland Security and some advocacy groups have criticized a program of the government of the state of Yucatán and that of a federal Mexican agency directed to Mexicans migrating to and residing in the United States. They claim that the assistance includes advice on how to get across the U.S. border illegally, where to find healthcare, enroll their children in public schools, and send money to Mexico. The Mexican federal government also issues identity cards to Mexicans living outside of Mexico.^[39][40]

• In 2005 the government of Yucatán produced a handbook and DVD about the risks and implications of crossing the U.S.-Mexico border. The guide told immigrants where to find health care, how to get their kids into U.S. schools, and how to send money home. Officials in Yucatán said the guide is a necessity to save lives but some American groups accused the government of encouraging illegal immigration.^[41]

• In 2005 the Mexican government was criticized for distributing a comic book which offers tips to illegal aliens emigrating to the United States.^[42] That comic book recommends to illegal immigrants, once they have safely crossed the border, “Don’t call attention to yourself…. Avoid loud parties. … Don’t become involved in fights.” The Mexican government defends the guide as an attempt to save lives. “It’s kind of like illegal immigration for dummies,” said the executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies in Washington, Mark Krikorian. “Promoting safe illegal immigration is not the same as arguing against it.” The comic book does state on its last page that the Mexican Government does not promote illegal crossing at all and only encourages visits to the US with all required documentation.^[42]

Groups in favor of application and enforcement of current immigration law oppose Matrícula Consular (“Consular Registration”), an identification card issued by the Government of Mexico through its consulate offices. The purpose of the card is to demonstrate that the bearer is a Mexican national living outside of Mexico. Similar consular identification cards are the Guatemalan CID card and the Argentinian CID card as well as a number of other CID cards issued to citizens of Colombia, El Salvador, and Honduras.^[43] The document is accepted at financial institutions in many states and, in conjunction with an IRS Taxpayer Identification Number, allows illegal immigrants to open checking and saving accounts.^[44] In December 2008, Governor Schwarzenegger launched Bank on California which calls on California mayors to specifically encourage the use of the Mexican CID and Guatemalan CID card by banks and credit unions as a primary identification when opening an account.^{[45][not in citation given]}

Legal issues

Immigration laws

Immigrants can be classified as illegal for one of three reasons: entering without authorization or inspection, staying beyond the authorized period after legal entry, or violating the terms of legal entry.^[46]

Section 1325 in Title 8 of the United States Code, “Improper entry of alien”, provides for a fine, imprisonment, or both for any immigrant who:^[47]

1. enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration agents, or
2. eludes examination or inspection by immigration agents, or
3. attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact.

The maximum prison term is 6 months for the first offense and 2 years for any subsequent offense. In addition to the above criminal fines and penalties, civil fines may also be imposed.

Arizona, which passed immigration enforcement law Arizona SB 1070 in April 2010, is currently the “toughest bill on illegal immigration” in the United States,^[48] and is being challenged by the Department of Justice as encroaching on powers reserved by the United States Constitution to the Federal Government.^[48] On July 28, 2010, United States district court judge Susan Bolton issued a preliminary injunction affecting the most controversial parts of the law, including the section that required police officers to check a person’s immigration status after a person had been involved in another act or situation which resulted in police activity.^[49]

The Mexican Constitution grants citizens freedom to travel. The Constitution stipulates also that the right to cross border migration is authorized only if other applicable laws and requirements are observed, and when certain prerequisites have been met.^[50]

Prevention

The cost to immigrate illegally has also increased, encouraging longer stays to recoup the cost.^{[citation needed]} Tens of thousands of illegal Mexican immigrants head each year in the direction of Mexico.^{[citation needed]} While no statistics are kept on this reverse migration, researchers in both countries suggest that the numbers have declined as border controls have tightened.^[51]

In October 2008, Mexico agreed to deport Cubans using the country as an entry point to the US. Then-Cuban Foreign Minister Felipe Pérez Roque said the Cuban-Mexican agreement would lead to “the immense majority of Cubans being repatriated.”^[52]

Workplace investigations

Audits of employment records in 2009 at American Apparel, a prominent Los Angeles garment manufacturer, by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE) uncovered discrepancies in the documentation of about 25 percent of the company’s workers. This technique of auditing employment records originated during the George W. Bush presidency and has been continued under President Obama. It may result in deportations should definite evidence of illegality be uncovered, but at American Apparel the audit resulted only in the termination of employees who could not resolve discrepancies. Most fired workers, some of whom had worked a decade at the plant, reported that they would seek other employment within the United States. This technique of enforcement is much less disruptive than mass raids at workplaces, but is not popular with employers who feel targeted and threatened.^[53]

Apprehension

US ICE, USBP, and CBP enforce the INA, and to some extent the United States military, local law enforcement and other local agencies, and private citizens and citizen groups guard the border.^{[citation needed]}

At border

The U.S. Customs and Border Protection is responsible for apprehending individuals attempting illegal entry to the United States. The United States Border Patrol is its mobile uniformed law enforcement arm, responsible for deterrence, detection, and apprehension of those who enter the United States without authorization from the government and outside the designated ports of entry.^{[citation needed]}

In December 2005, the U.S. House of Representatives voted to build a separation barrier along parts of the border not already protected by separation barriers. A later vote in the United States Senate on May 17, 2006, included a plan to blockade 860 miles (1,380 km) of the border with vehicle barriers and triple-layer fencing along with granting an “earned path to citizenship” to the 12 million illegal aliens in the U.S. and roughly doubling legal immigration (from their 1970s levels)^{[citation needed]} . In 2007 Congress approved a plan calling for more fencing along the Mexican border, with funds for approximately 700 miles (1,100 km) of new fencing.^{[citation needed]}

“If immigrants, whether legal or illegal, are apprehended entering the US while committing a crime, they are usually charged under federal statutes and, if convicted, are sent to federal prisons.”^[54]

At workplace

For decades, immigration authorities have alerted (“no-match-letters”)^[55] employers of mismatches between reported employees’ Social Security cards and the actual names of the card holders. On September 1, 2007, a federal judge halted this practice of alerting employers of card mismatches.^[56]

Illegal hiring has not been prosecuted aggressively in recent years: between 1999 and 2003, according to The Washington Post, “work-site enforcement operations were scaled back 95 percent by the Immigration and Naturalization Service.^[57] Major employers of illegal immigrants have included:

• Wal-Mart. In 2005, Wal-Mart agreed to pay $11 million to settle a federal investigation that found hundreds of illegal immigrants were hired by Wal-Mart’s cleaning contractors.^[58]

• Swift & Co.: In December 2006, in the largest such crackdown in American history, U.S. federal immigration authorities raided Swift & Co. meat-processing plants in six U.S. states, arresting about 1,300 illegal immigrant employees.^[59]

• Tyson Foods. This company has also been accused of actively importing illegal labor for its chicken packing plants; however, the jury acquitted the company after evidence was presented that Tyson went beyond mandated government requirements in demanding documentation for its employees.^[60]

• Gebbers Farms. In December 2009, US immigration authorities forced this Brewster, Washington farm known for its fruit orchards to fire more than 500 illegal workers, mostly immigrants from Mexico. Some were working with false social security cards and other false identification.^[61]

El Paso (top) and Ciudad Juárez (bottom) seen from earth orbit; the Rio Grande is the thin line separating the two cities through the middle of the photograph.

Detention

About 40% of illegal immigrants enter legally and then overstay.^[6] About 31,000 people who are not American citizens are held in immigration detention on any given day,^[62] including children, in over 200 detention centers, jails, and prisons nationwide. The United States government held more than 300,000 people in immigration detention in 2007 while deciding whether to deport them.^[63]

Deportation

Deportations of immigrants, which are also referred to as removals, may be issued when immigrants are found to be in violation of the United States’ immigration laws. Deportations may be imposed on a person who is neither native-born nor a naturalized citizen of the United States. ^[64] Deportation proceedings are also referred to as removal proceedings and are typically initiated by the Department of Homeland Security. The United States issues deportations for various reasons which include security, protection of resources, and protection of jobs.

The AEDPA and IIRIRA Acts of 1996

In 1996 there were two major pieces of legislature passed that had a significant effect on illegal immigration and most importantly deportations in the United States. The two new laws were the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) and the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA). These two laws were introduced following the events of the World Trade Center bombing of 1993 and the Oklahoma City bombing of 1995, both of which were terrorist attacks that claimed American lives. These two acts resulted in a significant change in the process of convicting lawful permanent residents. Although deportation had always been a viable and practiced conviction, these new laws changed the way criminal cases of lawful permanent residents were handled which in turn resulted in an increased amount of deportations from the United States. ^[65] Before the 1996 deportation laws there were two steps that lawful permanent residents who were convicted of crimes had to go through. The first step was simply to determine whether or not the person was deportable. The second step reviewed the case to determine if that person should or shouldn’t be deported. Before the 1996 deportation laws the second step prevented many permanent residents from being deported by allowing for their cases to be reviewed in full before issuing deportations. External factors were taken into consideration such as the effect deportation would have on a person’s family members and a person’s connections with their country of origin. Under this system permanent residents were able to be relieved of deportation if their situation deemed it unnecessary. The 1996 laws however issued many deportations under the first step without ever arriving at the second step resulting in a great increase in the likelihood and frequency of permanent residents being subjected to deportation. One significant change that resulted from the new laws was the definition of the term ‘aggravated felony.’ Being convicted of a crime that is categorized as an aggravated felony results in mandatory detention and deportation. The new definition of aggravated felony includes simple convictions like shoplifting that would not be considered anything more than a misdemeanor in a lot of states. The new laws have categorized a much wider range of crimes under the term aggravated felony. The effect of this has been a large increase in permanent residents facing mandatory deportation from the United States without the opportunity to plea for relief. The 1996 deportation laws have received a lot of criticism for their curtailing of permanent resident’s rights. ^[65]

The USA Patriot Act

The USA Patriot Act was passed seven weeks after the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001. The purpose of the act was to give the government more power to act against suspicious terrorist activity. The new governmental powers granted by this act included significant expansion in surveillance as well as a significant expansion in the range of conditions in which illegal aliens could be deported from the United States based on suspicion of terrorist activity. The USA Patriot Act had a direct effect on deportations of immigrants from the United States. The new act gave the government the power to deport individuals based not on plots or acts of terrorism but simply on affiliations with certain organizations. The Secretary of State designated specific organizations ‘foreign terrorist organizations before the USA Patriot Act was implemented. Organizations on this list were deemed dangerous because they were actively involved in terrorist activity that threatened United States national security. The USA Patriot Act created a type of organization deemed ‘designated’ organizations. The Secretary of State and Attorney General were given the power to designate any organization that supported terrorist activity on any level. The act also allows for penalization of an individual’s involvement in undesignated organizations that were still deemed suspicious. ^[66] Under the USA Patriot Act the Attorney General was granted the power to ‘certify’ illegal aliens based on the grounds that they pose a threat to national security. Once an illegal alien is certified they must be taken into custody and face mandatory detention which will result in a criminal charge or release. The USA Patriot Act has been criticized for violating the Fifth Amendment’s right to due process. Under the USA Patriot Act an illegal alien is not granted the opportunity for a hearing before given certification. It is criticized in general for allowing mandatory detention of illegal aliens on inadequate grounds. ^[67]

Complications

Complications in deportation efforts ensue when parents are illegal immigrants but their children are birthright citizens. Federal appellate courts have upheld the refusal by the Immigration and Naturalization Service to stay the deportation of illegal immigrants merely on the grounds that they have U.S.-citizen, minor children.^[68] There are some 3.1 million United States citizen children with at least one illegal immigrant parent as of 2005; at least 13,000 American children had one or both parents deported in the years 2005–2007.^[69][70]

Such was the case of Mexican Elvira Arellano, who had a child while in the U.S. illegally and later sought sanctuary at a Chicago-area church in an effort to evade a deportation order. This was also the case in the instance of Sadia Umanzor, a fugitive from a 2006 deportation order who failed to appear in court after her arrest for illegally crossing into the U.S.^[71] }} Deportations from the United States increased by more than 60 percent from 2003 to 2008, with Mexicans accounting for nearly two-thirds of those deported.^[72] Under the Obama administration, deportations have increased to record levels beyond the level reached by the George W. Bush administration with a projected 400,000 deportations in 2010, 10 percent above the deportation rate of 2008 and 25 percent above 2007.^[73] Fiscal year 2011 saw 396,906 deportations, the largest number in the history of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; of those, 216,698 had been convicted of crimes, including:^[74]

• 44,653 convicted of “drug-related crimes“
• 35,927 convicted of driving under the influence
• 5,848 convicted of sexual offenses
• 1,119 convicted of homicide

The DREAM Act is intended to alleviate the issue of children of illegal immigrants being deporteas a result of their parents illegal status. The Act would allow immigrant students the opportunity to be protected from deportation and receive lawful permanent residency under certain conditions which include: good moral character, enrollment in a secondary or post-secondary education program, and having lived in the United States at least 5 years. Those in opposition of the DREAM Act believe that it encourages illegal immigration.^[75]

Deportation Trends

A direct effect of the deportation laws of 1996 and the USA Patriot Act have been a dramatic increase in deportations. Prior to these acts deportations had remained at about an average of 20,000 per year. Between 1990 and 1995 deportations had increased to about an average of 40,000 a year. From 1996 to 2005 the yearly average had increased to over 180,000. In the year 2005 the number of deportations reached 208, 521 with less than half being deported under criminal grounds. ^[76]

Mass deportation

According to The Washington Post,^[77] Rajeev K. Goyle, of the Center for American Progress, a liberal Washington think tank, says he conducted a study to respond to officials who have advocated mass deportations. This study claims that the cost of forcibly removing most of the nation’s estimated 10 million illegal immigrants is $41 billion a year. A spokesman for Rep. Tom Tancredo calls the study “useless” because no one’s talking about employing mass deportation as a tactic. Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, describes the study as a cartoon version of how enforcement would work.

There have been two major periods of mass deportations in U.S. history. In the Mexican Repatriation of the 1930s, through mass deportations and forced migration, an estimated 500,000 Mexicans and Mexican Americans were deported or coerced into emigrating, in what Mae Ngai, an immigration history expert at the University of Chicago, has described as “a racial removal program”.^[78] The majority of those removed were U.S. Citizens.^[78] Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., cosponsor of a U.S. House Bill that calls for a commission to study the “deportation and coerced emigration” of U.S. citizens and legal residents, has expressed concerns that history could repeat itself, and that should illegal immigration be made into a felony, this could prompt a “massive deportation of U.S. citizens”.^[78] Later, in Operation Wetback in 1954, when the United States last deported a sizable number of illegal immigrants, in some cases along with their U.S. born children (who are citizens according to U.S. law),^[79] some illegal immigrants, fearful of potential violence as police swarmed through Mexican American barrios throughout the southeastern states, stopping “Mexican-looking” citizens on the street and asking for identification, fled to Mexico.^[79]

Police and military involvement

In 1995, the United States Congress considered an exemption from the Posse Comitatus Act, which generally prohibits direct participation of Department of Defense personnel in civilian law enforcement activities, such as search, seizure, and arrests.^[80]

In 1997, Marines shot and killed 18 year old U.S. citizen Esequiel Hernández Jr^[81] while on a mission to interdict smuggling and illegal immigration near the border community of Redford, Texas. The Marines observed the high school student from concealment while he was tending his family’s goats in the vicinity of their ranch. At one point, Hernandez raised his .22-caliber rifle and fired shots in the direction of the concealed soldiers. He was subsequently tracked for 20 minutes then shot and killed.^[82][83] In reference to the incident, military lawyer Craig T. Trebilcock argues that “the fact that armed military troops were placed in a position with the mere possibility that they would have to use force to subdue civilian criminal activity reflects a significant policy shift by the executive branch away from the posse comitatus doctrine.”^[84] The killing of Hernandez led to a congressional review^[85] and an end to a nine-year old policy of the military aiding the Border Patrol.^[86]

After the September 11 attacks in 2001, the United States again considered placing soldiers along the U.S.-Mexico border as a security measure.^[87] In May 2006, President George W. Bush announced plans to use the National Guard to strengthen enforcement of the US-Mexico Border from illegal immigrants,^[88] emphasizing that Guard units “will not be involved in direct law enforcement activities.”^[89] Mexican Foreign Secretary Luis Ernesto Derbez said in an interview with a Mexico City radio station, “If we see the National Guard starting to directly participate in detaining people … we would immediately start filing lawsuits through our consulates.”^[90] The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) called on the President not to deploy military troops to deter immigrants, and stated that a “deployment of National Guard troops violates the spirit of the Posse Comitatus Act”.^[91] According to the State of the Union address in January 2007,^[92] more than 6000 National Guard members have been sent to the US-Mexico border to supplement the Border Patrol,^[93] costing in excess of $750 million.^[94]

Sanctuary cities

Several US cities have instructed their own law enforcement personnel and other city employees not to notify or cooperate with the federal government when they become aware of illegal immigrants living within their jurisdiction.

Many cities, including Washington, D.C.; New York City NYC; Los Angeles; Chicago; San Francisco;^[95] San Diego; Austin; Salt Lake City; Dallas; Detroit; Honolulu; Houston; Jersey City; Minneapolis; Miami; Denver; Aurora, Colorado; Baltimore; Seattle; Portland, Oregon; Portland, Maine; and Senath, Missouri, have become “sanctuary cities“, having adopted ordinances refraining from stopping or questioning individuals for the sole purpose of determining their immigration status.^[96]

Most of these cities claim that the benefit illegal immigrants bring to their city outweigh the costs. Opponents say the measures violate federal law as the cities are in effect creating their own immigration policy, an area of law which only Congress has authority to alter.^[97]

However scholars have tagged these so-called “don’t tell” measures as “obvious targets for express preemption” given the apparent conflict between “don’t tell” policies and the restrictions in Sections 434 of the “Welfare Reform Act” and Section 642 of the “Immigration Reform Act” that expressly forbid restraints on communications with federal officials, including the sharing of information relating to people’s illegal immigration status.

Community-based involvement

According to a 2006 report by the Anti-Defamation League, white supremacists and other extremists were engaging in a growing number of assaults against legal and illegal immigrants and those perceived to be immigrants.^[98]

The No More Deaths organization offers food, water, and medical aid to migrants crossing the desert regions of the American Southwest in an effort to reduce the increasing number of deaths along the border.^[99]

Impacts

Economic

Wages and employment

George J. Borjas, an economist at Harvard University, has argued that illegal immigration may reduce the economic status of U.S. poor while benefiting middle class individuals and wealthier Americans.^{[100][verification needed]} The presence of illegal immigrants and the exploitation of them may drive down wages for certain sectors of the American populace, further widening the socioeconomic gulf between rich and poor.^[101] Professor emeritus Stephen J. Unger from the University of Columbia, explains that this results from employers who hire illegal immigrants that are exploited or willing to work for lower wages, instead of raising wages to attract legal citizens. Thusly, wages are kept flat or depressed and the employment rates for legal U.S. citizens decrease at the same time.^[102] Additionally, illegal immigrants may displace work opportunities that would otherwise be available to citizens, thereby inducing native-born citizens to commit crimes.^[103]

Research by Borjas, Jeffrey Grogger, and Gordon H. Hanson suggests that a 10-percent immigrant-induced increase in the supply of a particular skill group reduced the black wage by 4.0 percent, lowered the employment rate of black men by 3.5 percentage points, and increased the incarceration rate of blacks by almost one percent.^[104]

In a 2002 study of the effects of illegal immigration and border enforcement on wages in border communities from 1990 to 1997, conducted by Gordon H. Hanson, Raymond Robertson, and Antonio Spilimbergo, the researchers concluded that their findings were consistent with the hypothesis that “immigration from Mexico has a minimal impact on wages in U.S. border cities”.^[105] The group also concluded that their findings suggest that concerns about the impact of illegal immigration on border communities have been exaggerated, and that border enforcement did not appear to affect wages in border communities.^[105]

Consumer demand

Reverse migration of illegal immigrants from the US back to Mexico has reduced consumer demand in the United States due to an overall decline in the population.^{[106][107][108][109][110][not in citation given]} According to a study by the Center for Immigration Studies, analysis of US Census data suggests that between 2005 and 2008, most of the reduction in less-educated, young Hispanic immigrants is due to illegal immigrants leaving on their own.^[111]

Taxes and social services

Illegal immigrants are estimated to pay in about $7 billion per year into Social Security.^[112]

A paper in the peer reviewed Tax Lawyer journal from the American Bar Association asserts that illegal immigrants contribute more in taxes than they cost in social services.^[113] However, The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office reviewed 29 reports published over 15 years to evaluate the impact of illegal immigrants on the budgets of state and local governments, and found that the tax revenues that illegal immigrants generate for state and local governments do not offset the total cost of services provided to those immigrants, though the report speculated that the impact of illegal immigrants on state and local budgets was likely to be modest.^[114]

Mortgages

Around 2005, an increasing number of banks saw illegal immigrants as an untapped resource for growing their own revenue stream and contended that providing illegal aliens with mortgages would help revitalize local communities, with many community banks providing home loans for illegal immigrants. At the time, critics complained that this practice would reward and encourage illegal immigration, as well as contribute to an increase in predatory lending practices. One banking consultant said that banks which were planning to offer mortgages to illegal immigrants were counting on the fact that immigration enforcement was very lax, with deportation unlikely for anyone who had not committed a crime.^[115]

Law enforcement expenses

Apprehension & deportation

Border control uses the latest technology to help capture illegal immigrants in the process of crossing, sometimes detain/prosecute, and send them back over the border. According to the US Department of Homeland Security and the Border Patrol Enforcement Integrated Database, apprehensions have increased from 955,310 in 2002 to 1,159,802 in 2004. “But fewer than 4 percent of apprehended migrants were actually detained and prosecuted for illegal entry, partly because it costs $90 a day to keep them in detention facilities and bed space is very limited. For the remainder of the apprehended migrants, if they are willing to sign a form attesting that they are voluntarily repatriating themselves, they are simply bussed to a gate on the border, where they re-enter Mexico.”^{[116][verification needed]} “During the summer of 2004, the U.S. government pressured the Mexican government into accepting ‘deep repatriation’ of as many as 300 apprehended migrants per day to six cities in central and southern Mexico.

Crimes committed by illegal immigrants

California has the largest immigrant population in the US, and immigrants (both legal and illegal) are under represented among California prison inmates.^[103] The most recent research indicates approximately 35% of the California population consists of immigrants, while immigrants represent 17% of the prison population. In fact, U.S. born adult men are incarcerated at a rate over two-and-a-half times greater than that of foreign-born men.^[103] However, this does not separate the illegal versus legal immigrants.

Illegal immigrants avoid involvement in criminal activity to reduce interaction with law enforcement officials, and according to Tim Wadsworth, an assistant professor of sociology at the University of Colorado at Boulder, “[t]he suggestion that high levels of immigration may have been partially responsible for the drop in crime during the 1990s seems plausible.”^[117]

According to Edmonton and Smith in The New Americans: Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration, “it is difficult to draw any strong conclusions on the association between immigration and crime”.^[54] Cities with large immigrant populations showed larger reductions in property and violent crime than cities without large immigrant populations.^[118] Almost all of what is known about immigration and crime is from information on those in prison. Incarceration rates do not necessarily reflect differences in current crime rates.^[54]

The Center for Immigration Studies in a 2009 report argued that “New government data indicate that immigrants have high rates of criminality, while older academic research found low rates. The overall picture of immigrants and crime remains confused due to a lack of good data and contrary information.” It also criticized reports using data from the 2000 Census according to which 4% of prisoners were immigrants. Non-citizens often have a strong incentive to deny this in order to prevent deportation and there are also other problems. Some better but still uncertain methods have found that 20-22% of prisoners were immigrants. It also criticized studies looking at percentages of immigrants in a city and crime for only looking at overall crime and not immigrant crime as well as having other possible problems.^[119]

As of 2010, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE) under its “Secure Communities” project has identified 240,000 illegal immigrants convicted of crimes, according to Department of Homeland Security figures. Of those, about 30,000 have been deported, including 8,600 convicted of what the agency calls “the most egregious offenses.^[120]

A few of the other reasons also cited for why the extent of illegal immigrants’ criminal activities is unknown are as follows:

• For many minor crimes, especially crimes involving juveniles, those who are apprehended are not arrested. Only a fraction of those who are arrested are ever brought to the courts for disposition.^[54]

• Many illegal immigrants who are apprehended by Border Patrol agents are voluntarily returned to their home countries and are not ordinarily tabulated in national crime statistics. If immigrants, whether illegal or legal, are apprehended entering the United States while committing a crime, they are usually charged under federal statutes and, if convicted, are sent to federal prisons. Throughout this entire process, immigrants may have a chance of deportation, or of sentencing that is different from that for a native-born person.^[54]

• We lack comprehensive information on whether arrested or jailed immigrants are illegal immigrants, nonimmigrants, or legal immigrants. Such information can be difficult to collect because immigrants may have a reason to provide false statements (if they reply that they are an illegal immigrant, they can be deported, for instance). The verification of the data is troublesome because it requires matching INS records with individuals who often lack documentation or present false documents.^[54]

• Noncitizens may have had fewer years residing in the United States than citizens, and thus less time in which to commit crimes and be apprehended.^[54]

In 1999, law enforcement activities involving illegal immigrants in California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas cost a combined total of more than $108 million. This cost did not include activities related to border enforcement. In San Diego County, the expense (over $50 million) was nine percent of the total county’s budget for law enforcement that year.^[121]

A study published by the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas has found that while property-related crime rates have not been affected by increased immigration (both legal and illegal), in border counties there is a significant positive correlation between illegal immigration and violent crime, most likely due to extensive smuggling activity along the border.^[122]

On August 6, 2008, an audit done by agents of Immigration and Customs Enforcement found that 122 of the 637 jail inmates in the Lake County, Illinois jail were of questionable immigration status. Of those 122 originally suspected, 75 were later ordered to face deportation proceedings by the ICE. According to Lake County sheriff Mark Curran, illegal immigrants were charged with half of the 14 murders in the county.^[123]

The Arizona Department of Corrections reported in 2010 that illegal immigrants are over-represented in the state’s prison population. In June 2010, illegal immigrants represented 14.8 percent of Arizona state prisoners, but accounted for 7 percent of the state’s overall population according to the Department of Homeland Security. In addition, the data showed that illegal immigrants accounted for 40% of all the prisoners serving time in Arizona state prisons for kidnapping; 24% of those serving time for drug charges; and 13 percent of those serving time for murder.^[124]

A US Justice Department report from 2009 indicated that one of the largest street gangs in the United States, Los Angeles-based 18th Street gang, has a membership of some 30,000 to 50,000 with 80% of them being illegal aliens from Mexico and Central America. Active in 44 cities in 20 states, its main source of income is street-level distribution of cocaine and marijuana and, to a lesser extent, heroin and methamphetamine. Gang members also commit assault, auto theft, carjacking, drive-by shootings, extortion, homicide, identification fraud, and robbery.^[125]

Another prominent street gang, Mara Salvatrucha, also known as MS 13, with a membership of some 8,000 to 10,000 members in the US, is estimated to be predominantly composed of illegal immigrants (with some reporting up to 90%).^[126][127] MS-13 members smuggle illicit drugs, primarily powder cocaine and marijuana, into the US and transport and distribute the drugs throughout the country. Some members also are involved in alien smuggling, assault, drive-by shootings, homicide, identity theft, prostitution operations, robbery, and weapons trafficking.^[125] With over 3,000 members in Northern Virginia alone making it the largest gang in the region,^[128] MS-13 has been targeted by the Northern Virginia Regional Gang Task Force which reports that 40% of arrests from 2003-2008 were of illegal aliens.^[127][129] It is also reported that 71% of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) gang arrestees under “Operation Community Shield” in Northern Virginia from February 2005 to September 2007, were of EWI “Enter Without Inspection” status.^[127]

Identity theft

Identity theft is sometimes committed by illegal immigrants who use social security numbers belonging to others, in order to obtain fake work documentation.^[130] However, the US Supreme Court has ruled that illegal immigrants cannot be prosecuted for identity theft if they use “made-up” social security numbers that they do not know belong to someone else; to be guilty of identity theft with regard to social security numbers, they must know that the social security numbers that they use belong to others.^[131]

Drug trafficking

According to proceedings from a 1997 meeting of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims, “Through other violations of our immigration laws, Mexican drug cartels are able to extend their command and control into the United States. Drug smuggling fosters, subsidizes, and is dependent upon continued illegal immigration and alien smuggling.”^[132]

Drug cartels have been reported using illegal immigrants, sometimes armed, to cultivate marijuana within American National Forests, in California’s Los Padres National Forest,^[133][134] Tahoe National Forest,^[135] Six Rivers National Forest,^[136] and Sequoia National Forest,^[137] as well as in Arizona,^[138] Oregon,^[139] and Colorado.^[140]

Gang violence

As of 2005, Operation Community Shield had detained nearly fourteen hundred illegal immigrant gang members.^[141]

Members from the Salvadoran gang MS-13 are believed by authorities to have established a smuggling ring in Matamoros, Mexico. This smuggling involved transporting illegal aliens from foreign countries into the United States. MS-13 has shown extreme violence against Border Patrol security to “teach them a lesson.”^[142] “Mexican alien smugglers plan to pay violent gang members and smuggle them into the United States to murder Border Patrol agents, according to a confidential Department of Homeland Security memo obtained by the Daily Bulletin.”^[143]

Environment

Waves of illegal immigrants are taking a heavy toll on U.S. public lands along the Mexican border, federal officials say.^[144] Mike Coffeen, a biologist with the Fish and Wildlife Service in Tucson, Arizona found the level of impact to be shocking.^[144] “Environmental degradation has become among the migration trend’s most visible consequences, a few years ago, there were 45 abandoned cars on the Buenos Aires refuge near Sasabe, Arizona and enough trash that a volunteer couple filled 723 large bags with 18,000 pounds of garbage over two months in 2002.”^[145]

“It has been estimated that the average desert-walking immigrant leaves behind 8 pounds of trash during a journey that lasts one to three days if no major incidents occur. Assuming half a million people cross the border illegally into Arizona annually, that translates to 2,000 tons of trash that migrants dump each year.”^[146]

Illegal immigrants trying to get to the United States via the Mexican border with southern Arizona are suspected of having caused eight major wildfires in 2002. The fires destroyed 68,413 acres (276.86 km²) and cost taxpayers $5.1 million to fight.^[147]

National security and terrorism

Mohamed Atta and two of his co-conspirators had expired visas when they executed the September 11 attacks. All of the attackers had U.S. government issued documents and two of them were erroneously granted visa extensions after their deaths.^[148] The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States found that the government inadequately tracked those with expired tourist or student visas.

Mark Krikorian of the Center for Immigration Studies, a think-tank that promotes immigration reduction, testified in a hearing before the House of Representatives that

“out of the 48 al-Qaeda operatives who committed crimes here between 1993 and 2001, 12 of them were illegal aliens when they committed their crimes, seven of them were visa overstayers, including two of the conspirators in the first World Trade Center attack, one of the figures from the New York subway bomb plot, and four of the 9/11 terrorists. In fact, even a couple other terrorists who were not illegal when they committed their crimes had been visa overstayers earlier and had either applied for asylum or finagled a fake marriage to launder their status.”^[149]

Vice Chair Lee H. Hamilton and Commissioner Slade Gorton of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States has stated that of the nineteen hijackers of the September 11, 2001 attacks, “Two hijackers could have been denied admission at the port on entry based on violations of immigration rules governing terms of admission. Three hijackers violated the immigration laws after entry, one by failing to enroll in school as declared, and two by overstays of their terms of admission.”^[150] Six months after the attack, their flight schools received posthumous visa approval letters from the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) for two of the hijackers, which made it clear that actual approval of the visas took place before the September 11 attacks.^[151]

Since the attacks of September 11, 2001, illegal immigrants within the United States have attempted to carry out other terrorist attacks as well. Three of the six conspirators in the 2007 Fort Dix attack plot–Dritan Duka, Shain Duka, and Eljvir Duka—were ethnic Albanians from the Republic of Macedonia who entered the United States illegally through Mexico with their parents in 1984. Hosam Maher Husein Smadi, an illegal immigrant from Jordan who remained in the United States after the expiration of his tourist visa, was arrested in September 2009 for attempting to carry out a car bomb attack against Fountain Place in Dallas.

Harm to illegal immigrants

There are significant dangers associated with illegal immigration including potential death when crossing the border. According to Chicano activist Roberto Martinez, since the 1994 implementation of an immigration-control effort called Operation Gatekeeper, immigrants have attempted to cross the border in more dangerous locations.^[152] Those crossing the border come unprepared, without food, water, proper clothing, or protection from the elements or dangerous animals; sometimes the immigrants are abandoned by those smuggling them.^[152] Deaths also occur while resisting arrest. In May 2010, the National Human Rights Commission in Mexico accused Border Patrol agents of tasering illegal immigrant Anastasio Hernández-Rojas to death. Media reports that Hernández-Rojas started a physical altercation with patrol agents and later autopsy findings concluded that the suspect had trace amounts of methampehatine in his blood levels which contributed to his death.^[153][154] The killing of Anastasio Hernández-Rojas was the subject of extensive media coverage in April, 2012 by PBS “Need to Know”^[155] and Democracy Now!^[156] The foreign ministry in Mexico City has demanded an explanation from San Diego and federal authorities, according to Tijuana newspapers.^[153] According to the US Border Agency, there were 987 assaults on US Border Agents in 2008 and there were a total of 12 people killed by agents in 2007 and 2008.^[157]

According to the Washington Office on Latin America‘s Border Fact Check site, Border Patrol rarely investigates allegations of abuse against migrants, and advocacy organizations say that “even serious incidents such as the shootings of migrants result in administrative, not criminal, investigations and sanctions.”^[158]

Slavery

Indian, Russian, Thai, and Chinese women have been reportedly brought to the United States under false pretenses. “As many as 50,000 people are illicitly trafficked into the United States annually, according to a 1999 CIA study. Once here, they’re forced to work as prostitutes, sweatshop laborers, farmhands, and servants in private homes.” US authorities call it “a modern form of slavery.”^{[159] [160]}

Prostitution

The Coalition Against Trafficking in Women has reported scores of cases where women were forced to prostitute themselves. “Trafficking in women plagues the United States as much as it does underdeveloped nations. Organized prostitution networks have migrated from metropolitan areas to small cities and suburbs. Women trafficked to the United States have been forced to have sex with 400-500 men to pay off $40,000 in debt for their passage.” ^[161] At least 45,000 Central American children attempt to illegally immigrate to the United States every year and many of them finish in brothels as sex slaves, according to Manuel Capellin, director in Honduras of the humanitarian organization House Alliance.^[162]

Death

Death by exposure has been reported in the deserts, particularly during the hot summer season.^[163] “Exposure to the elements” encompasses hypothermia, dehydration, heat strokes, drowning, and suffocation. Also, illegal immigrants may die or be injured when they attempt to avoid law enforcement. Martinez points out that engaging in high speed pursuits while attempting to escape arrest can lead to death.^[164] Many migrants are also killed or maimed riding the roofs of cargo trains in Mexico.^[165]

Cultural

Harvard political scientist and historian Samuel P. Huntington argues in Who Are We? The Challenges to America’s National Identity that illegal immigration, primarily from Mexico, threatens to divide the United States culturally, into an Anglo-Protestant north, central, and eastern portion, and a Catholic-Hispanic southwest.

Immigration researcher Andrea Nill has a similar point. Nill noted that the association of illegal immigration with Latinos would bring adverse attention to their community.^[166] Recent immigration laws could help fuel these associations and possibly encourage citizens to discriminate and distance themselves from the Hispanic culture.^[166] Furthermore, this separation could allow for tensions and possibly violence to grow between both groups.^[166]

Public opinion and controversy

US economy

One of the most important factors regarding public opinion about illegal migration is the level of unemployment; anti-immigrant sentiment is highest where unemployment is highest and vice-versa.^[167] In general, some say that illegal immigrants are taking away jobs from Americans; however businesses and agricultural groups disagree and say that migrant workers are needed to fill unattractive jobs.^[32] This is further supported by a May 2006 New York Times/CBS News Poll reported that 53 percent of Americans felt that “illegal immigrants mostly take the jobs Americans don’t want”.^[168] However there are others who say that immigration helps to “decimate the bargaining leverage of the American worker. If you use a form of labor recruitment that bids down the cost of labor, that leads you to a society where a small number are very, very rich, there’s nobody in the middle, and everyone is left scrambling for crumbs at the bottom.^[169] Yet there are still others who say that the U.S. “has an economy that depends on immigration” and “without immigration labor, it would be almost certainly not be possible to produce the same volume of food in the country.”^[169]

Opinions from influential groups in society

Investors

According to a gallop poll done in 2006, the opinions of investors were illustrated to support some of the claims made above and disagree with others. In support of an opinion stated above, 84% of investors believe that illegal immigrants mostly take low paying jobs that Americans do not want.^[170] However, nearly 62% of investors say illegal immigration is hurting the investment climate.^[170] 68% of investors say that illegal immigrants cost taxpayers too much because they use government services like public education and medical services but another 25% say that in the long run, illegal immigrants become productive citizens who come to make up paying their fair share of taxes.^[170]

Crime

The highly publicized murder of Arizona rancher Rob Krentz in March 2010, suspected to have been committed by an illegal immigrant,^[171] provided a strong rallying cry for immigration opponents and called public attention to other crimes— notably property crimes— committed by foreign nationals during their border crossings into the U.S. Krentz had previously reported that illegal immigrants had done over $8 million dollars in damage to his ranching operations during a five-year period,^[172] and in the wake of his murder, interviews with his family and friends focused on similar crimes and break-ins committed by immigrants.^[173]

A few weeks later, Arizona passed Arizona SB1070, the nation’s toughest state immigration law.^[174] While the law’s writers have defended Arizona’s new illegal immigration law by opining that it is necessary to fight violent crime. Though admitting an increase in border-related violence, such as home invasions and kidnappings, Phoenix Police Chief Jack Harris stated his disagreement with the law, arguing that it will distort police priorities.^[175][176] Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu, in an interview on Horizon, said it is “absolutely appropriate” for law enforcement officers to question people about their immigration status during a routine stop or investigation.^[177] The law sparked protests in Arizona and elsewhere, as well as led to the boycott of Arizona by cities and communities nationwide.^[178]

A 2008 report by the non-partisan Public Policy Institute of California analyzes crime and immigration in California. Since most criminals are young adults, the study considered the proportion of foreign-born young adults in the general population compared to those in the prison population. The researchers found that, while foreign born young adults represented about 35% of California’s population, they represented only about 17% of the prison population. The study concludes that “immigrants are underrepresented in California prisons compared to their representation in the overall population.”^[179]

In a report published by the Congressional Research Service, illegal aliens who have been released from custody have gone on to commit 16,226 other crimes between 2008 and mid-2011, including 19 murders, 142 sex crimes, and thousands of drunk-driving offenses, drug offenses, and felonies; roughly one in six illegal immigrants who were released were later arrested for committing crimes.^[180]

Response of government

An ABC News Poll,^[181] indicates that most respondents (67%) believe the United States is not doing enough to keep illegal immigrants from coming into the country and, according to a CBS News/New York Times poll^[182] most Americans believe that US immigration policy needs either fundamental changes (41%) or to be completely rebuilt (49%).

In an opinion poll by Zogby International in 2005, voters were also asked, “Do you support or oppose the Bush administration’s proposal to give millions of illegal aliens guest worker status and the opportunity to become citizens?” 35% gave their support; 56 percent disagreed. The same poll noted a huge majority, 81%, believes local and state police should help federal authorities enforce laws against illegal immigration.^{[citation needed]}

Federal response

Although Americans may favor one immigration policy over another, perceptions of government and officials’ ability to implement these policies is consistently negative.^[183]

State and local response

According to a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll,^[184] most respondents (55%) believe state or local police forces should arrest illegal immigrants they encounter who have not broken any state or local laws.

The previously cited CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll poll indicates that most respondents (76%) are against state governments issuing driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants. A poll by the Field Institute found that “[California] residents are very much opposed (62% to 35%) to granting illegal immigrants who do not have legal status in this country the right to obtain a California driver’s license. However, opinion is more divided (49% to 48%) about a plan to issue a different kind of driver’s license that would allow these immigrants to drive but would also identify them as not having legal status.”^[185][186]

Further, most respondents (63%) in the above-mentioned 2006 Quinnipiac University Poll^[187] support local laws passed by communities to fine businesses that hire illegal immigrants while 33% oppose it.

In addition to these opinions, others at the local level have gotten involved in grass root, citizen-organized efforts to enhance controls on illegal migration.^[188] Several citizen-led anti-illegal migration organizations have been created using a “Minuteman” mantra. These organizations developed with the purpose of patrolling the border and lobbying legislative bodies to create policy to reduce illegal migration. For instance, the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps (n.d.) have the following as their stated mission: “It is the mission of the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps to see the borders and coastal boundaries of the United States secured against the unlawful and unauthorized entry of all individuals, contraband, and foreign military. We will employ all means of civil protest, demonstration, and political lobbying to accomplish this goal.”^[189]

Sanctuary cities

Currently there is a lot of controversy around Sanctuary cities, one response from the state and local governments. Many American cities have designated themselves as sanctuary cities and many other state and municipal governments discourage the reporting of illegal immigrants to U.S. immigration and Customs Enforcement.^[24] A sanctuary city is defined as a city that follows certain practices to protect illegal immigrants; these include – cities that do not allow municipal funds or resources to be used to enforce federal immigration laws, usually by not allowing police or municipal employees to inquire about one’s immigration status.^[190] These cities include Washington D.C., New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, San Francisco, Santa Ana, San Diego, San Jose, Salt Lake City, El Paso, Houston, Detroit, Jersey City, Minneapolis, Miami, Denver, Baltimore, Seattle, Portland, Oregon, New Haven, Somerville, Cambridge, and Portland, Maine.^[191] The controversy of this topic comes up around election time when public officials are often faced with deciding if they will continue to enforce the laws of a sanctuary city or appear to be harsher on immigration. Also the public opinion of the cities is not very high, a poll in 2011 found that 59% of the population supported a proposal to remove federal funding to sanctuary cities and 58% wanted the Justice Department to take action against these cities.^[192]

Enforcement

71% of respondents in a 2006 Quinnipiac University Polling Institute poll believed that enforcement of immigration laws will require additional measures beyond a border fence, with 65% of respondents supporting employer fines.^[187] 77% of respondents to a Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg Poll support employer fines.^[193][194]

A later NBC/Wall Street Journal poll indicates 57% strongly favor employer fines and 17% somewhat favor them, while 44% strongly favor increased border security and 19% strongly oppose.^[195] In a CBS News/New York Times poll, 69% of Americans favor prosecuting and deporting illegal immigrants; 33% favor deporting those who have lived and worked in the U.S. for at least two years.^[182][196]

The Manhattan Institute reported that 78% of likely Republican voters favor a proposal combining increased border security, tougher penalties for employers who hire illegal workers, and allowing illegal aliens to register for a temporary worker program that includes a path to citizenship. Respondents favored the program over a deportation and enforcement-only plan 58% to 33%.^[197]

Following the passage of Arizona’s Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act in April, 2010, which authorizes police officials to question persons on their immigration status if there is reasonable suspicion that they are illegally in the country or committing other violations not related to their immigration status, numerous polls showed widespread support for the law. A Rasmussen poll found that 60% of the electorate support such a law while 31% are opposed to such a law.^[198] A New York Times poll showed similar results: 51% of Americans felt the law was “about right” in its dealings with illegal immigration, 9% felt that its measures did not go far enough to address the problem while 36% have negative opinions regarding such a law.^[199]

Film

How Democracy Works Now: Twelve Stories is a 12-part documentary film series that examines the American political system through the lens of immigration reform from 2001–2007, from filmmaking team Shari Robertson and Michael Camerini. Several films in the series contain a large focus on the issue of illegal immigration in the U.S. and feature advocates from both sides of the debate. Since the debut of the first five films, the series has become an important resource for advocates, policy-makers and educators.^[200]

The series premiered on HBO with the broadcast debut of The Senator’s Bargain on March 24, 2010. A directors’ cut of The Senators’ Bargain was featured in the 2010 Human Rights Watch Film Festival at Lincoln Center, with the theatrical title Story 12: Last Best Chance. That film featured Ted Kennedy’s efforts to pass The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007. The second story in the 12-part series, Mountains and Clouds, opened the festival in the same year.

The films document the attempt to pass comprehensive immigration reform during the years from 2001–2007, and present a behind-the-scenes story of the success (and failure) of many bills from that period with an effect on illegal immigration including:

• The DREAM Act
• REAL ID Act
• Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007
• Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act

Marking Up The Dream, Story Six in the How Democracy Works Now series, focuses on the heated 2003 markup in The Senate Judiciary Committee, contrasting optimistic supporters who viewed The DREAM Act as a small bi-partisan bill that would help kids with the bill’s opponents, who saw the legislation as thinly-veiled “amnesty for illegals”. Also presented in the film are the rallies and demonstrations from illegal immigrant students who would benefit from the DREAM Act. The film opens with demonstration from those high-school students as they stage a mock graduation ceremony on the U.S. Capitol lawn.

See also

United States portal

• 2006 United States immigration reform protests
• How Democracy Works Now: Twelve Stories
• Immigration reduction in the United States
• Immigration reform
• Immigration to the United States
• Inequality within immigrant families (United States)
• Mexican migration
• Minuteman Civil Defense Corps
• Minuteman Project
• Nativism (politics)
• Who Are We? The Challenges to America’s National Identity (2004)
• Republicans for Immigration Reform

References

Further reading

External links

• Federation of American Scientists: Border Security: Fences Along the U.S. International Border (a report of the Congressional Research Service issued on January 13, 2005)
• Latin American Immigrations Effects on US Relations from the Dean Peter Krogh Foreign Affairs Digital Archives
• University of California, San Diego: Center for Comparative Immigration Studies
• U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services: Immigration and Nationality Act, Title 8 Code of Federal Regulations
• Pew Hispanic Center: The State of American Public Opinion on Immigration in Spring 2006: A Review of Major Surveys
• Death at US-Mexico border reflects immigration tensions Guardian Co UK
• En Tren de la Muerte – Dallas Observer
• How Democracy Works Now: Twelve Stories – Series page

• Illegal immigration to the United States (−) (±)
• (+)

Former ICE official sentenced in child porn case

Iridium Flare over Victoria Fountain, Old Steine by Dominic’s pics
License (according to Flickr): Attribution License

Excerpt:

MIAMI — The former chief of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement South Florida office has been sentenced to nearly six years in prison on a child pornography charge. Anthony V. Mangione, 52, offered no clear explanation in court Friday about why he started viewing child pornography, the South Florida Sun Sentinel reports. “I’m pretty much a broken guy,” Mangione told U.S. District Judge Kenneth Marra. “I feel like I’m in a hole eight feet deep with six feet of dirt on top.” Mangione ran ICE’s South Florida operations from 2007 to 2011, including numerous child pornography investigations. A 27-year veteran of the agency and its predecessors, he retired a few months after investigators searched his home and office computers in April 2011. He was arrested in September 2011 and pleaded guilty this July to emailing child porn images.

Keywords:

child pornography South Florida Sun immigration and customs enforcement Florida Kenneth Marra federal prosecutors images Customs veteran dirt MIAMI explanation numerous a hole computers

Webpage Provided Keywords:

Site Provided Desc:

Source Site: usnews.nbcnews.com