In my September 2 Examiner column, I took a look at the accumulating evidence that we’re experiencing a sharp decline in immigration and that the number of illegal aliens in the United States may be sharply declining as well. I suggested that it is time for people on all sides of immigration issues to reconsider their positions in light of apparently changing facts.
Two Wall Street Journal stories in the past week cast an interesting light on the issue. The first recounted how the number of border arrests in the just-ended fiscal year fell 23% from the previous fiscal year. Border arrests are taken by many students of immigration as a proxy for the unknowable numbers of those crossing the border illegally; obviously they are an imprecise indicator, but probably a useful one. In any case the numbers are striking. In fiscal year 2009 there were 556,000 border arrests compared with 723,000 in fiscal year2008 and 1,675,000 in fiscal year 2000. In addition, the amount of marijuana and cocaine seized increased sharply in 2009 over 2008, suggesting that a higher proportion of illegal border crossers now are drug couriers rather than would-be illegals seeking work.
Two conclusions seem to follow from this. One is that illegal immigration is sharply down, in response to the economic recession. That’s in line with historic experience which shows levels of immigration to be responsive to the business cycle. The second is that increased enforcement efforts, at the border and within the United States as well, has made a difference. This could cut two ways in the debate over immigration policy. You could argue that providing legalization procedures for illegals is less worrisome because we’ll have fewer illegals to deal with as time goes on (or at least until unemployment sharply declines). Or you could argue that tougher enforcement of existing laws shows that legalization is unnecessary because illegal immigration can be sharply reduced.
The second story, datelined New Delhi, records the resignation of former Infosys co-chairman Nandan Nilekani as head of India’s project to issue biometric national identification cards to its 1.2 billion people. The project is apparently only in its formative stages, with the government earmarking just $25 million currently for a project which, if carried out, will cost billions. But it came as news to me that India was even considering biometric ID cards. In the United States we have had difficulty enforcing our immigration laws because illegals can easily get their hands on false ID. As a result, the 1986 immigration act’s sanctions on employers of illegals have been largely toothless. The REAL ID Act passed by the Republican Congress was an attempt to standardize state-issued driver’s licenses and move in the direction of a relatively tamperproof national identification card. Biometric technology, unavailable in 1986, would presumably be well suited for this.
I remember that in the debate on the 1986 act, there was widespread opposition to any national identification card, from both the right and the left. Americans at the time seemed to have an instinct distrust of enabling the government to keep track of you—as if we wished to be able to light out and, like the hero of The Fugitive television series, take on a new identity. After two decades of high levels of illegal immigration and after the attacks of September 11, Americans attitudes have, I believe, changed. There is much less visceral opposition to a national identification card. Yes, there still is some opposition, as some state governments resist the REAL ID Act and as the story on India’s biometric ID program indicate. But if India, much poorer and more populous than the United States, can consider such a thing, perhaps we can.
