United States immigration debate

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article or section may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards.
Please help improve this article or replace this tag with a more specific message. This article has been tagged since August 2006. (help, talk)

In 2004, United States President George W. Bush proposed a guest worker program to absorb migrant laborers who would otherwise come to the U.S. as illegal aliens. However, the details were left to legislators. In 2005, the Congress began creating legislation to change the current illegal immigration policies. The legislation approved by the U.S. House of Representatives led to massive protests (see 2006 United States immigration reform protests, Illegal immigration to the United States). These protests were symptomatic of a national debate in the U.S., over the criminalization of illegal aliens, forms of legalization and naturalization for those who entered illegally, and a proposed wall along the 2,000 mile border with Mexico.

Illegal Immigrants Info
Education Profile Number Percent
Less than 12 yr. 6,700,000 67.0%
High School 3,000,000 30.0%
College Graduate 300,000 3.0%
Total Illegal Pop. 12,000,000 Jan 2006
Total Working 7,500,000
Criminals Caught 202,842 2004
Criminals Deported 88,895 2004
Caught and Released 1,010,000+ 2005
Illegal Immigrants/year 1,500,000+ Total
Voluntary returns/year - 200,000+ 2005
Change of Status/year - 600,000+ 2005
Net Increase/year 700,000+ Illegal Immigrants
Source: Pew Hispanic Data Estimates[1]
A Description of the Immigrant Population [2]

Contents

[edit] Policymaker proposals and major addresses

[edit] Bush proposal of January 2004

President Bush proposed a variety of reforms to immigration laws on January 7, 2004. The proposal to Congress came in the form of a statement of principles rather than legislation.[3] The central proposal was that new and existing workers should be admitted to the United States as temporary workers, a proposal reminiscent of the Bracero program of the mid-20th century. Other issues included border enforcement and incentives for temporary workers to return home when no longer needed by their employers.

[edit] Jackson Lee legislation (Save America Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act)

Ranking Democrat on the House Immigration subcommittee, Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee introduced the Save America Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2005 into the House on May 4, 2005. Lee's bill, which has 24 House cosponsors, would allow legalization of immigrants who have been in the United States for five or more years, provided they are of good moral character, enroll in English language classes and complete a community service requirement. The bill would also ease the naturalization of children and expand family reunification.[4] Jackson Lee, a member of the Congressional Black Caucus has described the legalization of immigrants "as a civil rights issue, to give a sense of fairness to individuals who had been in this country and had worked and paid taxes and wanted to come from under the shadows.”[5]

[edit] House of Representatives Bill 4437

Main article: H.R. 4437
It has been suggested that H.R. 4437 be merged into this article or section. (Discuss)

On December 6, 2005, Representative Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI) introduced H.R. 4437 onto the floor of the House of Representatives. After going through mark-up and amendment, the full House voted to pass the bill on December 16, 2005, by a margin of 239 to 182.

Key provisions require up to 700 miles (1100 km) of walls and fences fence along the U.S.-Mexican border, mandatory federal custody of illegal aliens detained by local authorities, and mandatory employer verification of workers' legal status through electronic means. The bill would criminalize as a felony remaining in the United States as an undocumented immigrant and would also criminalize aiding immigrants.

[edit] Reaction

Main article: 2006 U.S. immigrant rights protests

The passage of H.R. 4437 led to large demonstrations throughout the country, beginning in March, with increasing numbers participating in April and finally a very large coordinated protest on May 1.

According to National Public Radio, "Mexican flags were planted all over the United States,"[6] during early protests but some protest organizers pointed out that waving foreign flags during these protests was hindering illegal alien supporters from gaining the legislation they wanted. So, as time went on, more and more US flags were present. In addition, over time, the percentage of signs in English as compared to Spanish increased.[7]

A CBS poll taken May 16-17 in 2006 suggests that 77% of Americans would support a path for legalization for illegal immigrants who paid a fine, had been living in the country for 5 or more years, had no criminal record, paid back taxes, and learned English. This result supports the results of a CNN poll taken May 16-17 suggesting that 79% of Americans would support the legalization of illegal immigrants if they had a job, paid back taxes, and had been living in the United States for a number of years. A Gallup poll given May 5-7 had similar results to the CNN and CBS polls which all showed support for the immigration reform approach taken by the United States Senate. A May 3rd Zogby poll did suggest Americans preferred more punitive measures sought by the United States House of Representatives.

[edit] Counter Protests

After the protests of May 1st a group of American citizens lead by the Minutemen declared a boycott of Mexican-related goods and services, to be held on May 5 and June 30. On those days anti-illegal immigration activists were asked to not visit Mexican restaurants, not shop at stores that supported the May 1st boycott and not use public transportation.

Probably due to short notice and poor organizing, the boycott of May 5 garnered little support. There was no mass media attention given to the event and no reports of boycotts in the Associated Press. It could also be criticized for hurting the Mexican economy which would in turn cause further migration to the United States.

[edit] Illegal immigration hearings in Congress

From December 2005 to March 2006 there was a long series of hearings over the effect of high illegal immigration levels on the United States. Some issues in the illegal immigration problem brought up in the House and Senate hearings include:[citation needed]

  • lack of adequate agents to pursue visa overstayers;
  • lack of adequate agents to pursue illegals legally departed but still here—560,000;
  • lack of adequate agents to pursue blatant cases of illegal immigrant hiring;
  • lack of adequate agents to pursue identity theft;
  • lack of coordination between ICE/DHS and the Social Security agency—FDICA;
  • lack of coordination between ICE/DHS and the Internal Revenue Service;
  • lack of coordination between ICE/DHS and the local police forces;
  • lack of adequate agents to secure the border;
  • lack of adequate agents to reinstate internal immigration control;
  • lack of adequate agents and funding to find and deport all criminal aliens from all prisons;
  • lack of adequate agents to pursue wide spread document forgery;
  • illegal labor crowding out of native workers in several professions;
  • wage depression of all low skilled labor;
  • employment and unemployment of native unskilled labor;
  • impact on ecology and environmental degradation;
  • impacted schools diverting funds to teach English and other necessary skills;
  • hospitals (overuse of emergency rooms; patients who receive services but cannot or will not pay);
  • overcrowded highways and additional insurance costs due to illegal immigrants with no driver's licenses or automobile insurance;
  • disrespect for the law by illegals and their employers;
  • illegal immigrant involvement in the rising crime rate in general
  • illegal immigrant supported crimes of forging documents and identity theft;
  • public health concerns (i.e. possible infectious disease importation: tuberculosis and variant strains of the measles);
  • overcrowded federal, state and local prisons;
  • abuse of illegal workers in terms of lower than minimum wages and unsafe working conditions;
  • concern about wide spread corruption of public officials;
  • damage to private property (especially to those who live along the U.S.-Mexican border); and,
  • damage to U.S.-Mexico foreign relations (both political and economic).
  • impact of NAFTA

[edit] Senate Bill 2611

Main article: S. 2611

Intended as a bipartisan compromise, S. 2611, or the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act (abbreviated CIRA), is a Senate bill which deals with immigration reform. It proposes to increase border security along the southern United States border with Mexico and provides for long-time illegal immigrants to be allowed to receive limited services and given a path to citizenship under certain circumstances. It introduces a "blue card" that allows additional guest workers to stay for up to six years. The bill provides additional protection for immigrant widows and children, educational benefits, and normalization of the status of immigrants affected by the September 11 attacks. S-2611 also includes forth border security and enforcement provisions, the Border Tunnel Prevention Act, a grant program for local law enforcement affected by immigrants, increased compliance measures against the hiring of undocumented immigrants. The sponsor of S. 2611 is Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA), who introduced it on April 7, 2006. It was passed on May 25, 2006 by a vote of 62-36. Cloture was invoked, limiting debate to a 30 hour period. Only 22 Republicans of the 55 Republican majority voted for it. [8]

[edit] President Bush's address on reforming immigration law

On May 15, 2006, in a nationally televised presidential address to the nation, President George W. Bush described his plan for reforming the nation's immigration laws. His plan consisted of five main points:

  • 1. Border Security - The President said that he favored an eventual increase of 6000 border security agents by 2008. Border security would also include more training and technology available to border agents. During the training of the agents, up to 6000 members of the U.S. National Guard will be deployed along the 2000 mile long border of Mexico and the U.S., not to arrest undocumented immigrants, but "to provide support."
  • 2. Temporary Guest Worker Program - The President said he supported a "temporary worker program that would create a legal path for foreign workers to enter our country in an orderly way, for a limited period of time" (See also: The H-1B Visa Program).
  • 3. Stronger enforcement against employers - The President said that he supported the "need to hold employers to account for the workers they hire," adding that U.S. employers "often cannot verify the legal status of their employees, because of the widespread problem of document fraud."
  • 4. Legal pathway for some illegal immigrants to stay - The President said that illegal immigrants "should not be given an automatic path to citizenship. This is amnesty, and I oppose it."

The President said that a general program of amnesty "would be unfair to those who are here lawfully and it would invite further waves of illegal immigration." On this point, President went on to describe his program:

I believe that illegal immigrants who have roots in our country and want to stay should have to pay a meaningful penalty for breaking the law to pay their taxes to learn English and to work in a job for a number of years. People who meet these conditions should be able to apply for citizenship but approval would not be automatic, and they will have to wait in line behind those who played by the rules and followed the law. What I have just described is not amnesty it is a way for those who have broken the law to pay their debt to society, and demonstrate the character that makes a good citizen.

  • 5. The American tradition of the melting pot - The President said that "the success of our country depends upon helping newcomers assimilate into our society, and embrace our common identity as Americans." The President also emphasized the need for all immigrants to read, write, and speak English proficiently.

[9]

[edit] Critical responses to Bush's speech and proposals

While some were pleased with President Bush's speech and proposed plan (U.S. House Speaker Dennis Hastert (Republican, Illinois), for example) others on the political left and the political right expressed strong disapproval. This is a sampling of responses (as reported by CNN):

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, Republican, California:

Bush is playing these word games about massive deportations again, which no one is advocating and does not do anything to further an honest debate . . . If they [illegal immigrants] are here illegally and you make them here legally, that is an amnesty.

Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin, Democrat, Illinois:

We know where the House Republicans stand. They want to criminalize undocumented immigrants and the nurses, volunteers and people of faith who help them. The president told us tonight that he is for comprehensive reform: Now he must lead. The president has the power to call up the National Guard, but now he must summon the power to lead his own Republican forces in Congress to support a bipartisan, comprehensive immigration reform.

House Majority Leader John Boehner, Republican, Ohio:

House Republicans have responded to the concerns of the American people by passing a strong border-security bill that reflects our commitment to re-establishing basic respect for our immigration laws and sealing our border against illegal entry. If the Senate passes an immigration bill, I'm committed to working with [House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner] and House Republicans to ensure we make border security our first priority and meet our commitments to the American people.

Rep. Tom Tancredo, Republican, Colorado:

I hope to God that we do not, in fact, pass anything in the House that resembles anything that is coming out of the Senate or that they were even talking about. ... The card for employers -- great idea. All for it. Putting the troops on the border -- great idea. All for it. But what absolutely bugs me, when the president starts talking about this false dichotomy ... where it's either round up and deport 12 million people or give them amnesty -- no, no. There is another way to do it. And that is, in fact, to make sure that they can't get jobs and, through attrition, millions will go home.

Governor Bill Richardson, Democrat, New Mexico:

My big question as the New Mexico governor is, Of the 6,000, how many are coming to New Mexico? And they couldn't give me an answer on that. It seems this policy is being made on the fly, and that's what's discouraging.

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, Republican, California:

It remains unclear what impact only 6,000 National Guard troops will have on securing the Border . . . I am concerned asking National Guard troops to guard our nation's border is a Band-Aid Solution and not the permanent solution we need. One thing is clear -- we all agree we must secure our borders, and I commend the president for speaking so passionately about the need for comprehensive reform tonight.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Republican, New York City:

It is as if we expect border control agents to do what a century of communism could not: Defeat the natural forces of supply and demand and defeat the natural human instinct for freedom and opportunity. You might as well sit on the beach and tell the tide not to come in.

Anthony Romero, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union:

Our government and people have long recognized that federal law enforcement officers are the best equipped and trained to deal with these kinds of civilian law enforcement needs. Soldiers are trained to kill the enemy, and they lack the training to conduct proper law enforcement. Furthermore, they lack training to respect and protect border community residents' civil liberties and safety. History has shown the dangers of using the military to engage in domestic law enforcement activities.

John Sweeny, President of the AFL-CIO:

Deploying the National Guard to the border does nothing to end the economic exploitation that is driving illegal immigration. Our laws must include uniform enforcement of workplace standards to ensure a more just and level playing field. We must reject outdated guest-worker programs that relegate all future immigrant workers to an indentured, second-class status with substandard wages and rights, and undermine standards for all. [10]

Senator Patrick Leahy, Democrat, Vermont:

We asked them two years ago, why don't you fund the Border Patrol positions that the Congress has provided? You know what we got from Homeland Security for an answer? Nothing. Nothing at all.[11]

[edit] Senate action

On May 17, 2006, the Senate passed a bill affecting the millions of illegal immigrants already in the United States, plus those intending to come in via Mexico. The bill proposed that a 370 mile triple-layered fence would be built along the Mexican border to slow down illegal border crossings in the future. However, illegal immigrants already in the country would be provided a way forward to stay and indeed gain citizenship. The new scheme would also provide up to 200,000 placements per year for guest workers.

President Bush made the following statement at a Washington gala and fundraising event for the national GOP:

The Republican Party needs to lead on the issue of immigration. The immigration system is not working and we need to do something about it now. America can be a lawful society and a welcoming society and we don't have to choose between the two.[12]

On May 24, 2006, the Senate moved to close the debate on immigration. The current bill creates a computerized system within the Social Security Administration for employers to check the legal status of their workers. [13] Employers would be required to submit data within three days of hire. The legislation also creates a process for current illegal aliens to become citizens.

[edit] Internal Dimensions of Debate

This article or section does not cite its references or sources.
Please help improve this article by introducing appropriate citations. (help, get involved!) This article has been tagged since August 2006.

[edit] Working without legal sanction

One consequence of illegal immigration to the U.S. is that many undocumented workers seek and engage in work without legal sanction. In some cases, this is accomplished by entering the country legally with a visa, and then simply choosing not to leave upon expiration of the visa (as described above). In other cases people enter the country surreptitiously without ever obtaining a visa.

The United States has laws requiring workers to have proper documentation, often intended to prevent the employment of illegal immigrants. However the penalties against employers are not always enforced consistently and fairly, which means that employers can easily use illegal labor. Undocumented workers are especially popular with employers because they can violate minimum wage laws secure in the knowledge that illegal workers dare not report their employers to the police.

[edit] Sweatshops

People smuggling may also be involuntary. Following the close of the legal international slave trade by the European nations and the United States in the early 19th century the illegal importation of slaves into America continued for decades, albeit at much reduced levels. More recently, a sweatshop in Los Angeles, California was discovered in 1995 to be staffed by 72 imprisoned Thai persons who had been smuggled in for the purpose[citation needed]. Concerned for the workers' safety if they should be returned to Thailand, the federal government granted them legal residency with the right to work in the United States. In 1997, 57 deaf Mexicans were found to have been kidnapped and enslaved as panhandlers in New York City, these people were deported to Mexico after being placed under house arrest to secure their testimony for the trial[citation needed].

[edit] Increasing border security

Department of Homeland Security officials have stated that "...illegal immigration threatens our communities and our national security."[14] In fact, one of the main points of the illegal immigration controversy involves an increasing number of U.S. citizens calling for increased border security (with the main idea being to reduce illegal immigration). Some critics of border security suggest that their opponents are ignoring larger [insolvable] issues of wealth disparity, flaws in the immigration process, or other systematic issues which may have given rise to such a large influx of illegal immigrants, instead offering a band-aid solution.

The Cato Institute is among the critics who argue that increasing border security is counterproductive. The institute argues that increasing border security reduces the proportion of illegal immigrants caught at the border and increases the length of time illegal immigrants remain in the country. The proportion of immigrants apprehended at the border has been gone from 33% in 1980 to 5% in 2002. (ICE apprehended 1,241,089 illegal border crossers in 2004. To get 1,241,089 with a 5% catch rate would imply over 20,000,000 border crossers!) *[15] Immigration Enforcement Actions: 2004 Cato claims that the only significant change on illegal immigrants has been in length of stay due to the cost of returning. The probability of returning within twelve months has gone from around 45% in 1980 to between 25 and 30% from 1998-2002. Also, the average trip duration has gone from 1.7 years to 3.5 years. According to the Cato Institute, the only important change in security has been one of cost. The Border Patrol's budget has gone from $151 million in 1986 to $1.6 billion in 2002. This has caused the cost of aprehending an illegal immigrant to go from around $100 per arrest before 1986 to around $1700 in 2002.Center for Trade Policy Studies-Backfire at the Border.

The Posse Comitatus Act generally prohibits Federal military personnel and units of the United States National Guard under Federal authority from acting in a law enforcement capacity within the United States, except where expressly authorized by the Constitution or Congress. It is intended to keep the US Military from becoming a national police force, or being used in such a manner.

The act is not binding upon the United States Coast Guard, except when it is consolidated with the US Navy, nor is it binding upon the National Guard when the National Guard is operating under the direction of individual State Governors. The US Army and the US Air force could be called upon to guard the border to prevent terrorists from entering into the US, without violating the Act.[48]

Major Craig T. Trebilock, a member of the Judge Advocate General's Corps in the U.S. Army Reserve stated, "The Posse Commitatus Act was passed to remove the Army from civilian law enforcement and to return it to its role of defending the borders of the United States." [49] By definition, a civilian is a citizen. [wwordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn] Illegal immigrants are not citizens. "Civilian law enforcement" does not cover immigration law.

Former US Border Patrol Supervisor David Stoddard, has stated, "There are those who would argue that this is a violation of Posse Comitatus. That's ridiculous. Posse Comitatus prohibits the use of troops for domestic law enforcement. Border security is not domestic law enforcement. It is protecting our nation from foreign intruders. Besides, Posse Comitatus was passed in 1878, yet the U.S. Cavalry continued to patrol the U.S. Mexico Border until 1924."

[edit] Financial Burden

A debate exists between whether or not illegal immigrants pay enough taxes to support all the government services they use.

A study from Chapman University professor Francine Lipman states that illegal immigrants provide a net positive benefit to federal coffers, because of the tax law's treatment of those in the country illegally and those who are married to illegal immigrants. They are ineligible for the Earned Income Credit and the Child Tax Credit. [16]

One of the largest drivers of immigration both legal and illegal is economic supply and demand for labour and the natural human desire of people to participate in the economy and in so doing better their economic situation. Labour is a mobile economic factor of production, efforts to limit its mobility are attempts at limiting the free market (for labour). However, a pro-illegal immigration argument consistent with the free market would require us to first have a free market - to remove the welfare system.[17][18]

However, several studies (discussed below) show that the amount of taxes illegal immigrants pay to the different forms of local, state, and federal governments does not compensate for the amount of public services they and their family receive. [19] This problem has affected several states; perhaps the greatest impact has been on California.[20]

A study in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons concluded that the burden of illegal immigrants on the health care system in the US has forced many hospitals to close due to unpaid bills. Between 1993 and 2003, 60 hospitals in California alone were forced to close, and many others had to reduce staff or implement other procedures which reduced the level of service they could provide. The article's author attributes these closings to illegal immigration. [21]

Children of illegal immigrants also present a serious burden on education systems. According to Federation for American Immigration Reform, California's education system spends $7.7 billion each year caring for the children of illegal immigrants. The study did not include property taxes paid, directly or indirectly, by illegal immigrants, nor did it estimate how many of the children were citizens. [22]

The CIS claims that many illegal immigrants use the U.S. welfare program with false identification. [23]

See also: 2006 U.S. immigration reform protests, H.R. 4437, Economic impact of immigration to Canada

[edit] Crime

The Center of Immigration Studies (CIS) has stated that many violent crimes in the United States are committed by illegal immigrants.[24]. Because of the immigration status of the criminals, law enforcement officials are often unable to accurately track and find many of them as they retreat back over the border where they are often untraceable and/or not extraditable.

A study by Dr. Deborah Schurman-Kauffin, director of the Violent Crimes Institute in Atlanta, Georgia, estimates that approximately one million sex crimes were committed by illegal immigrants in the period between 1999 and 2006. Of these, 70% of the victims were legal US residents. [25]

An Op-Ed in the New York Times claims that immigration of Hispanics may in fact be associated with decreased crime.[1]

[edit] Drug dealing

Main article: War on Drugs

Many criminal elements illegally enter the United States, most notably narcotic-traffickers and members of the street gang MS-13. With a total member count of 10,000 in the U.S. and 50,000 worldwide, they have already forced other gangs into submission or absorbed their members. [26]

[edit] Fake IDs

Main article: Identity document

Some immigrants engage in criminal activity like identity theft while Mohamed Atta al-Sayed and two of his co-conspirators had expired visas when they executed the September 11, 2001 attacks. All of the attackers had U.S. government issued documents and two of them were erroneously granted visa extensions after their deaths. The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States found that the government inadequately tracked those with expired tourist or student visas.

A controversial alternative to fake IDs and other illegal practices is the Matricula Consular ID being used in the U.S., which is issued by Mexican consulates. This document is accepted at financial institutions in many states of the union and, with an IRS Taxpayer Identification Number, allows illegal immigrants to open checking and saving accounts. This has benefited American companies and banks who profit from remmittances of migrants towards their place of origin, while allowing immigrants to save money and identify themselves.[27] The passage of the REAL ID Act of 2005 (a part of Public Law P.L. 109-13) prohibits States from issuing identification or driver's permit cards to anyone who cannot demonstrate that they are legally in the USA, taking full effect in 2008. Citizenship and/or immigration status is to be clearly denoted on these ID cards and they automatically expire on the expiration date of non-citizens' visas or other authorizing documentation. These IDs will be tied to online databases which will allow instant verification of the validity of these documents at low cost or no cost to the person seeking verification. As of 2006, the anticipated effect of this legislation is to make it increasingly difficult for illegal immigrants to use counterfeit documents to or to live and work illegally in the USA. However, at the same time, the REAL ID Act of 2005 effectively imposes a mandatory national ID for all US Citizens as well.[28]

[edit] External Dimensions of Debate

[edit] Relations with Mexico

The President of Mexico, Vicente Fox, explained his opposition to the idea of a border wall while visiting Salt Lake City, Utah[29].

The President of Mexico, Vicente Fox, has stated that remittances of Mexican nationals in the United States, both legal and illegal, total $12 billion, and are the biggest source of foreign income for Mexico. [30] Many commentators have pointed out the Mexican government enforces harsh rules over immigration to Mexico. Many critics of illegal immigration have alleged that there is hypocrisy by the Mexican government, which forbids any political activity by foreign nationals. [31] While most recent immigration laws passed in Mexico are a product of a policy agreement between Mexico and The United States of America. These laws were designed to stop the flow of Central and South America migrants before they got to the US Border with Mexico.

[edit] Significant agents involved in the debate

[edit] Grassroots political groups

This article or section does not cite its references or sources.
Please help improve this article by introducing appropriate citations. (help, get involved!) This article has been tagged since August 2006.

Many organized political groups have begun to speak out on the issue of illegal immigration (and also legal immigration) resulting in a wide range of policy options under active consideration.

The immigration reduction movement seeks to reduce the levels of illegal immigration into the U.S. The Minuteman Project has been lobbying Congress for stronger enforcement of the border laws and is reported to be organizing private property owners along the U.S.-Mexican border for the purpose of building a fence to discourage illegal border crossings.

Other groups are organizing protests against the federal classification of illegal immigrant status as felons. These groups also demand various rights be established in law for undocumented workers to become permanent legal residents (with permission to work) or (eventually) a path for full U.S. citizenship. These groups have also organized large protests and rallies in many major urban centers in the U.S., including New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, San Francisco, and Dallas. However, some have reported that the movement may have generated a significant backlash among those opposed to illegal immigration, which, according to a number of political polls, includes the majority of Americans. A recent Zogby poll found that 61% of Americans were less sympathetic to undocumented workers as a result of the protests. [32]

[edit] City sanctions

Several cities have passed an Illegal Immigration Relief Act designed to penalize landlords who provide illegal immigrants with housing and businesses who provide illegal immigrants with employment. These cities include:

[edit] Sources

  1. ^ Sampson, Robert. ""Open Doors Don't Invite Criminals"", New York Times (Op-Ed), March 11, 2006.

[edit] See also

[edit] External links

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../u/n/i/United_States_immigration_debate_b613.html"