Washington Post columnist and Harvard University Migration and Integration Research director, Edward Schumacher-Matos, recently pointed out what the Social Security Administration (SSA) has known for years?undocumented immigrants contribute to Social Security in a big way. But what surprised Schumacher-Matos was just how much these immigrants contribute, and the fact that many states are trying to pass enforcement to drive these contributors out. With an upcoming wave of retiring Baby Boomers (who will receive Social Security benefits instead of paying into the system) and a Social Security system teetering on the edge of insolvency, immigrants (both documented and undocumented), their role as taxpayers, workers and consumers and the question of what to do about our immigration problems become ever more relevant.

In a recent Washington Post editorial, Schumacher-Matos laid out the facts:

• By 2007, the Social Security trust fund had received a net benefit of somewhere between $120 billion and $240 billion from unauthorized immigrants, representing 5.4% to 10.7% of the trust fund?s total assets ($2.24 trillion) that year.

• Unauthorized immigrants paid a net contribution of $12 billion in 2007 alone.

• The cumulative contribution is surely higher now.

• Roughly two-thirds of unauthorized immigrant workers, or 5.6 million people, were paying into the system in 2007.

• Few of these contributing unauthorized immigrants are likely to receive anything, ever.

The SSA?s chief actuary, Stephen C. Goss, went on to say that if it wasn?t for undocumented immigrants paying into the system?the majority of whom, mind you, will never collect the benefits?the SSA wouldn?t have been able to cover payouts in 2009:

If for example we had not had other-than-legal immigrants in the country over the past, then these numbers suggest that we would have entered persistent shortfall of tax revenue to cover [payouts] starting [in] 2009, or six years earlier than estimated under the 2010 Trustees Report.

As Baby Boomers (born between 1946 and 1964) start to retire, the ratio of seniors to working-age adults (25 to 64) will be thrown out of balance, causing massive Social Security underfunding. According to a report by Dowell Meyers of the University of Southern California, ?over the next 20 years, the number of senior citizens relative to the number of working-age Americans will increase by 67 percent,? which means that more and more retirees ?will transition from being net taxpayers to net recipients of pension benefits, and they will be supported by a smaller workforce that is struggling to meet its own needs.?

So as we pull out of the recession, employment rates return to normal and more and more Baby Boomers retire, who, exactly, is going to fill this gap? Enter immigration.

Clearly, having roughly 8 million undocumented workers in the U.S. workforce is not an ideal situation. While these undocumented workers do, in fact, shoulder some of the SSA?s solvency burdens, keeping them in our workforce is not only exploitative, it?s unfair. And it?s not a long-term solution. Yet neither is the recent ?enforcement through attrition? strategy employed by immigration restrictionists to drive undocumented immigrants out.

Study after study indicates that immigration reform which includes an earned path to legalization?that is, allows these undocumented immigrants to become taxpaying U.S. citizens?would go a long way in filling the void. It is sad, but not surprising, that complex policy issues like Social Security reform and immigration reform have long been stymied by a political lack of will. It is also sad, but even more ironic that the same solution?comprehensive immigration reform?is critical to solving both problems.

Photo by americanconsumers.

In recent years, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has taken a lot of heat over questionable detention practices?everything from routine denial of access to loved ones and legal services to detainee death cover-ups and instances of medical negligence and sexual abuse. Although this administration has attempted to overhaul our immigration detention system, some find that changes to date don?t quite go far enough and only hint at the problem. A new report by Detention Watch Network (DWN) argues that the solution is the wide-scale implementation of community-based alternatives to detention that are cost-saving, effective and more humane.

Community-Based Alternatives to Immigration Detention, a new policy brief by DWN, makes the case for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to implement alternatives to immigration detention (ATDs) as soon as possible. While ICE currently operates a pilot ATD system, the report recommends that it should be expanded nationwide (currently, only 16,000 immigrants are enrolled in ATD programs). In addition, DWN calls for other changes:

• ICE should use a risk assessment tool to make individualized custody decisions, and should not be able to detain an individual without articulating why that individual is not suitable for release, parole, bond, or an ATD program.

• As a default, the risk assessment tool should look to consider detention as a last resort as opposed to a first resort. Detention should only be used when there is a reasonable basis to believe that the individual poses a flight or public safety risk.

• Remove electronic ankle bracelets from the ATD list. Despite ICE classifying electronic monitoring, such as ankle bracelets, as an ATD, it is not one. These ankle bracelets require up to 3 hours of charging daily, requiring that a person wearing them sit by an outlet for several hours each day. ICE should only use electronic monitoring when it would otherwise detain an individual and proves that no other measure other than detention would ensure an appearance at removal proceedings.

• When ICE chooses to detain an individual, it should give the detainee a written statement of reasons for their detention.

Immigration detention will cost taxpayers $1.77 billion to detain close to 400,000 immigrants in 2010 alone, much of which could be saved if DHS implemented ATDs nationwide (and DHS has requested $2.6 billion for 2011 detention and removal operations). Each individual in detention costs taxpayers on average $122 per day, while ATD programs can cost as little as $12 per day. The National Immigration Forum estimates that using ATDs could cut program costs in half.

ATDs also reduce immigration court delays?ATDs allow more immigrants to find lawyers, which results in less of them having to represent themselves. With fewer immigrants representing themselves, immigration court judges are not forced to take the time to explain the complexities of navigating the immigration system to each detainee.

Other ATD projects have already shown that community-based ATD programs are very effective in securing appearances for court dates (other programs have shown an effectiveness rate of more than 90%). As DWN explains:

By ensuring that participants have access to low or no cost support services, such as stable housing, medical care, and legal counsel, these programs increase the likelihood that participants will attend all court dates, be able to participate in the court process in an efficient manner, comply with an order of removal when applicable, or voluntarily depart if it becomes clear that they do not have a viable claim for relief.

It is worth remembering that people in immigration detention are not serving criminal sentences, but awaiting a decision on their immigration claims or awaiting deportation. This population includes torture survivors, asylum seekers, trafficking victims, families with small children, the elderly, individuals with serious medical and mental health conditions, and even lawful permanent residents.

ATDs are more humane than current immigration detention, according to DWN:

Individuals in detention experience mistreatment and neglect by detention guards; have virtually no ability to access lawyers for help with their immigration cases; wait for months and years in detention because of a clogged and inefficient immigration court system; and face incarceration far away from their families.

ICE should move quickly to implement a system that costs less than current detention, is just as effective, and is much more humane. Community-based ATDs would be cheaper for United States taxpayers, reduce immigration court delays, and allow immigrants a chance to find legal representation, medical care, and spend time with their families as they sort out their immigration issues.

Photo by Still Burning

In a memorable performance this week, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer refused to defend previously made anti-immigrant statements regarding undocumented immigrants and beheadings during a gubernatorial debate with Attorney General and Democratic candidate, Terry Goddard. While Governor Brewer?s opening remarks meltdown is at least understandable, her inability/refusal to defend controversial anti-immigrant statements?which has become the centerpiece of her re-election platform?is not. Unable to respond to reporters? questions about these maligned statements, Governor Brewer abruptly walked off camera. As gubernatorial candidates in other states consider running for the ?toughest-on-immigration title,? Governor Brewer?s meltdown might serve as an example of what happens when punditry meets public debate and statements are made without merit.

After sparring with Democratic candidate Terry Goddard over the state?s budget, sales tax, immigration, and the boycotts, Governor Brewer dodged Goddard’s call for her to recant her claim that ?Arizona’s law enforcement agencies have found bodies in the desert either buried or just lying out there that have been beheaded.” Afterwards, reporters, smelling blood, peppered her with questions about the “beheadings.” Not surprisingly, when confronted by her stunning misstatements, the same Jan Brewer who blithely told the press that SB 1070 would protect Arizona, simply walked away from reporters.

In fact, Governor Brewer has made several patently false or misinformed statements regarding immigration and crime, violence and drugs in an attempt to justify the implementation of Arizona?s immigration enforcement law, SB 1070, and perhaps to garner public support for her candidacy. Washington Post columnist, Dana Milbank, writes:

“Brewer’s mindlessness about headlessness is just one of the immigration falsehoods being spread by Arizona politicians,” he wrote. “Border violence on the rise? Phoenix becoming the world’s No. 2 kidnapping capital? Illegal immigrants responsible for most police killings? The majority of those crossing the border are drug mules? All wrong.”

So as other gubernatorial candidates?Republican Charles Baker and Independent Timothy Cahill in Massachusetts, Republican Robert Bentley in Alabama, Democrat Roy Barnes and former U.S. Rep. Nathan Deal in Georgia, for example?square off on immigration in their respective races, perhaps they might take Governor Brewer?s meltdown as an example of what happens when candidates jump on the immigration bandwagon and try to out anti-immigrant their opponents without the facts.

Governor Brewer, who followed up on her debate gaffe with ?I?m human, I?m human,? might also consider that the undocumented immigrants she accuses of being ?drug mules, beheaders and violent criminals? are human, too. While demonizing immigrants may help win elections, people will soon begin to realize that fear-mongering is a poor substitute for real solutions to our immigration problems.

Today, the Department of Justice filed suit against Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio for his refusal to hand over documents in an ongoing federal investigation into allegations of discriminatory practices based on a person?s national origin (racial profiling) and unconstitutional searches and seizures. According to the Arizona Republic, ?the lawsuit comes after weeks of back-and-forth letters between the agencies, threats to strip the county of federal funding, and a meeting in Washington last week among attorneys to discuss the investigation.? Thomas E. Perez, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division, called Sheriff Arpaio’s actions ?unprecedented? and is ?unaware of any other police department or sheriff?s office that has refused to cooperate in the last 30 years.?

True to form, Sheriff Arpaio?known for his anti-immigrant enforcement antics?responded that he?s not going to be intimidated by the federal government?s lawsuit. According to the Associated Press, Arpaio had until August 17 to hand over documents the DOJ asked for 15 months ago. Watch Arpaio’s response:

A common refrain among anti-immigrant activists is that today?s immigrants just aren?t ?assimilating? into U.S. society like the immigrants of earlier eras. However, as a new report from the Center for American Progress (CAP) points out, the ?illusion of non-assimilation is created by looking only at newcomers who have not had time yet to assimilate as fully as earlier arrivers.? When socioeconomic advancement is tracked over time, it becomes clear that ?the longer immigrants are here, the more they advance and the better they are integrated into our society.? The report, entitled Assimilation Today, was co-authored by renowned demographer Dowell Myers (a professor in the School of Policy, Planning, and Development at the University of Southern California) and by John Pitkin (president of Analysis and Forecasting, Inc., in Cambridge, Massachusetts).

The CAP report uses Census data to demonstrate the integration and upward mobility, over 18 years, of those immigrants who were ?recently arrived? in the United States as of 1990 (this is, who came to the country between 1985 and 1989). For instance, since these long-term immigrants first came here, more and more of them have bought homes, become U.S. citizens, and earned higher incomes:

• Homeownership: Only 16 percent of immigrants who were ?recently arrived? in the United States as of 1990 were homeowners. By 2008, 62 percent of these immigrants owned homes.

• U.S. Citizenship: Only 7 percent of immigrants who were recently arrived as of 1990 were U.S. citizens. By 2008, 56 percent of these immigrants were U.S. citizens.

• Income: Only 35 percent of immigrants who were recently arrived as of 1990 earned incomes above the ?low-income? level. By 2008, 66 percent of these immigrants were earning incomes above the ?low-income? level.

In other words, integration into U.S. society takes time, and always has. From the Italian, Polish, and Eastern European immigrants who came here at the end of the 19th century, to the Latin American and Asian immigrants who have come here more recently, the pace of integration in its many forms is best measured in terms of decades, not simply a few years. No group of newcomers climbs the socioeconomic ladder of an unfamiliar country overnight. As the CAP report concludes:

Claims that immigrants are stuck at the bottom of the ladder are due simply to the newness of immigrants and the lack of time for assimilation to occur. Given time, the evidence plainly shows that our immigrants today are growing ever more successful and becoming part and parcel of the fabric of our nation.

Photo by CityofElkCity.

BY MELISSA KEANEY, NATIONAL IMMIGRATION LAW CENTER

The misnamed Secure Communities program appears to be a nothing but smoke and mirrors?a federal program operating without adequate supervision or safeguards. The National Immigration Law Center (NILC) filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request seeking information on Immigration and Customs Enforcement?s (ICE) signature immigration enforcement program. The government documents NILC obtained show that ICE?s public statements about the Secure Communities program do not reflect what goes on behind closed doors.

ICE has always represented to the public that participation in Secure Communities is predicated on a formal agreement between ICE and each state. But in a December 2008 Secure Communities weekly report, ICE admits to negotiating with Pennsylvania to proceed with implementation without requiring the state to sign an agreement and without having notice of a database ?hit? go to local agencies. Effectively this means that the program was secretly imposed in Pennsylvania and operated for months before local communities even became aware of it. ICE further notes in the weekly report that it will be pursuing this same approach in other states. And the stealth character of the operation is no insignificant detail. Though the program is going on its third year, ICE has never issued regulations or guidelines for its operation. Indeed, written agreements with the state serve as the only formalization of a program that entangles local police in immigration enforcement and endangers community safety.

According to ICE, the Secure Communities program was designed to catch undocumented immigrants who had committed serious crimes by fingerprinting all those who enter into jails equipped to cross-check prints with ICE databases. Yet, advocates? fears that Secure Communities is little more than an immigrant-hunting program with a slick name have been proven all-too-justified. Three organizations recently obtained government documents revealing that over a quarter of immigrants caught up in the Secure Communities web have not been convicted of any crime at all.

Despite the documented problems with this program, ICE has stonewalled communities that want to safeguard their own best interests by not participating in Secure Communities. San Francisco, for example, has been compelled to take part despite Sheriff Hennessey?s concern that such a program will damage community safety. ICE?s claim that the program is voluntary is an empty promise.

Indeed, ICE continues to deploy Secure Communities at record pace, all the while remaining secretive about how the program operates. News that Secure Communities had been implemented in every county along the U.S./Mexico border was news even to jail operators in some of those counties.

ICE?s refusal to be transparent about Secure Communities chills meaningful public debate and raises serious concerns about the trajectory of immigration enforcement.

Ultimately, the Obama Administration should scrap the secretive and fatally flawed Secure Communities. We do not need another flawed program designed to work within a broken immigration system, especially not one that operates behind closed doors and without limitations. The public deserves a real solution, not more smoke and mirrors.

Photo by moominmolly.

In a new and fatally flawed report, the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) attempts to blame immigrants for virtually any unemployment among less-educated native-born workers anywhere in the United States, in both good economic times and bad. The report, entitled From Bad to Worse, deluges the reader with data from 2007 and 2010 on employment and unemployment among native-born and foreign-born workers, and then insinuates from this?without providing any evidence?that immigrant workers simply must be taking jobs away from the native-born. Specifically, the report juxtaposes the ?estimated seven to eight million illegal immigrants holding jobs? in the United States with the millions of less-educated native-born Americans who are now out of work, or who were out of work before the recession, and concludes that ?if the United States were to enforce immigration laws and encourage illegal immigrants to return home, we would seem to have an adequate supply of less-educated natives to replace? them.

This is typical of the CIS approach to virtually every topic: start with a data dump illustrating the seemingly dire plight of the native-born, and then rely upon empirically unsupported rhetoric to blame immigrants for the problem. It is the approach CIS used earlier this year to incorrectly explain teen unemployment, for instance, as well as the approach adopted in its last report scapegoating immigrants for the unemployment experienced by less-educated workers in the midst of a recession. As with its predecessors, this latest CIS report on immigration and unemployment overlooks a few salient points:

• Foreign-born workers tend to complement, rather than compete with, native-born workers. As a new report from the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco points out, ?immigrants expand the U.S. economy?s productive capacity, stimulate investment, and promote specialization that in the long run boosts productivity,? and ?there is no evidence that these effects take place at the expense of jobs for workers born in the United States.? Among ?less-educated workers, those born in the United States tend to have jobs in manufacturing or mining, while immigrants tend to have jobs in personal services and agriculture.? Moreover, even ?within industries and specific businesses, immigrants and U.S.-born workers tend to specialize in different job tasks,? with native-born workers taking higher-paid jobs that require better English-language skills than many immigrant workers possess.

• Native-born and foreign-born workers tend to live in different places. According to a recent report from the Congressional Budget Office, 62.5% of foreign-born workers lived in six states as of 2009: California, New York, Florida, Texas, New Jersey, and Illinois. In contrast, 66.2 percent of native-born workers lived in the other 44 states. Many unemployed natives would have to travel half way across the country to reach the low-wage jobs currently held by unauthorized immigrants.

• Workers are also consumers who create jobs. Removing millions of unauthorized workers from the country also means removing millions of unauthorized consumers and the jobs they support through their purchasing power. If all the unauthorized consumers in the United States disappeared, many businesses that depend heavily upon their purchases would go under and the U.S. economy would lose jobs overall.

• Enforcement-only ?solutions? to unauthorized immigration have been tried?and failed. The federal government has been attempting for at least a decade and a half, in the words of the CIS report, ?to enforce immigration laws and encourage illegal immigrants to return home,? but without success. Tens of billions of dollars have been spent on immigration enforcement at the border and in the interior of the country, the error-prone ?E-Verify? electronic employment-verification system has been dramatically expanded, and state and local police have been enlisted as immigration-enforcement agents. Yet none of these measures has had a significant impact on the number of unauthorized immigrants living in the United States. In fact, the only thing that has slowed unauthorized immigration in recent years is the shrinking of the U.S. job market as a result of the current recession.

While the CIS report contains an impressive number of tables and statistics, it comes up a tad short in terms of analysis. Most strikingly, the report perpetuates the economically flawed argument that every job held by an immigrant is a job lost by a native-born worker. In addition, CIS calls for more immigration enforcement as a means of curbing unauthorized immigration, but without mentioning that the federal government has been unsuccessfully trying to do just that for well over 15 years. In the final analysis, this latest offering from CIS provides no useful guide for reforming the broken U.S. immigration system or rejuvenating the beleaguered U.S. economy.

Photo by Jez Page.

Although anti-immigrant campaign platforms might help win a primary in a state like Arizona, supporters of harsh immigrant enforcement measures must still address the resulting economic fall out. Last week, the Arizona Governor?s Task Force on Tourism and Economic Vitality hired HMA Public Relations, a Phoenix-based marketing communications and public relations firm, to the tune of $100,000 to ?develop a series of needs and goals for Arizona tourism in light of the controversy created by SB 1070??and, boy, do they have their work cut out for them. Similarly, cities like Fremont, Nebraska?where an anti-immigrant ordinance passed in June?are also being forced to run damage control. Fremont?s City Council is currently considering a property tax increase proposal to help shoulder the projected legal fees resulting from the city’s restrictive immigration ordinance.

Perhaps HMA?s first order of business should be spinning a recent State Department report to the U.N.?s Human Rights Council which lists the federal government?s successful legal challenge to Arizona?s enforcement law as an effort to protect human rights. (Attempting to violate human rights, generally speaking, is probably not good for tourism.) Or maybe the firm should have a serious sit down with Arizona Governor, Jan Brewer, who referred to the majority of undocumented immigrants as ?drug mules? in an interview a few months back?rhetoric which doesn?t exactly scream ?welcome to my state? either.

Even though a federal district judge enjoined the most controversial parts of SB 1070, Arizona?s reputation as an anti-immigrant state lingers as Arizona politicians continue to bash immigrants for political gain. With a growing list of economic boycotts, a declining housing market and a budget deficit of roughly $4.5 million, Arizona will continue to face the fiscal consequences of its ?get tough on immigration? rhetoric. And that?s not even considering the estimated cost of implementing the law or the legal fees resulting from lawsuits, which could reach into the hundreds of millions of dollars. Sadly, Arizona?s not the only state running damage control on anti-immigrant measures.

The city of Fremont, Nebraska, recently sent a proposal for a property tax hike (an additional 18% for resident property owners) to the City Council in anticipation of defending the city?s immigration enforcement ordinance?an ordinance that will require businesses to verify employees? immigration status and renters to apply for an occupancy license. City officials estimate the annual cost of defending the ordinance to be about $750,000. Similarly, Farmers Branch, Texas and Hazleton, Pennsylvania are facing costly litigation to defend their immigration laws, both in the millions of dollars.

Currently, 22 other states are considering enforcement measures similar to Arizona?s and many will, in all likelihood, face similar legal challenges and incur mounting legal fees. As politicians continue to take a ?get tough on immigration? stance in the run up to midterm elections, voters may decide that their pocketbooks trump their politics when it comes to immigration.

Photo by star5112.

Last week, two separate branches of DHS released important evidence supporting the argument that our immigration laws are fundamentally broken. The Office of Immigration Statistics released its annual report on removal and return statistics, noting that removals in 2009 totaled 393,289?marking the seventh straight year of increase. Meanwhile, ICE released a memo directing legal counsel to review and terminate certain immigration court cases where the immigrant also had an application pending in front of USCIS. ICE estimates that approximately 17,000 people may benefit from this new policy. When you juxtapose the numbers, however?393,289 v. 17,000?it reminds you just how out of balance our immigration system has become.

First, the ICE memo. Assistant Secretary John Morton ordered his staff to commence a countrywide systematic review of whether certain cases in immigration court need to be there. By identifying cases in which an immigrant?s application for some form of status is pending in front of USCIS, ICE and USCIS can avoid duplicating resources by moving some people through the system faster and more efficiently. Morton?s memo appears to require that the individual immigrant be otherwise eligible for some sort of lasting legal status?including having an available visa number. If all goes according to plan, roughly 17,000 people may have their deportation cases terminated (closed, charges dismissed) before the immigration judge while their application is processed at USCIS.

From a lawyer?s perspective, this is a smart and common sense approach to maximizing government resources and reducing the strain on the immigration courts. It?s hardly an amnesty program?as the tiresome immigration restrictionists claim?given that these people are currently in line for some form of status, have an application pending, and a decent chance of getting it approved. Why would we want to clog an overburdened immigration court system with folks who don?t need to be there?

So these 17,000 aren?t even likely candidates for deportation. A good move, but hardly pushing the envelope. Yet, terminating cases such as these has been an ongoing battle between ICE and USCIS since DHS was formed back in 2003. If anything, the memo represents a victory for common sense, even if it does little to change the actual removal numbers. Far more people will likely end up in next year?s removal statistics, regardless of this new policy, because there simply isn?t relief available for most folks. And as long as apprehensions continue unabated, the number of removals is likely to increase.

And that?s where the 2009 removal statistics come in. While 393,289 people is a pretty big number, it represents a host of different removal practices and procedures. Over half (58%) of all removals last year were attributable to procedures that are essentially on autopilot?expedited removal and reinstatement of removal, which have been chugging along since 1997. Both are based on laws that give little discretion to the officer, so that once you encounter someone who fits into these categories, there is arguably little you can do to stop the train. While there are plenty of good arguments for reforming or refining these administrative removal procedures, they are part of a broader legislative debate that just isn?t happening.

The same goes for the other 42% (165,000 or so people) who were removed based on an immigration court order. We can only speculate about their circumstances?when and why they were apprehended, how long they were in the system?making it hard to know how many cases, if any, are attributable to current enforcement practices or priorities. Frankly, some people will be deported no matter what the policy. And even when comprehensive immigration reform is enacted, there will continue to be removals. So, the issue is not the fact that people are being removed, but that the system is so fundamentally stacked against most individuals that they have no chance to make themselves right with the immigration laws.

If you juxtapose the numbers represented by these two DHS documents?393,289 v. 17,000?you start to get a sense of how out of balance things are. Removals are high, opportunities for immediate relief are low. It is an imbalance that plays out across the system when Congress allocates another $600 million for border security but does nothing to eliminate legal immigration backlogs. Every time more money and attention is paid to one side of the scale, the deportation and removal side, the balance grows more off-kilter.

Photo by jstrak.

The Republican Party primaries in Arizona may be over, but the anti-immigrant demagoguery upon which the winning candidates built their campaigns is unlikely to fade away anytime soon. Governor Jan Brewer and Senator John McCain both managed to reverse their declining political fortunes in large part by raising the phantom specter of immigrant violence?a cynical tactic they are likely to repeat in the midterm elections. For instance, both trumpeted the discredited claim that Phoenix is the number two kidnapping capital of the world after Mexico City, and portrayed their various and sundry proposals to ?get tough? on unauthorized immigrants as sincere efforts to save Arizonans from kidnappers and other violent criminals.

What Brewer and McCain neglected to mention in their campaign rhetoric, however, is that unauthorized immigrants are the primary victims of the kidnappings that do occur. As Terry Greene Sterling describes in her book Illegal: Life and Death in Arizona?s Immigration War Zone, most of the kidnapping victims in Phoenix are unauthorized immigrants held for ransom by the smugglers (coyotes) they hire to bring them to the United States. These are ?drop house? kidnappings in which ?incoming migrants at the border are baited with low smuggling fares. Those low fares are ramped up by thousands of dollars once the migrants are held at gunpoint in a drop house.? Such ?drop house? kidnappings are distinct from ?home invasion? kidnappings, ?in which kidnappers abduct rich individuals, like drug dealers or human smugglers, or their family members.?

Brewer and McCain are also apparently unaware of the fact that rates for both property crime and violent crime (including murder, assault, and rape) have fallen in Arizona in recent years, including in the state?s three largest cities: Phoenix, Tucson, and Mesa. Moreover, crime rates in Arizona border towns have remained flat for the past decade despite the surge in unauthorized immigration. And a 2008 report from the conservative Americas Majority Foundation found that crime rates in general are lowest in states with the highest immigration growth rates, including Arizona.

The truth which Brewer and McCain seem so determined to ignore is that unauthorized immigrants have been driven into the waiting arms of both smugglers and kidnappers by more than a decade and a half of failed border-enforcement initiatives which have been implemented in the absence of immigration reform. Were Congress and the White House to actually reform our immigration system to match reality, unauthorized immigration would slow to a trickle, the market for people smugglers would dry up, and kidnappers would no longer have a large pool of vulnerable immigrants to hold for ransom.

Of course, were that to happen, politicians such as Brewer and McCain could no longer score political points by crowing about kidnapping without mentioning who is actually being kidnapped?or why. Given their successful use of such fear-mongering in the primaries, however, that is unlikely to happen anytime soon.

Photo by plymouthlibrary.