House Bill 4437 has been causing quite a stir across the United States, as well as here in Utah. House Bill 4437 would make “illegal entry into or illegal presence in the United States” a felony. I’m told more than 10,000 people gathered Sunday in downtown Salt Lake to protest the bill. In Monday’s Daily Utah Chronicle, the above-the fold headline described the event as “Marching for Dignity.” Where is the dignity, however, in blatantly flaunting the violation of the law? Dignity comes from abiding by a constitution which protects human rights. Dignity is giving back to the community and participating in its governance. Dignity is not in selectively obeying laws of a country wherein you abide.

The salient problems, as I see them, are numerous. First, there is a basic need for order and regulation in any modern-day civilization. There is a social contract implicit (for those who are born here) or explicit (for those who are naturalized) between the citizenry and the government. The government agrees to provide certain services and to guarantee particular liberties and the denizens agree to obey a set of rules. Where the rule of law is ignored, society and its members suffer. When income taxes are not paid, one freeloads on a system by enrolling children in public schools, using the transportation infrastructure, benefiting from the security that the police and armed forces provide, etc.

From an order and security perspective, it is paramount that those wishing immigration be naturalized, cataloged (with a social security number), screened and filtered. An unregulated entry of immigrants into the country is bad policy. With the illegal flow of people comes accompanying entrance of criminals, arms and drugs. If you’re going to come to America, come through the front door, through a structured process. It is better for America and better for the newcomers. As an illustration, going through the procedure of naturalization lessens the tendency of Mexicans to culturally remain “Mexicans in America”, instead of becoming Mexican-Americans. They would be more likely to integrate into society, learn English and become contributing members civically.
Also, once citizenship is granted, a host of other services (like the benefit of legal redress) become available.

So how do we address this complex issue?

The first step in addressing this problem is containment. The tide of undocumented persons must be stemmed immediately. With the border patrol hopelessly undermanned, only the militarization of the Mexico border by the National Guard will effectively dam the sieve that is our southern border.

The second step is to reduce the incentives for US companies to hire undocumented workers. By making illegal immigration a felony, it equates hiring and housing Mexicans with “aiding and abetting felons”. That means the employers of the undocumented workers are less motivated to hire them if by consequence the employers could serve prison time or be heavily fined. The justice system would need to strictly monitor the construction, agriculture, food and service industries (those companies most likely to hire foreigners) for violators and hand down stiff penalties for infractions.

Finally, with any approach, it is important to balance the sticks with carrots. Once the influx of Mexican aliens is slowed, there must be a system in place for dealing with the 12 million or so aliens currently living in the United States. Immediate deportation of all 12 million is both largely damaging to both side and impractical, particularly given the fact that any children born in the US are by definition Americans. There must be some way for companies employing illegal workers to immediately apply for sponsored guest worker permits. Then, those possessing those permits would apply for fast-tracked citizenship for themselves and their family members. Those not working, or refusing to enroll in the system would be deported.

No discussion of any issue is of much value without consideration of opposing viewpoints. Here below are a number of arguments I have heard against House Bill 4437, followed by my comments.

Argument 1: “They [illegal aliens] do work other Americans are not willing to do (at that price)”. This is likely true, but besides the fact that such a statement is degrading, I think it is better in the long term if we use technology not illegal labor for undesirable work.

Argument 2: “Their cheap labor keeps prices low (on fruit, consumer goods, etc.)” Sure, but at what cost? How many Mexicans are mistreated with no action of recourse? How many Mexicans receive no health insurance or medical benefits and work in unsafe conditions? Maybe it is worth spending a few more cents to purchase a bag of oranges than to encourage lawless behavior.

Argument 3: “We can’t establish policies to hurt hardworking people and their families.” Actually we can, but that’s not even relevant here. Also, the assumption that illegal aliens are hardworking (and by implication more hardworking) than citizens is, in my opinion, unfounded and unsubstantiated. What remains is that the rule of law is essential for the stability of society. I maintain that those same “hardworking people and their families” would be better off as citizens.

Argument 4: “America is the land of the free. As a bastion for freedom, she should not restrict entry into her borders.” America is only the land of the free because of laws. Having no laws (or not following laws) is the same as having no protected freedoms. We must all choose. Remember, everyone benefits from lawful comportment.

Argument 5: “Any immigration law we pass is unenforceable, therefore we should not pass any such laws.” That may be true, but it is irrelevant. Legislature and enforcement are two different things. It is, as I understand it, the duty of the legislature to create laws for the safety and betterment of society; that is, for the public good. The Justice/enforcement system, on the other hand, is tasked with discovering and punishing those who violate laws. Further, even if it is true that a law was entirely unenforceable, that should not prevent a legislature from making the law. For example, homosexuals should not be allowed to marry each other, not because the government could prevent such persons from homosexual actions, but because, homosexuality (when practiced irresponsibly, as it often is) is a public health nightmare (witness the higher incidence and spread of venereal diseases, higher engagement in risky behavior, etc.) and its government sanction is antithetical to governmental mandate. To be clear, laws limiting marriage to monogamous heterosexuals do not enforce heterosexuality anymore than wishing it to be so, yet still, governments are duty-bound (ethically and practically) to legislate (and therein encourage) best practices for health and stability.

Argument 7: “The European pilgrims were illegal aliens. In fact, Mexicans are the original Americans and European Americans are the real immigrants.” Let’s remember that today’s Mexicans are mainly the descendants of Spanish and Native American relations and are likely genetically no more pure “original American” than the average American of European descent. It’s moot, however, because, regardless of genetic makeup, the law clearly delineates those who are citizens and those who are not.

Argument 8: “Any solution to the problem would be too expensive, so we should not try to solve the problem”. How to pay for implementation is a reasonable question to pose. I am for a combination of efficient action, an increase in taxes, and restrictions on the massive pork barreling that is rampant (particularly among the senators from Alaska and West Virginia). This triumvirate approach, I think, provides adequate financing for the proposed operations.

Argument 9: “Legalizing the workers is too costly — we would have to pay them paying them minimal wage. Additionally, there is the potential burden on the welfare system.” These are the two best arguments I’ve heard so far, and that’s why I’ve saved them for last. As I often read in my textbooks, “the solution is left as an exercise for the reader.” Have fun!