Achieving Order:
A Study on Illegal Immigration from Mexico to the United States
Cassondre Buteyn

If today is like any other day, this is what is going to cross the line from Mexico: a million barrels of crude oil, 432 tons of bell peppers, 238,000 light bulbs, 166 brand-new Volkswagen Beetles, 16,250 toasters, $51 million worth of auto parts, everything from the little plastic knob on the air conditioner to your cell-phone charger. It all comes in trucks and boxcars and little panel vans, and that's just the stuff that Customs can keep track of. There is also the vast shadow market - not just the cocaine, heroin, and freshly laundered money but also the cut-price Claritin and steroids, banned bug killers, and boots made from the flippers of endangered sea turtles.

And then there are the people, more than 800,000 crisscrossing legally every day, some walking, more driving, not to mention the 4,600 or so who hop the fence and get caught a few minutes or hours later. The ones who make it are on their way to jobs as meat packers in Iowa and carpet makers in Georgia and gardeners in Pennsylvania. They want to be in the US so badly that they will risk the scorpions and the rattlesnakes, the surveillance cameras and underground sensors; they will fold into hidden compartments behind the dashboard of a car or in the belly of a tanker truck. They know they can get a job no one else wants, save some money, send some home, maybe find a way to bring their family - because someday this border may not look anything like it does now: a barbed-wire paradox, half pried open, half bolted closed.[1]

This is a candid look into current relations between the United States and Mexico. These two countries share a common boundary that has blurred over the years as people interact along each side of an imaginary line that divides the developing from the developed world. Current estimates calculate the undocumented population in the United States to be more than three million. The vast majority of immigrants who enter the United States illegally are seeking work due to the depressed economic situations in their own countries. The U.S. has consistently demanded cheap labor for its economy, and undocumented workers make it possible for the U.S. economy to function with more economic utility, allowing its consumers to purchase goods at a lower price.

Regardless of their crucial contributions, illegal immigrants are usually denied those basic rights afforded to all other residents of the U.S., such as basic health care, education, and labor rights. Those who oppose legalization of undocumented immigrants are concerned with the effects imposed on the welfare state, the maintenance of principles of fairness that are seemingly violated through legalization of these immigrants, and the overall effects of illegal immigration on the U.S. population and economy. Something must be done to reconcile this problem. Many different experts have proposed different methods of action that Mexico and the United States can pursue, but the key will be to achieve a workable solution that addresses both sides' needs, taking into account the special relationship the countries share. The future of two countries' economies and cultures is dependent upon the establishment of a viable solution to the problem of rampant illegal immigration.
 
THE PROBLEM

The underlying problem exists in the contradictory nature of the systems of immigration and employment in the United States. In 1986, Congress made it illegal for employers to hire illegal immigrants knowingly. Nonetheless, the demand for cheap, unskilled labor drives businesses to employ undocumented workers in order to gain competitive advantage over other businesses in the industry. Although employers cannot ask potential employees if they are in the U.S. illegally because of the discriminatory implications (as per Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and as clarified by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission[2]), many employers are aware of the characteristics of false documents and turn a blind eye to the fact that the applicants are undocumented workers, preferring instead to take advantage of their superior position in the situation. In doing so, they obtain quality labor for a low price. For example,

A study by the Social Security Administration's inspector general found businesses submitting employee wage information that clearly was fraudulent. One submitted 663 documents containing Social Security numbers made up entirely of zeros. An Arizona employer submitted the same Social Security number for more than one employee on 234 occasions.[3]

Obviously, such blatant violations were not simply accidents caused by poor record keeping or minor mistakes.

Another problem is that false documents are readily available. A 1999 investigation in Los Angeles, California, called "Operation Fine Print," dramatically illustrates the severity of the problem. Operation Fine Print captured over two million documents valued at over $100 million.[4] Hundreds of documents are exchanged daily in the most common places such as bus stations, Laundromats, and swap meets, making it possible for undocumented immigrants to get the jobs for which they came to the U.S.

If an employer can recognize false documents, he or she can dismiss the workers. The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) once offered seminars to teach employers to recognize phony documents, but interest waned and the program was phased out. INS representative Russell Ahr commented that employers have "taken the attitude that it's not their job to question the validity of a document, and to a certain extent that's true. The burden is on us to prove the employer lied and knowingly hired someone they knew used a fraudulent document. We tell employers that unless they're sure the document is fraudulent, not to question it."[5] The INS offers this advice to avoid reprisal for discrimination, and this in itself leads to the placement of the burden of legal employment regulation upon the government. There is little motivation to monitor employees' immigration status, especially in a tight labor market where it is hard to fill vacancies.

Employers find themselves in a difficult position between obeying the law and finding labor. Rick Burgess, INS work-site enforcement coordinator of the Western region, remarked, "Some companies fear they'll lose employees if they get too good at identifying fraudulent documents."[6] Employers might believe that certain employees do not have legal immigration status, but the company can take advantage of the situation and produce its goods through the use (and the exploitation) of such labor. An estimate from the Bureau of Labor Statistics assesses that of the 15.7 million immigrant workers in the U.S. in 1999, about five -million were illegal immigrants.[7] The agricultural sector is the largest employer of undocumented workers, in which about 80 to 85 per cent of agricultural workers use fraudulent documents.[8] Mexico supplies most of this labor because of its proximity to the U.S., as well as its depressed economy and lack of jobs. Each year, 500,000 more workers enter the Mexican workforce than for which there are jobs available. Wages in the U.S. are higher, and available work is plentiful.

This magnet has drawn most of the three million illegal immigrants currently in the United States. In 1996, the Border Patrol found that 93 percent of the Mexican aliens apprehended came either to work (had a position waiting) or to find employment.[9] This coincides with the fact that "immigration is generally caused by 'push-pull' factors - elements that attract immigrants to the United States and influences that force them to leave their native countries."[10] The United States economy is now "hooked" on undocumented workers' labor to produce goods at a competitive price. If all of the illegal immigrants were removed from the U.S., "our economy would tank," says Theresa Cardinal Brown, manager of labor and immigration policy for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.[11] Other sources state that the effect would be minimal. One such source is Steve Camarota, author of a recent study by the Center for Immigration Studies that finds that illegal immigration has an overall negative effect on the U.S. economy.[12] It seems that Camarota would agree with California Senator Dianne Feinstein's comment: "The day when America could be the welfare system for Mexico is gone. We simply can't afford it."[13] She conveniently omits the fact that California's economy is dependent upon Mexican labor.

Across the border in Mexico, things seem more critical because of "the prospect of millions of ambitious and unemployed Mexicans being trapped in a poverty-stricken homeland."[14] The other side of this issue is that while the U.S. gains cheap labor, Mexico loses workers in their prime working years. Most illegal immigrants are between 18 and 44 years of age, the time when laborers are most productive. The country also suffers loss in migrant-sending regions, where women, children, and the elderly are the only inhabitants. The vast majority of the men from those cities have left to work in the United States. As soon as the young men learn a trade, they head for the U.S. in order to make the most of their skills.[15] Most of them send money home to support their families (Mexico's second- largest source of income is remittances from the U.S., likely to total $10 billion in 2001),[16] but the social consequences are detrimental. Boys grow up without fathers, and women remain to raise their families alone. Their sons grow up dreaming to follow their father's example.
The social and human rights aspects of the issue are most often ignored, but the consequences can be the most detrimental. Because of an increase of border control agents in commonly traversed areas, immigrants have been forced to follow routes that are more dangerous. It is not uncommon for a group to walk more than sixty miles through the Arizona desert in the unmerciful heat. Under such circumstances, more than 1,100 people have died since 1997 in the attempt to enter the "land of opportunity."[17] The other half of the danger occurs on the U.S. side of the border. In 1995, the Human Rights Watch accused the Border Patrol of abuses. This international advocacy group for civil rights stated that agents used excessive force. It also criticized the INS for its weak non-deadly force policy, which allows the use of force in too many situations. Even injured apprehended individuals were denied medical care-a direct violation of the INS policy. Immigrants do not report violations because they are not aware that they can, they fear reprisals, or they do not believe it will be helpful.[18]

Entering is just the first of the dangers that illegal immigrants will face. Once they have reached the U.S., they become victims of discrimination and are taken advantage of in the workplace due to their immigration situation. As laborers, they have few labor rights, and therefore work long days for lower than average pay. Neither do they have the opportunity for paid vacations or sick days, health insurance, or other related benefits that most other employees enjoy, even though their hard work certainly makes them eligible for it. Although these people choose to take the risks involved, and they enjoy the financial benefits that result from their work, one cannot disregard the basic human rights that each person possesses, regardless of a person's country of origin. The U.S. is generally a strong supporter of those rights, and to neglect to support them is hypocrisy of the most damaging kind because the infringement concerns human lives.
 
HISTORY OF UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION

It was to escape some of these same pressures and to build the same dreams that many earlier immigrants came to the United States, and it was upon the work of those immigrants that the United States blossomed. Although the motivations of the first immigrants varied from economic opportunity to escaping oppression, the main perception of the U.S. was the same: it was the land of opportunity and freedom. From the Atlantic Coast, beginning in Jamestown, Virginia in 1607, settlers progressed westward, developed the railroad, and cultivated the land. Economic possibilities abounded, investors snatched up the multitude of opportunities that they encountered in the New World, and people risked all they had in search of fortune and liberty. The U.S. government undertook the first census in 1790, and the United States boasted a population of 3,277,000 Caucasians-all immigrants or descendants of earlier seventeenth- and eighteenth-century arrivals." [19]

During the first hundred years, the attitude toward immigration was positive, although some of the settled white population began to develop a somewhat negative attitude. The U.S. formally encouraged immigration, and in 1778 the Articles of Confederation set up the framework for the regulation of immigration. Article I states, "Congress shall have power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization." In 1820, immigration began to be recorded, and since then more than 63 million people have come to the United States. Congress created a Commission of Immigration, which consisted of a one-man office established in New York under the U.S. Department of State in 1864, to add some administrative order to the increasing influx of people coming to the United States. It was from this point forward that immigration became a matter of the federal government, rather than a matter of the individual states.[20]

Mexicans were able to move between their country and the United States with relative freedom before the twentieth century, mostly to work in the mines, ranches, and on the railroads, although the demand for their labor was minimal. Instead, European and Asian immigrants, along with other new settlers, provided the labor in the Southwest. Immigration increased regularly throughout the 1900s. "While barely 1,000 Mexicans immigrated between 1891 and 1900, almost 50,000 came during the period 1901 to 1910. The flow from Mexico soared to almost 220,000 between 1911 and 1921 and reached nearly 460,000 between 1921 and 1930."[21] World War I triggered this increase as Americans left to go abroad and the war created a demand for war supplies. Overall, immigration decreased during that time, opening more opportunities for Mexicans to pick up where Europeans stopped. After the war, legal immigration increased, and although exact statistics are unavailable, some historiansbelieve that more illegal Mexican immigrants entered the U.S. than legal Mexicans during the 1920s. The demand for their labor was so great that immigration conditions such as entry taxes or literacy requirements were relaxed or even waived by the Commissioner General of Immigration in 1918 to allow more Mexicans to enter.[22]

The Border Patrol was created in 1924 to control illegal immigration from Mexico, and from 1920 to 1930, the number of immigrants deported increased greatly. The Great Depression in 1929 increased the importance of the Border Patrol as many Americans blamed the country's economic difficulties on illegal immigrants. In addition, other attempts to control illegal immigration led to the denial of benefits to Mexican workers, leaving many of them stranded in the U.S. Some were forced to obtain the help of the Mexican government to return home. Actions like this caused the Mexican-born population in the U.S. to decrease from 639,000 in 1930 to 377,000 in 1940.[23]

The Bracero Program, created in 1942, was the result of an increased demand for labor in the U.S. during World War II. This time, a treaty was created between the United States and Mexico to temporarily provide agricultural laborers. The program lasted until 1964, and although it was eligible to immigrants from other countries at its inception, it was limited to Mexicans in 1951; over its lifetime, it involved approximately 4.8 million Mexican workers.[24] Although established as an alternative to illegal immigration, the Bracero Program may have created more illegal immigrants than it deterred as there were more people interested in participating than there were openings. Immigrants simply entered illegally when not accepted to the program. As the program weakened, Mexicans suffered from poor working standards and conditions, to the point where the Mexican government became concerned with the treatment of its citizens abroad. American labor organizations were also unhappy and criticized the low wages and deplorable conditions for domestic workers, continued by the presence of the Bracero workers. "With a docile alien workforce available, American farmers and the nation as a whole did not have to face the problems of low wages, poor education, and appalling living conditions of American migrant workers,"[25] a trend that is not completely foreign today. The program was terminated in 1964 due to the dispute between farmers and labor unions.

The Bracero Program thus had the negative impact of increasing illegal immigration. Mexicans became accustomed to working in the U.S. where wages were higher than in their home country, although working conditions were not optimal. This pattern has continued over the years, and in 1997, the United States' General Accounting Office estimated that approximately 600,000 farm workers employed in the U.S. had no legal authorization. Ironically, in 1964, Eisenhower's INS Commissioner General Joseph Swing assured Americans that as a result of his program, "Operation Wetback," the border was not longer a problem. The program was conducted as a military exercise, and illegal immigrants were specifically targeted for removal from the U.S. Because of this measure, Swing was confident that the border had in fact been controlled. It is obvious that this is not the case, although it did decrease the rate of illegal immigration over the following decade.[26]

Congress ratified the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in 1993 to reduce barriers to trade in Canada, Mexico, and the United States. It would affect immigration in that the level of development in the three countries should become equal, eventually leading to a decrease in immigration from Mexico into the U.S. George Bush, president of the United States at the inception of the agreement, commented:

We believe that improvement of living standards in Mexico, which an FTA [free trade agreement] would foster, will encourage Mexicans to seek employment opportunities at home. As President Salinas has stated, "more jobs will mean higher wages in Mexico, and this in turn will mean fewer migrants to the United States and Canada. We want to export goods, not people."[27]

Although this argument makes economic sense, it is difficult to see what impact NAFTA has had on illegal immigration due to the short period of time for which it has been in effect. At this point, the general effect of the agreement is that it has increased the amount of exports from Mexico, and as a result, Mexico has replaced Japan as the U.S.'s number-two trading partner (second only to Canada). NAFTA has, in fact, had a generally negative effect on labor in both Mexico and the United States. In the U.S., it has "eliminated some 766,000 job opportunities - primarily for non-college-educated workers in manufacturing." [28] NAFTA has also failed to significantly increase the amount of jobs in Mexico, something that experts expected that NAFTA would achieve. The few jobs that NAFTA created did not benefit Mexico sufficiently enough to discourage illegal immigration. In fact, NAFTA most likely increased illegal immigration because of its effects:

While production jobs did move to Mexico, they primarily moved to maquiladora areas just across the border. As Carlos Salas of La Red de Investigadores y Sindicalistas Para Estudios Laborales (RISEL) reports, these export platforms-in which wages, benefits, and workers' rights are deliberately suppressed-are isolated from the rest of the Mexican economy. They do not contribute much to the development of Mexican industry or its internal markets, which was the premise upon which NAFTA was sold to the Mexican people. It is therefore no surprise that compensation and working conditions for most Mexican workers have deteriorated. The share of stable, full-time jobs has shrunk, while the vast majority of new entrants to the labor market must survive in the insecure, poor-paying world of Mexico's "informal" sector.[29]

Because the majority of Mexicans did not benefit from NAFTA as a result of the decrease in the amount of full-time jobs and wages, it can be concluded that NAFTA precipitated motivation to attempt to find employment in the United States, thereby prompting both legal and illegal immigration from Mexico.
Although the immigration situation in the United States has changed in different ways throughout history, the main attraction that the U.S. has embodied has not changed: people want to come for the opportunities offered in the New World. The famous sonnet written in 1883 by Emma Lazarus calls out from its plaque on the Statue of Liberty:

Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!

It is in response to this appeal that hundreds of thousands come to the United States each year. The U.S. now has its own citizens and workers, and the need for new labor and pioneers is not the same as it once was, but the culture of the country is still the same. It is because of its immigrant history, therefore, that the United States now finds itself in an awkward position. It is an immigrant country, founded on the hard work and dreams of people who left their home countries to make better lives for themselves, just as the Mexicans are doing now. To deny Mexicans from doing the same thing today seems inconsistent with U.S. tradition.
 
IMMIGRATION TODAY

Such traditions make immigration regulation a sensitive subject in the United States. It is no surprise, then, that the immigration system that the U.S. government currently maintains is one of the most complex systems in the world. This country's legal admission system is superficially divided into two classifications: temporary and permanent. If eligible, a foreign national on a temporary visa may apply for permanent status once in the U.S., which is more commonly known as obtaining a "green card." Temporary visas serve a variety of purposes including tourism, temporary business travel, academic study and training, or temporary employment.

There are three methods of immigrating to the United States: family-based, employment-based, and asylum-based, in that order of priority. "Family reunification is the cornerstone of our legal immigration policy," states the American Immigration Lawyers Association.[30] Statistics confirm as much: eight out of every eleven legal immigrants come to join family members. These people are most often immediate relatives of U.S. citizens (such as spouses, unmarried minor children, or parents), although some qualify under the family preferencesystem, in which relatives of permanent residents are allowed to come to the U.S. The number of visas allocated annually to immediate relatives is approximately 235,000, whereas the family preference system only allots 226,000 visas per year. Although this number seems quite large, the waiting period is very lengthy: a relative might wait 30 years for his or her visa![31]

Employment is the second priority for immigration to the United States. This aspect of the legal admissions system provides the opportunity for employers to obtain skilled workers from other countries to fill positions for which no Americans are available or willing to work. This recognizes the "need to attract talented and hardworking individuals from all corners of the world and to acquire often needed expertise and experience."[32] In times of economic prosperity, this is an especially important area as it enables the economy to continue to function smoothly with assistance from the foreign labor pool, whereas the U.S. might otherwise experience a shortage of workers.

The third priority is for immigrants seeking asylum. "The mission of the U.S. Asylum Program is to implement asylum laws in a way that is fair, timely, and consistent with international humanitarian principles and our domestic tradition of providing refuge for the oppressed."[33] The United States has always been perceived as a sort of caretaker for the persecuted, a fact that is evident in the verses on the Statue of Liberty, which further depicts the U.S.'s commitment to freedom, be it religious or political. There is no limit on the quantity of people to whom asylum is granted each year; although there are procedures that must be followed when filing for this status (applications must be filed within one year of arrival in the U.S.).

It is important to note that of the less than one million immigrants who enter the United States each year, 700,000 do so legally. Another 100,000 to 150,000 foreign nationals come as refugees or in flight from persecution. Undocumented aliens make up only 1 per cent of the total U.S. population. Interestingly enough, 60 per cent of illegal immigrants first entered legally but then overstayed their visas. Thus, only 40 percent of illegal immigrants enter the United States by crossing the border with Mexico or Canada.[34] The issue of illegal immigration is clearly much broader than simply protecting U.S. borders; rather, the government has to be willing to invest more resources in tracking legal immigrants as well.

Although many people are familiar with the idea of deportation, few know the details of what the process entails. The legal term is now "removal," after a change in the law with the Immigration Act of 1996.[35] When an illegal immigrant is detected, the INS takes him or her into custody. Most often detection comes as a result of arrest for another crime, due to the fact that the INS generally does not have the resources to patrol businesses or to follow up on the majority of the reports that it receives. After a trial (and possibly after having served time in prison for the crime), the alien is sent back to his or her home country, at the cost of the INS. The indirect cost to the undocumented person is a minimum five- year bar from legal entry into the U.S. Many illegal immigrants who have been removed attempt to enter the country again, and if they are detected they incur a lifetime bar from the U.S.

In some circumstances, an illegal alien who has been detected but not convicted of any other crimes may be eligible for legal re-entry with a valid visa without any bars, provided that other statutory bars are not triggered, for example, unlawful presence (such as would occur if someone were to overstay a visa). If statutory bars are triggered, however, as would occur because of illegal entry, the illegal alien is barred for a minimum of three to five years, provided that he or she has not entered the U.S. again since removal. This is known as voluntary departure, and the court grants the illegal alien a specific period of time during which the immigrant must leave the country by his or her own means. After exiting the country, the undocumented person is ineligible for entrance into the U.S. for up to ten years. The only exception is to obtain a waiver that is available in special circumstances, such as when a qualifying United States citizen would experience extreme hardship as a result of the removal of the alien. In the case that the alien was removed because he or she had committed a crime, it would be highly unlikely that he or she would be eligible to enter the U.S. legally in the future.[36]
Illegal immigrants naturally attempt to keep their presence unknown to immigration officials because when aliens are detected and caught, there is often little relief they can seek, regardless of their distance from the border. Numerous entry attempts only decrease the possibility of future legal entrance.
 
POLITICS

Political leaders can have a significant impact on a country's immigration stance and legislation. United States tradition seems to support Mexico's case for immigration, championed by President Vicente Fox. Fox's election in 2000 signaled a time of change for Mexico, as a 71-year domination of the government by the Institutional Revolutionary Party was terminated (PRI). Under that party's influence, Mexico experienced a great amount of corruption that has negatively affected the country. The PRI's behavior in the country's first "democratic" elections in November 1999 is a strong illustration of its corruption: "Everything from groceries, roof tiles and promises of government aid were reported to have been offered up to assure votes for Francisco Labastida Ochoa," the PRI-supported candidate.[37] Fox explained his view of Mexico's situation in a pre-election interview:

... Our country has been dealing with the growing problems of crime, corruption, and dishonesty. During this time a huge drug and narco-trafficking system has emerged in Mexico. And now, all of the sudden, the president cries out that he is going to do something. He pretends he has a new strategy, but it seems to me that he is trying to pull the wool over our eyes, because the budget (for the anti-crime program) presented to the Mexican people as extraordinary, was actually decided upon two years ago, and I participated in that decisionÖ Mexico needs a very profound change in its political institutions, in security and in matters of justice. Until this happens, I do not foresee the country turning the corner on crime and corruption.[38]

Corruption has penetrated the government down to the local level, to the point where most Mexican citizens are cynical about all government officials. Bureaucrats and police officers regularly accept bribes, known as "mordidas" or bites, in exchange for small favors. Law enforcement experts insist that drug trafficking would not exist if not for the corruption of government officials.[39] A change is dependent upon a change in culture, since the actions of the PRI over the past 71 years have affirmed corrupt behavior as part of the culture. However, Porfirio Munoz Ledo, a 2000 presidential candidate and a member of the Party of the Authentic Mexican Revolution, explained that corruption existed even before the PRI entered into power. Ledo said that "corruption is a thread woven into the nation's historyÖbecause public officials have seen the use of public money as a way of reaching and maintaining power."[40] Such behavior has landed the country where it is today: in 2000, Transparency International, a non-governmental organization, rated Mexico 21st of the world's most corrupt countries.[41]

Hopes are high that Fox will bring change and improvement to the struggling country. Mexico's economy, which is closely tied to the U.S. dollar, is currently having trouble, mainly because of the current economic situation in the United States. One method that Fox hopes to employ to aid Mexico is to "score a victory in foreign policy" through a deal with the U.S. regarding migration, thereby gaining popularity "with two important constituencies-the families of Mexican migrants and the human rights community."[42]

President George W. Bush is also sensitive to the political benefits that an immigration deal with Mexico could garner. It would ensure him the support of the majority of the Latino constituency, which has recently become the largest minority group in the U.S. Nonetheless, Bush has already communicated that he does not support a blanket or unconditional amnesty program, which would legalize all undocumented workers in the U.S. Instead, he backs a program of "earned regularization," whereby a portion of the illegal immigrant population would be eligible to gain legal immigrant status. President Fox explained to the U.S. House of Representatives, "Let me be clear about this: Regularization does not mean rewarding those who break the law. Regularization means that we will provide them with the legal means to allow them to continue contributing to this great country."[43] This statement underlines Fox's desire for immediate approval of his plan for "maximalization," or achieving the greatest amount of rights for the greatest number of people, thereby having the most positive effect possible. The details of an agreement at this point are still debated, but certain facts exist in the difference between amnesty and regularization. Instead of granting full legal residency rights, regularization allows certain illegal immigrants access to basic health care, labor rights, and education while in the United States,[44] thus resolving some important issues but still protecting American taxpayers from tax obligations to support immigrants. Cooperation between Fox and Bush is more in search of order than for a solution to what will most likely be an interminable problem.
 
OBSTACLES TO AGREEMENT

Regardless of the parallel goals Fox and Bush share for immigration, the U.S. faces many challenges in adopting any type of agreement with Mexico because of a number of factors. First, this heavily debated issue incorporates the immigrant traditions upon which the United States was founded, as mentioned previously. To deny people the opportunity to seek a better life seems contradictory when the majority of Americans' ancestors came to do the same thing years ago. This argument diverges from the issue, though, because the problem lies mostly with illegal immigration. The United States, like most modern countries, attempts to control immigration in order to protect its citizens . No country would want to allow any criminals to enter and endanger the social, political, or economic welfare of its citizens. Because the United States has a better welfare program than Mexico, Mexicans want to relocate to the U.S. to take advantage of welfare benefits. If the U.S. were to open its doors and allow free immigration, the welfare system would undoubtedly be overwhelmed, and the U.S. would go into debt to pay for services for these foreigners. This is not a politically viable option because U.S. citizens would protest having to support immigrants who are simply acting as a drain on the economy. In addition, the current culture and values of the U.S. would be endangered. Bush administration officials have said:

the treatment of undocumented migrants poses the biggest obstacle to a politically viable immigration policy. The officials said they will try to make an amnesty provision more palatable to opponents in Congress by adding requirements that might include English proficiency or the payment of a certain amount of taxes or employment for a specified length of time.[45]

Many issues lie within the arena of debate, and simply allowing millions of people to gain legal immigrant status does not seem probable. It is more likely that specific conditions will be applied.

Another concern based on principle is that some people do not believe that Mexico should be treated differently than other countries. They opine that to do so would be discriminatory. Senate Majority Leader Thomas A. Daschle, a Democrat from South Dakota, would like the new policy to extend beyond Mexicans and include other workers such as more Latin Americans and Asians. He remarked, "We think it ought to be universally applied, not country specific."[46] Although approximately one-half of illegal immigrants in the U.S. are from other countries, the other side of the argument is that the other half of illegal immigrants are from Mexico. At this point, it is necessary to achieve some sort of order in an attempt to resolve the situation. The largest problem should be dealt with first, and in this case, the largest problem concerns illegal immigration from Mexico. National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice commented, "I think that it is obvious that, with a border, the issues are sometimes more intense and more immediate than with countries with which we do not share a border."[47] Clearly, this is the case with Mexico, as its proximity and situation dictate special attention.

The largest concern overall is that of the financial costs of illegal immigration. Although this issue has always played a role in the debate, economist Donald Huddle brought it to the forefront of the nation's attention. He completed his 1993 study, titled "The Costs of Immigration," for the Carrying Capacity Network (CCN), an environmental group concerned with rapid population growth. Huddle's ultimate conclusion was that illegal immigrants cost the U.S. a net amount of $68 billion in 1997. His study led to a number of follow-up studies, including an examination by the U.S. General Accounting Office of Public Benefits Costs. Many of these studies have shown that illegal aliens impose a net burden on the U.S. economy, although others, such as a report produced by the North American Integration and Development Center, provide contending results. However, it is important to note that the United States government "generates revenues" from illegal immigrants through unrealized expenses and uncollected benefits like social security taxes and welfare. The government takes in payments from illegal immigrants for those services , but it does not realize the outflow of those payments due to legal restrictions on benefits to illegal immigrants, thus "generating revenues" in those areas. Illegal immigrants also benefit the economy through local taxes on items like food and gasoline.[48] The challenge in determining an accurate dollar amount for the costs and benefits that illegal aliens have on the U.S. economy is that the population keeps its status hidden from government officials who calculate such numbers. The obscure nature of the data, upon which these studies rely leads to greatly conflicting results. For example, while Steve Camarota of the Center for Immigration Studies found that illegal immigrants cost the U.S. $55,200,[49] Dr. Raul Hinojosa Ojeda of the North American Integration and Development Center determined that "immigrants and their descendants have an average net fiscal impact of +$80,000 per immigrant."[50] The inconsistencies suggest a lack of reliable data from which to draw an accurate conclusion.

A related concern is that the illegal immigration of low-skilled workers simply increases the number of underclass people in the U.S. The U.S. struggles enough with its own impoverished population that it should take care not to increase it with unneeded entrants who will only further burden the welfare system. George Borjas, in a study performed concerning the effects of immigration on specific ethnic populations, was concerned with this issue. He commented, "Few issues facing the U.S. are as important, and as difficult to resolve, as the persistent problem of poverty in our midst. The empirical evidence presented here suggests that immigration is exacerbating this problem."[51]

Finally, the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, have changed the face of this debate in many respects. The U.S. is now more aware of the need for improvement in the state of immigration, and many Americans hold the view that the borders of the U.S. are now in danger. It would make sense to assume that anti-immigration sentiment would be at its highest due to the safety concerns of U.S. citizens . As people are learning to move on with their lives after such a devastating tragedy, the economy and Americans' daily lives are returning to normal. The relationship between the U.S. and Mexico remains the same after the attacks as well: they are neighbors whose towns along the 2,000-mile border share a common culture and an interdependent economy. "With a Third World economy to the south and a First World economic power to the north, you will always have this problem [of illegal immigration]," states a top agent of the INS Border Patrol.[52] Unless further attacks threaten the economic power of the United States, or the Mexican economy booms as a result of some wild occurrence, the trend of illegal crossings will not change. It seems that with border management becoming such a large priority, now would be the appropriate time for the U.S. government to take steps to secure its boundaries with Mexico by reaching some sort of agreement with which the INS can work.

It is in light of these facts that Mexico also evaluates the effects of Mexican immigration to the U.S., and hopes to gain more than an amnesty program from the agreement. In addition, Mexicans would like to see the U.S. grant them "more visas over other nationalities in recognition of the importance of Mexican labor to the U.S. economy, creation of a temporary work program for Mexican laborers, improved safety for border crossers, and the creation of economic development in areas with high migration."[53]

Proponents of each side of the issue have concerns that they are unwilling to compromise on in finding a solution to the problem. The large number of issues encompassed by this predicament has led to a variety of proposed resolutions. However, the challenge now is to adopt one and follow through with its implementation, a task that is equally difficult.
 
POSSIBLE PLANS OF ACTION

Many scholars have developed theories as to the best way to resolve the problem of illegal immigration between the United States and Mexico. The possibilities are unlimited, although most theories focus on one of three options: maintain an open border between the U.S. and Mexico, pursue anti-immigration policies, or legalize illegal immigrants currently in the U.S. and create new worker programs.

The first option is to open the border between the United States and Mexico. The open border would allow for the free movement of labor and would function like the borders of the European Union, so that Mexicans and U.S. citizens would be free to move between the countries. This option would be in line with laissez-faire economics, and would allow capitalism to function at its most efficient level.

Thomas E. Lehman, professor of economics and Western civilization at Indiana Wesleyan University, argues for the admittance of all immigrants. He refers to the American immigration tradition upon which the country was formed, and notes that the U.S.'s current policies reflect citizens' "xenophobic confusion regarding economics, the mobility of labor, the American welfare state, and cultural diversity."[54] Lehman first argues that current immigration policies are simply a type of tariff on the commodity of labor. This tariff is just as detrimental to the economic situation as any others imposed by restricting the natural cycles of supply and demand and increasing the cost of production. The result of open immigration would be increased job competition for unskilled American workers, but would lead to increased labor efficiency: "By inviting competition into the American labor markets, artificially inflated labor costs could be eliminated and a greater level of labor efficiency could be achieved."[55] Savings incurred by a decrease in wages would allow products to be created more efficiently, and the price of products and services would decrease in turn. Lower prices would finally increase Americans' purchasing power, and the standard of living for all would consequently increase. Lehman argues that the economic benefits of such a policy are significant enough to form a basis for a new immigration plan. This system has been put into practice as some companies already rely on undocumented laborers' work to compete in such industries as agriculture and manufacturing.

The second argument that Lehman makes involves the U.S. welfare state. Many people are concerned that opening the borders, even to a single population segment, would overrun the welfare system and further increase the tax burden on Americans. Lehman cites statistics that show that immigrants do not typically use more public services than native-born Americans do, although such numbers are debatable. He acknowledges the possibility of a flood of immigrants sending the U.S. into debt through amassed use of social services, but answers back by getting to the true root of the problem: that the welfare state should be completely overhauled or eliminated. It is without question that there are Americans who choose to "live off the system" instead of working as they can, albeit in sometimes undesirable positions. To allow such behavior to continue is unproductive overall, not just in relation to illegal immigrants, so the system should be changed anyway.

Next, Lehman addresses social concerns posed by illegal immigration, such as the erosion of American culture and tradition. Some Americans believe that foreigners entering the U.S. will not appreciate the "American way of life," which would endanger the country's traditionally European-style political and economic system. Lehman's response to such apprehensions is to explain that American culture is not based upon ethnicity or racial origins. Rather, it is based on ideas of liberty and freedom, which are found in people all over the world, not simply within the U.S. People coming to the U.S. recognize the existence of these ideals, and it is in pursuit of these ideals that they journey here.[56]

Finally, Lehman argues that the free movement of people should be an integral part of a free society, just as free trade is. Freedom of movement is as important as "the freedoms of speech, expression, and association. Freedom is indivisible; the laws of economics apply equally to all peoples."[57] If the U.S. does truly possess a free society, then immigration and emigration should not be controlled. Not doing so would increase the nation's productivity and ingenuity by increasing the amount of skilled labor available to choose from.

Although very strong from a theoretical, laissez-faire point of view, Lehman's policy would be very difficult to sell to the American citizensbecause of concerns raised about the U.S.'s well-being. Neither does Lehman offer any advice as to how to go about realizing such a plan. He does address a number of concerns that would arise from the opposition, but his ideas would indefinitely face fierce antagonism over issues such as national security and political continuity. Such opposition would render it impossible to execute such a program.

Equally radical is a proposal to bar all illegal immigrants. The idea in itself has merit in that the penalty for breaking the law should be to correct the situation by using the reciprocal of the violation. In this case, it would be to remove the illegal entrants. In practice, however, this option is not achievable because of the sheer nature of the problem. Even now, the INS is unable to track down illegal immigrants because of a lack of staffing. Its budget does not allow for maintaining officers to frequent establishments suspected of seeking out undocumented aliens. To pursue such a policy would be unreasonable given the resources of the INS. In addition, the number of illegal immigrants present in the United States is estimated to be around three million, and to apprehend and remove them all from the country would be an incredibly large task. To presume that they would even stay out afterwards is doubtful. Therefore, such a policy would require not only overwhelming public support but also financial backing. The lack of these two factors makes this an improbable solution.

Policies to remove all undocumented immigrants are most popular in states such as California, Texas, and Arizona, where illegal immigrant populations are comparatively large. Mexican immigration is highly concentrated, and 63 per cent of all Mexican immigrants live in the western region of the United States. Close to half - 42per cent - ofall Mexican immigrants live in California, and 18.5 per cent live in Texas. "Together Texas, California, and the other two border states of Arizona and New Mexico account for 72.7 per cent of Mexicans who have settled in the U.S."[58] Because of the large populations, these states are forced to incur more costs than other states that receive fewer undocumented workers, so the problem is one of greater consequence to them. Governor Peter Wilson of California initiated lawsuits against the federal government to recuperate the costs of illegal immigration to the state of California, where approximately $3 billion is spent annually to provide services for illegal immigrants, or about one-tenth of the state's budget. Governor Wilson demanded that the U.S. government improve its border control methods with improvements in technology and manpower, "turn off the magnetic lure that now rewards people who successfully evade the border patrol and cross the border illegally," and pay for the costs of illegal immigration until the situation is regulated.[59]

Regardless of the reality of the problem that states like California face due to illegal immigration, the proposition of removing all illegal immigrants has its underlying weaknesses. First, it addresses only the symptoms of the problem, not the causes. Jose Millan, California's assistant labor commissioner commented that as long as there are employers who need undocumented workers, "they can put cops shoulder to shoulder and they'll come in by boat or plane or some other way."[60] Another argument against such a policy is the possible evolution of the border area into a military zone. San Diego immigration rights activist Roberto Martinez commented, "The growing armed presence along the border is a low-intensity warfare against immigrants. The Border Patrol is already armed to the teeth."[61] Although illegal immigrants pose a danger to American citizens, such a strong military force is undesirable. For these reasons, deportation of all illegal immigrants is not a viable option.

The North American Integration and Development (NAID) Center at the University of California, Los Angeles addresses the financial impact of illegal immigration in its study led by Dr. Raul Hinojosa Ojeda. The composition is titled, "Comprehensive Migration Policy Reform in North America: The Key to Sustainable and Equitable Economic Integration." The report undertakes the resolution of illegal immigration from Mexico and details three major alternative scenarios that the United States and Mexico could pursue to begin to resolve their border issues: 1) Maintaining the status quo; 2) More restrictive immigration policies and a "Neo-Bracero" program; and, 3) An alternative, comprehensive bi-national policy approach, including the legalization of undocumented workers in the U.S. and investment in migrant-sending regions in Mexico.

The first scenario, which reflects current U.S. immigration policy, "generates net benefits to the United States economy and taxpayers, at the expense of human suffering at the border and the exploitation of undocumented workers by U.S. employers."[62] The U.S. benefits from Mexican immigrants through their contribution of tax dollars, as well as from Mexican taxpayers in Mexico, "who pay for the social reproduction of Mexican labor before workers migrate to the United States."[63] Mexico finances its people's education and upbringing, only to have large numbers of them leave the country at prime working age to seek employment elsewhere. In this way, Mexico undergoes a regular loss of human capital. In addition to the fiscal effects, other negative dynamics include patterns of human and labor rights violations, dependence on illegal migration and remittances in migrant-sending communities in Mexico, and wage discrimination against undocumented workers. The United States also suffers losses such as dependence on and demand for the undocumented immigrants from Mexico. Therefore, it would be beneficial to both parties to pursue a better- functioning system of immigration.

The NAID Center report argues that the presence of undocumented immigrants allows for a better distribution of resources, in that American workers can seek employment in more specialized areas of production. In 1997, $14 billion was added to the U.S. economy as a result of decreased prices for basic goods, which was partially due to the more efficient allocation of human resources that arose from the difference in wages between U.S. workers and undocumented workers in the same occupations.

It is important to note that Mexican immigration to the United States is a function of changes in U.S.-Mexico wages. Basically, if there are available jobs in the U.S. that pay better wages than jobs in Mexico, people will enter by any means necessary to fill those positions and respond to that demand. Therefore, it seems that "border enforcement has a minimal impact on illegal immigration."[64]

NAFTA has also had a significant impact on the economies of the United States and Mexico. It adds to the aggregate GDP of both countries and benefits higher- wage earners to a small extent, but produces negative trade impacts on low-wage workers in both countries. These negative effects trigger "increased outward migration pressures on low-wage workers" in Mexico and "increased displacement pressures on U.S. urban unskilled labor." These consequences lead to the conclusion that NAFTA "produces increased migration and more downward wage pressure in low-wage labor markets linked across both sides of the border."[65] One can see, then, how NAFTA and immigration policies contradict each other:

Given the limited number of legal visas, pressures are generated for a surge in unauthorized migration. NAFTA, combined with restrictive immigration policies, further creates benefits for the US economy, but at the expense of wider violations of human and labor rights experienced through increased undocumented migration."[66]

Again, such trends demonstrate the necessity of a more functional system of labor movement between the two countries.

Finally, it is necessary to consider the financial impact of North American migration. NAID research has found that immigrants provide net fiscal benefits to the United States. Two organizations, the Urban Institute and the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), have found that immigrants and native-born Americans do not differ in their usage of social services over their lifetimes. The NAS, from its 1997 study, estimates that immigrants and descendants of immigrants have an average net fiscal impact of +$80,000 per immigrant.[67] Some anti-immigrant groups arrive at figures that demonstrate trends in the opposite direction, but Hinojosa argues that by controlling "for income, education, and family size, Mexican immigrants use fewer public benefits and have a greater net fiscal impact than do the native-born [Americans]."[68] Secondly, the NAID Center report concludes that unauthorized immigrants are greater net contributors to the U.S. economy because they use fewer public benefit services than they are entitled to. Their contributions increase because they add tax payments to social security and unemployment insurance on which they cannot collect. Thirdly, there are many sources of taxes that can be attributed to immigrants, but that are not accounted for in studies measuring the fiscal impact of immigrants. Those studies are therefore at best inaccurate, and at worst biased "because they ignore the broader economic impacts" that the immigrant population has on the U.S. Examples of some of these tax sources are:

...non-employment income of immigrants (i.e. immigrant businesses), the profits generated to employers of immigrants, the increased wages of complementary native-born workers, and the multiplier effects of the consumption spending that results both from immigrants' income and all of this additional immigrant-related income.[69]

Studies do not take into account the more common impacts of immigrants, and in some respects they assume that all businesses with which immigrants interact would be able to function in the same way in the absence of immigrants. Finally, no studies consider the gain the United States incurs from people being raised and educated (normally through junior high school) outside of the country. Many reports account for the money spent on the education of immigrants who enter the U.S., but they fail to address the opposite side of the argument. The NAID Center report states that if one were keeping track of the costs of educating the Mexican workers demanded in the U.S. labor market, the U.S. government would owe approximately $320 million annually to the Mexican government. The state of California itself would be indebted at least $180 million! Comparatively, it would cost $17 billion per year to educate these people in the United States. These numbers are low estimations, and it seems that the U.S. is getting quite a bargain for such services!

The second scenario proposed by the NAID Center, which includes more aggressive anti-immigrant policies and a "neo-bracero" program, could have ruinous effects on the U.S. economy and "at best would worsen the living standards of low-wage workers, while ironically increasing the demand for more undocumented immigration."[70] Anti-immigrant policies would ideally wipe out the immigrant population, causing the U.S. economy to radically decline. This would affect the U.S.'s fiscal balance, as well as Mexican wages and income inequality. A new Bracero program, which refers back to the program implemented during World War II, would fix lower wages and augment the labor market, leading to an increase in demand for low-wage labor. Four complaints leveled against the Bracero program years ago were: (1) Raising wages was difficult; (2) Organizing workers into unions was impossible; (3) Workers had few rights, and those that complained were sent back to Mexico; and, (4) Young, male workers were most favored to participate in the program, which led to social abnormalities. The present quantity of underused guest worker programs, such as the agricultural H-2A, demonstrates the inefficacy of such a plan. Employers and bureaucrats attest that the program does not work, but $40 million is spent annually to maintain it nonetheless. Because of the ease and economy of hiring undocumented workers, an industry-specific program such as the proposed neo-Bracero program will never be successful. Under the pressures of capitalism, employers would continue to seek out cheap, illegal employment even if such a program were in place.

The final scenario of a "New Comprehensive Bi-National Approach" proposed by Hinojosa is what the NAID Center finds to be "the best option for generating prosperity and equity in both the United States and Mexico."[71] The approach deals with the demand side of immigration, which concerns U.S. policies, as well as with the sSupply side of out-migration from Mexico, which focuses on investment in immigrant sending regions. Demand side needs are met when rights are granted to all immigrants. This leads to higher wages for U.S. labor, as well as lower inequality and higher productivity. The supply side is appeased as increasingly large investments in migrant sending regions proportionately close the wage gap with the United States, which in turn leads to a decrease in migration and an increase in demand for products from the U.S. This approach, then, is three-part, and includes the legalization of as many undocumented immigrants as possible (ideally, all of them), the creation of a New Worker Visa Program, and investment in migrant-sending regions in Mexico. Humberto Palomares, regional development expert in Nuevo Laredo, would agree with such an approach, as he believes that "migration must be viewed as an economic issue to be resolved bilaterally. If not, he warns ëpoliticians 20 years from now will be implementing more anti-immigration laws, we'll be seeing more cruel deaths and -more (amnesty) programs.'"[72] Indeed, the NAID Center reports scenarios such as those that Mr. Palomares mentions.

            The New Worker Visa Program would cater to the needs on each side of the border. Some of its more important characteristics are that the visas would be renewable and would allow visa-holders multiple re-entries into the United States, which addresses the need for mobility and "circularity of migration."[73] It would also incorporate full labor rights and serve as an avenue for legalization after five years of employment. From a control or protectionist side, welfare benefits would not be available under this type of visa, and social security and tax payments would be mandatory.

Such a policy would have two main effects. First, wage levels would increase for illegal immigrants. If one follows the supply and demand curves in such a situation, an increase in wages will decrease the demand for labor. This will decrease the amount of job opportunities for other immigrants, especially because the demand for undocumented workers' services is price elastic, or sensitive to changes in price. As the costs of employment increase, fewer immigrants will be employed. One must realize that the legalization of all illegal immigrants currently in the U.S. (and a subsequent increase in their wage rates) would lead to a shortage of jobs and an increase in national unemployment rates. The lack of available jobs would then deter more illegal immigration to some extent, but the higher costs of legal employment might also begin a vicious cycle of increasing wages and employment of illegal workers to avoid such increases in pay. Secondly, legalization of a proportion of the illegal immigrants in the U.S. would lead to increased human capital investments:

Studies show that amongst newly legalized immigrants, there was a surge of investment in language skills, education, training and general economic assimilation, particularly necessary for more effective and productive participation in an increasingly technological and information-based economy.[74]

Investments in human capital are undertaken like any other investment, in that the benefits and costs are weighed in order to determine whether it will generate a positive net effect. Human capital that has been invested in has a higher value (as one might argue that a college graduate is more valuable than a high school graduate based on the knowledge obtained)[75]. That human capital, then, would be better protected as it is awarded basic labor rights and working conditions through legal status. Hinojosa contends that American nationals of the same working class would also benefit from increased wages as a result of the legalization of undocumented workers.[76] Because migration from Mexico is motivated by jobs, it is demand determined. An increase in wages will lead to an increase in employment of American nationals and a decrease in employment of immigrants as employers' power to discriminate is decreased. This depends, though, on the substitutability of workers and the amount of the increase in wages. On average, newly legalized immigrants experience a 15 per cent increase in wages, and other studies demonstrate that wage elasticity of migrants is about 0.6.[77] As such, a 15 per cent increase in wages will lead to a 25 per cent decrease in the quantity of workers hired.

Although this will increase the number of workers in Mexico, a crisis can be avoided in three ways. First, the growing trade between the U.S. and Mexico will create jobs in Mexico. As NAFTA continues to develop, such a step will be natural for the two countries. Second, increased wages will increase the amount of money Mexican families receive in remittances, which have traditionally played an important role in rural welfare.[78] Finally, the North American Development (NAD) Bank, an organization created to deal with regional disparities and to reduce out-migration pressures, could be developed into an organization that's role is extended to the development of rural Mexico, leading again to increased job opportunities within the country and increasing Mexico's economic strength. This in turn would benefit the U.S. as its primary trading partner.

This portion of the policy is dependent upon the allocation of both private and public funds to the NAD Bank. Although it would lead to increased North American cooperation, the generation of such funds would be difficult. The NAD Bank's capital authorization is currently $3 billion, committed equally from the United States and Mexico, and this money is used for "the purpose of financing environmental infrastructure projects," especially those related to "water supply, wastewater treatment or municipal solid waste management" located within 100 miles of either side of the U.S.-Mexico border.[79] Thus, the preliminary finances are available, but their maintenance and increased investment would be a difficult task. Given the economic situation of Mexico as compared to that of the U.S., most revenues, at least at the outset, would have to come from sponsors within the United States. Although the NAD Bank is a legitimate organization, the corruption of the Mexican state has been detrimental in its effects on encouraging investment in that country. If the corruption is not eliminated from the country, it is doubtful that investments would drastically improve the situation enough to create a substantial difference. Shang-Jin Wei, a senior fellow in economic studies and the New Century Chair in International Economics at the Brookings Institution, stated in a report,

Corruption, however, is a major impediment to the progress of these [developing] countries. For international investors, having to pay bribes and deal with official extortion is equivalent to facing an extra tax. Some foreign firms may have obtained business because of the bribes they paid. But for every dollar of business that these firms obtain, the country loses multiple dollars of potential foreign investment. My research estimates that an increase in the host country corruption from a low level such as that in Singapore to a higher level, such as that in Mexico, has the same negative effect on inward foreign direct investment (FDI) as raising the corporate taxrate by fifty percentage points. This negative impact is akin to a tax on firms in that it discourages investment. But, unlike a tax, corruption generates no tax revenue for the government. If anything, the same corruption typically erodes the domestic tax base, since many developing countries are eager to attract foreign direct investment by offering generous tax benefits to foreign firms. My research suggests that reducing corruption could in fact be more effective in achieving this objective without sacrificing government revenues.[80]

Wei's research shows that corruption is detrimental not only to Mexico overall, but also to potential outside investors. It serves as a damaging factor for future development.

Certain conditions must exist to motivate investment in an area like Mexico. In order for a sponsor to invest funds in a project, some type of benefit must be generated from the investment. The fundamentals of finance come into play at this point, where action is determined based upon the benefits received as a result of the investment: if the net present value (NPV) generated is positive, the investment will be pursued; if the NPV is negative, it will be abandoned. Corruption may cause the NPV of investments to be negative, or the investments may not benefit sponsors at all on an economic level.

However, not all courses of action can be based upon economic concepts. For example, the majority of social programs come at a net economic loss to the government. Public transportation has always been an area in which it is difficult to generate revenues. Amtrak, a U.S. rail company, regularly operates at a loss due to the high costs of providing such a service to the American public. Although many have clamored for the privatization of the company, it continues to run on subsidies from the U.S. government, totaling $18 billion since 1971, [81] because it sees the railroads service as beneficial. In other words, people "believe that transportation is a vital public good that should not be left to the free market but should be regulated and invested in to achieve public goals."[82] Public transportation is a shared need, and some of the costs are absorbed in order to benefit society. The profits attained in this realm sometimes do not come in financial form, but in the area of the heart. People volunteer their time not to reap economic benefit, but rather to gain personal achievement. Intrinsic task motivation, which is the desire to work on something because it is interesting, involving, exciting, satisfying, or personally challenging, has been linked to models of creativity and motivation.[83] Money is not the primary incentive for all actions, and some people are more motivated by intrinsic factors than by extrinsic factors such as pay increases or plaques for good works. People do not invest in the construction of a new church, for example, because they trust that it will bring large economic gains. Instead, it is self-fulfilling to know that one has aided in the building of something great. Certain aspects of capital investment in Mexico can be viewed in the same way. Investment must be pursued with a balance of the economic and social aspects in mind.

ECONOMIC APPLICATIONS

It is sensible to believe that a clear vision of illegal immigration would facilitate reaching a resolution. It is detrimental, then, that there are so many inaccurate public perceptions about illegal immigration. People tend to err in their views of illegal immigration in two major ways. Either they believe that every employed illegal immigrant deprives an American of a job, or they assume that illegal immigrants perform jobs that no American would do, known as rough labor. Both views are naive and unfounded, and can be disproved by examination of supply and demand curves.

First, where demand for a certain position is not met, the wage for such a position will increase in order to match the supply to the demand. In dares, people ask how much it would take for another person to do something outrageous. Similarly, if all rough laborers were paid $1 million for their work, the supply of people willing to do that type of work would increase dramatically, leading to a surplus of workers and lowering the wage rate to a point of agreement. This can be applied to the situation in the U.S. in that if the wages for positions that illegal Mexicans regularly take were increased, American citizens would more likely fill those positions. The amount of people employed at this wage would be less than the amount of people employed at a higher wage. The implication of such a tendency is that goods are produced at a lower price when illegal immigrants enter the labor force, with the savings coming from the decreased wage rate paid. Thus, the shortage of labor to which people refer exists because of the wage rate, not because of a lack of available workers.[84]

Secondly, the removal of illegal immigrants from the United States will not create the same amount of jobs for American citizens. If wages remain at the same level that undocumented workers are paid, there will be a large amount of jobs available, but they will be left unfilled due to the lack of interest at that wage rate. However, if the wage increases, more jobs would be created for Americans. [85]

The only exception to this argument is in jobs with pay rates set at minimum wage. The artificially high wage leads to a surplus of workers, both American and illegal, willing to fill those positions. If illegal immigrants are removed from the country and new undocumented workers are prohibited access as well, then x jobs are created for Americans as x illegal immigrants are deported, assuming that the demand curve and the domestic supply curve intersect in order to keep the wage rate from rising.[86]

The above analysis does not take into account the possibility of the relocation of jobs to countries in which wages are lower in the event that labor costs increase in one country. For example, if all undocumented laborers were deported from the United States, American companies might move their manufacturing plants out of the U.S. and into Mexico to take advantage of the cheap maquiladoras, or factories, there. If the costs of production and shipment of goods are less than the production costs in the U.S., such action will be undertaken.

One must analyze, then, the impact of the employment of illegal immigrants. If it came at a net cost to the U.S., illegal immigration would not occur, so someone is obviously benefiting in some way. As mentioned earlier, consumers benefit in the end: because the production costs are lower and goods are produced at a decreased overall cost, which is reflected in the lower cost of the product at the point of sale.

Secondly, employers of rough labor benefit in the short run from undocumented workers. An increase in profits yields an increase in investments in tangible assets. Profits will also draw other employers to the market, and profits will be driven down to a normal level.[87] Overall, though, the company's stock and capital will be greater than previously, and some workers will have had the opportunity to become owners.

Finally, the influx of undocumented workers affects the demand curve for goods and services. While in the U.S., illegal immigrants purchase goods just as any citizen would. This increased demand creates job opportunities throughout all levels of companies. It can be concluded, then, that even "workers who are not close substitutes for unskilled immigrant labor may benefit from immigration because of the increase in consumer demand attendant on this addition to our working population."[88]

The theoretical implications of illegal immigration are such that some native workers will receive gains whereas others will incur losses. This has increased the interest in finding the actual effects of the employment of undocumented aliens. Using local labor markets as units of observation, studies assume that the greater the influx of illegal immigrants into an area, the larger the effect on natives' wage and employment levels. These studies have shown that the overall effect has been minimal, even for unskilled native labor for which undocumented workers would be direct substitutes. [89] This evidence seems to suggest that concern over the danger of employing illegal immigrants is unnecessary. There are two possible reasons for the minor effects of employing illegal immigrants. First, immigrants may choose to seek employment in areas in which jobs are expanding anyway, and second, internal migration by natives may offset the influx of illegal immigrants. If one does not account for these factors, the true effect of immigration will not be obtained. Although the relocation of natives is a common response to an increased supply of immigrant labor, a complete counteraction of its effects would require an incredibly rapid response from natives. This is relatively implausible. Thus, "while the true effects of immigration on various groups of native workers remain something of a puzzle, they are most likely not very large."[90]

The determining factor in the overall effect of illegal immigration on a country is whether the negative effects on one segment can be overcome by benefits realized by another segment. If immigration increases the aggregate disposable income for natives, this situation will exist. This is dependent upon "how much the immigrants add to overall production as compared to how much they consume."[91] Because the vast majority of entering immigrants work after arriving and rely upon their own earnings to finance their consumption, they do not reduce the per capita disposable income of natives. In addition, immigrants cause an increase in the total disposable income of natives if their earnings are less than the full value of the output they add to the host country.[92] Many countries have social programs that aid qualified immigrants, however, and the taxes paid by those immigrants must cover the costs of social services in order to avoid threatening natives' disposable income. This becomes a blurry line when programs classified as "public goods," such as national defense, are taken into account. They exist regardless of marginal increases in population, although taxes paid by immigrants help to defray the costs of these programs. Recent studies have found that accusations against illegal immigrants for causing budget deficits in state governments may be unfounded.: "It is hard now to make the claim that illegal immigrants are expensive in terms of their impact on public-sector spendingÖ Now California, like virtually every other state, is running a surplus. Those arguments can no longer be made, at least not with a straight face,"[93] comments Jeffrey S. Passel, an immigration specialist at the Urban Institute, a neutral organization.

The challenge of interpreting data from studies of the fiscal effects of illegal immigrants becomes critical when determining the overall effects on Americans' disposable income. The answer at this point is unknown, but three considerations suggest that illegal immigration may benefit native incomes more than legal immigration:

First, illegal immigrants come mainly to work, not for the purpose of family reunification. Therefore, they clearly add to the production of domestic goods and services. Second, while they tend to be poor, they are ineligible for many programs (welfare, food stamps, Social Security, unemployment insurance) that transfer resources to low-income citizens. Third, despite their wish to "hide" form the government immigrants cannot avoid paying most taxes (especially payroll, sales, and property taxes); indeed, one study even indicated that 75 percent of illegal immigrants had income taxes withheld but that relatively few filed for a refund.[94]

This information seems to suggest that American natives cannot help but benefit from illegal immigration. Without question, Mexicans also benefit economically due to the high wages offered. If they did not, they would return to their home country. Based on this conclusion, the American government should at least do more research on the subject before investing funds in stopping illegal immigration.
 
PERSONAL ASSESSMENT

Regardless of the economic effects of illegal immigration, this is a difficult matter to analyze because of the dual nature of the problem. On the one hand, this can be viewed as a purely economic issue relating to the balance of supply and demand of labor economics. The United States has an increasing need for cheap, low-skill labor and Mexico supplies it, most often in the form of illegal immigrants. The other side of the problem, which is most often overlooked, concerns people's lives. People just across the border of the U.S. are struggling with poverty and do not understand how a country as powerful and prosperous as the United States cannot offer some type of special assistance to Mexicans, a group of people who owned a large portion of the U.S. not too long ago. Somehow, most likely because of the type of employment they hold in the United States, Americans have developed a corrupted perspective of their southern neighbors. Mexicans have begun to make up a sub-culture of inhabitants, most often viewed as inferior to citizens of the U.S., when in fact it has been argued that our economy functions so efficiently due to the presence of illegal immigrants. It seems that Americans neglect to realize that the lives of real people are at stake, and that those people are not too different from themselves. These issues are what make this problem so difficult, and if there were a simple resolution, the dilemma most likely would have been addressed and reconciled long ago. Illegal immigration is now an issue that demands attention in order to find a compromise that will address both the causes and the implications of its effects.

            Because the United States is the greatest world power at this time, based mostly on economic strength, it has played the role of caretaker and nanny in the world's most important problems. Although issues of genocide and war are arguably more pressing than those of labor economics, it is time that the U.S. devotes some time and resources to the resolution of a problem that lies within its own borders. Illegal immigration is currently out of control, and the U.S. must attempt to regain order to avoid detrimental economic and social effects in the U.S. and Mexico in the near future. The long-term nature of the problem demonstrates that it will not correct itself.

            Economic analysis of the problem indicates that illegal immigration is beneficial to the United States economy. To allow the entrance of undocumented aliens to continue without attempting to manage it, although advantageous to the U.S. in theory, is not a viable option. Instead, a compromise must be achieved that addresses both sides of the issue: America demands cheap labor, and Mexico is willing to supply it. If a portion of undocumented aliens is given legal status, their wages will increase, thereby decreasing the total demand for labor in low-skill areas. As wages increase, unemployment rates for U.S. citizens will decrease as more natives are drawn to those same jobs. If employers and producers will comply with such a change, the policy change will have a positive effect on the United States, more so than any other option, and should therefore be the immigration policy pursued between the U.S. and Mexico.

            There are a number of ways to approach the legalization of illegal immigrants as a part of this plan. Worker visas can be issued, perhaps first distributed to Mexican laborers present and working in the U.S. for five years or more. These renewable visas can result in permanent residency after a decided period of time, and the quantity issued can be increased depending on the repositioning of the equilibrium of the supply and demand curves for employment after issuing the first wave of visas.

            The greatest possible obstruction to realizing the positive effects of such a policy is a lack of compliance by employers. Illegal immigration fueled by job opportunities has existed since immigration controls were first instituted. The U.S.'s capitalist economy rewards organizations that can produce goods at the lowest possible cost. Events like the Tyson Foods, Inc. scandal, where two executives and four former managers were indicted on charges of "conspiracy to smuggle illegal immigrants to work in its U.S. plants as a way to increaseprofits"[95] illustrate the extent to which U.S. employers already struggle with observing the law. They will not be happy with the increased production costs that legalization would cause, so an effective method of monitoring compliance must be established.

The supply side of the issue must also be addressed, and thus the migrant-sending regions of Mexico must be enhanced. This will require investment from Mexico and the United States, from both private and governmental sources. The outflow of capital from the U.S. into Mexico will produce significant future returns. If nothing else, these investments will decrease the amount spent by individual states to maintain illegal immigrants, a cutting of expenditures that many states would support. A young U.S. citizen originally from the Dominican Republic shared her viewpoint with Mexican friends:

I think it would be better if some people stayed in the countries they live in; to make this more likely to happen, I think that the United States should provide money to foreign countries to help create jobs there. I know it is hard for the United States to help the entire world, but maybe we need to help the countries that have the greatest number of people who come to this country illegally, because I think it is one way to stop them from coming.[96]

However, blind investment in Mexico would be simply treating the problem's symptoms rather than its causes. The weak state of the Mexican economy results from corruption in the system. Billions of dollars could be poured into the country, and given Mexico's history; the majority of those funds could end up in the pockets of government officials. Therefore, changes in the Mexican political infrastructure and in the overall culture must be realized before any progress can be achieved.

            Thankfully, the future looks bright for Mexico's corruption issues. Studies show that corruption has decreased notably since President Fox has taken office. Based on an annual study by Transparency International, Mexico's rank on the 2001 Corruptions Perception Index decreased from 59 to 51 between 2000 and 2001 (where one is best and 91 is worst). Its score (on a scale of ten) also increased to 3.7 after averaging 3.35 for the past three years, a modest yet telling improvement.[97] President Fox comments about the action that he has taken to combat corruption since taking office:

We're investing a lot of money on security, justice and rule of law in Mexico. We created a new ministry of security and police. We are reinventing the attorney general's office. We are reconstituting the investigating police who work with the attorney general, with much higher salaries and much higher education levels. Through these means, we will be giving results in the short term. Corruption isthe evil of all evils, and to us it is the enemy. We must give it the highest priority because if you have corruption in government and in the police corps, you will never be able to finish off crime in your country. So we will work to make sure we become a government that is transparent, that is honest, that is accountable.[98]

Mexico wants to improve its current situation just as any other country would. It is now just a matter of shedding past habits and taking committed steps toward a better future. Although it will take a long time to eradicate corrupt tendencies from Mexican society, the public will slowly see the benefits of pursuing practices that are more honest.

            A decrease in corruption, complemented by improvements in NAFTA policies to motivate investment in areas beyond the border region for the creation of jobs throughout Mexico, will lead to major improvements in Mexico's economic situation, thus producing employment and decreasing the motivation to immigrate to the United States. NAFTA was advertised as a way that the U.S. and Mexico could take advantage of their individual strengths and combine them to benefit each other, an idea consistent with basic economic principles of comparative advantage. Undoubtedly, the U.S. can obtain its goods and services through agreements with other more developed countries possessing the same assets as Mexico, but the U.S. has much more to gain from Mexico given its proximity and the two countries' generally amiable history. Now that an arrangement has been made, the agreement should be developed to its full potential, thus affecting the whole of each country, and not simply facilitating trade.[99] The advantage of using NAFTA as a method of improvement and investment in Mexico is that it is already set up and functioning. It is simply a matter of realizing its potential.

            It is without question that the main underlying factor in accomplishing change is time. It is the one thing that people are not willing to support, yet it is necessary in situations with roots found so deep in history - all the way back to the foundation of a country, in fact. While the world waits in anxious anticipation of the essential transformations, a number of actions can be taken to improve the situation and prepare the way for future success in the management of illegal immigration from Mexico to the United States.

               First, the INS needs to obtain funding for a system with which to verify the validity of documentation used for employment. Even harsher fines should be instituted for violation of the Immigration Reform and Control Act, which prohibits the employment of illegal aliens, in conjunction with the implementation of a new verification system. France is currently using such a system. Mark J. Miller, professor of political science and international relations at the University of Delaware, explained,

The French have had success with a verification system that employers use before they hire a new worker. Employers can call the French social security office and verify a worker's documentation. If the employers knowingly hire workers whose papers are not in order, they can receive stiff fines and/or jail terms.[100]

The key to this strategy is serious enforcement of employment violations. If there are no consequences for violations, employers will not act in accordance with the regulations, just as they do now. This will most likely require an increase in the INS budget for project development and maintenance, but such measures have proven to be successful in other countries and can produce the same results in the United States. In order to achieve such a program, Americans simply need to view this as a priority issue, and the fact that a pilot program is currently underway in California suggests that it is. In addition, the implementation of a validation program would increase the effectiveness of the legalization of a portion of illegal immigrants in the U.S., preempting the weakening of such an agreement by another class of illegal immigrants.

In addition, the Border Patrol should be held more accountable for violations of human and civil rights. It would be unacceptable if Americans were mistreated at another country's borders as Mexicans are mistreated at our borders. Somehow, though, a double standard has been created, and allegations of abuse in many forms exist. Examples of such abuse are "illegal stops and searches of persons and private property, physical and psychological abuse, deprivation of food, water, and medical attention, and use of excessive force."[101] Such behavior is an embarrassment to the United States and weakens its identity as a defender of human rights. In any case, treatment of any human in such a way is unacceptable, regardless of nationality or ethnicity: U.S. law confirms that truth. Officers of the Border Patrol should be held accountable for their actions as any citizens of the United States are held responsible for their behavior. An external review board should therefore be established to determine the validity of complaints filed against Border Patrol agents to ensure that U.S. laws are being applied uniformly. To allow such violations to continue is intolerable:

We grant to our law enforcement agencies an enormous responsibility, including the right to authoritatively intervene into our lives. Above all, law enforcement officials cannot abrogate subjects' human and civil rights. To do so constitutes a breaking of the law that instills terror in us all.[102]

A Border Patrol allowed to behave in such a way demonstrates an ineffectual government behind it. A country that so fervently opposes discrimination and infringements of human rights should focus more intently on itself before accusing others.

For now, illegal immigration from Mexico to the United States will continue, and achieving order will for the meantime escape these two countries. People will still hop fences, traverse rivers, and evade officers in order to achieve a better life. Upon arrival in the United States, they will search out illegal documents and an employer with the help of friends and family. They will work hard, although they will not receive overtime pay or health care benefits, and on pay-day, they will make a trip to the local Western Union to send remittances home to their families in Mexico, where corruption, though decreasing, still exists. U.S. consumers will enjoy lower prices on products afforded by the cheap labor, and the world will continue to function similarly to how it did before. And the Mexicans will carry on singing in a loud voice to the songs of the group the TRI (in Spanish, of course), while they work:

We are the strength that has made the United States,
The best power of the world.
Thanks to our work, to our assertion,
To our strength and our desire to progress.
 
We are those who are working their lands,
Those who increase their earnings.
And just as we want to learn English,
They should also try to learn Spanish.
 
Half of their territory was ours before -
They should return it, though it is the state of Texas.
From north to south, from east to west,
We'll win this fight, whatever the cost.
 
We are the labor that has made them strong -
We the Latinos are hot.
We are the raw material that made them rich -
We the Latinos are hot.
And everything they have and what they are -
Is thanks to us, the Latinos.
Because we the Latinos are hot,
And we're going to make it.[103]

 
BIBLIOGRAPHY

American Immigration Lawyers Association, "America is Immigration," www.aila.org/public/aboutimmigration.html, 2001: 1.

Mike Allen, "Fox, Bush Urge Route to Legalization for Immigrants," Washington Post, 7 Sept. 2001: A16.

Peter Andreas, "The Making of Amerexico: (Mis)Handling Illegal Immigration," World Policy Journal, vol. 11, no. 2, Summer 1994.

Associated Press, "Amnesty Could Prompt Border Rush," www.foxnews.com, 17 July 2001.
David Bender & Bruno Leone, "Securing Our Nation's Borders," Illegal Immigration: Opposing Viewpoints, San Diego, CA, 1997.

Steven Camarota, "Immigration from Mexico: Assessing the Impact on the United States," Center for Immigration Studies, 2001.

Nicholas Capaldi, Immigration: debating the issues, Prometheus Books, Amherst, NY, 1997: 45-244.

Helen Cothran, Illegal Immigration, Greenhaven Press, San Diego, CA, 2001: 45-132.
George Draffan, "Matrix of Energy and Transportation Subsidies," Atmosphere Alliance, Mar 1997, http://www.endgame.org/energy.html.

Ronald G. Ehrenberg and Robert S. Smith, Modern Labor Economics: Theory and Public Policy, Addison Wesley Longman, Inc, New York, NY, 2000: 352-363.

Jeff Faux, "NAFTA at Seven: Its impact on workers in all three nations," Economic Policy Institute: 1-19, http://epinet.org.

Greg Flakus, "Mexico Corruption," Dateline Mexico City, 6 Jan 2000. 5, http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/ops/war/2000/01/000106-mex1.htm, 11 Dec. 2001.

Pat Flannery, Dennis Wagner, "Dying to Work," The Arizona Republic, 26 Aug. 2001, www.azcentral.com:80/news/specials/migrants/overview.html.

Pat Flannery and Dennis Wagner, "Once Across, They're Home Free," The Arizona Republic, Aug. 26, 2001, http://www.azcentral.com/news/specials/migrants/how.html.

Barbara Garrison, "Employers could help stop flow of illegals," The Messenger, University of Delaware Office of Public Relations, Vol. 6, No. 1, 1996.

Nancy Gibbs, "On the Mexican Front," TIME, 11 June 2001: 38-56.

James D. Gwartney and Richard L. Stroup, Economics: Private and Public Choice, Dryden Press, New York, NY, 1997: 611-612.

Jeff Harrington, "Embracing Immigrants," St. Petersburg Times, 17 Sept 2000, www.sptimes.com/News/091700/Business/Embracing_immigrants_.shtml.

Dr. Raul Hinojosa Ojeda, "Comprehensive Migration Policy Reform in North America: The Key to Sustainable and Equitable Economic Integration," (Los Angeles, CA: UCLA North American Integration and Development Center, 2001).

Michael Huspek, "Law and Lawlessness in San Diego," San Diego Union-Tribune, 26 Feb. 1998.
Immigration and Naturalization Service, "Overview," http://www.ins.gov/graphics/services/asylum/overview.htm, 15 Jan. 2002: 1.

Jeffery Kaye, "Illegal Workers," Online News Hour, PBS, 7 Sept. 2001, http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/latin_america/july-dec01/illegal_9-04.html.

Thomas E. Lehman, "Coming to America: The Benefits of Open Immigration," Freeman, Dec. 1994: 1.

Robert S. Leiken, "Border Colleagues," Washington Post 2 Sept. 2001: B2.

Elisabeth Malkin, "Vicente Fox on the Transition, NAFTA, Corruption, Drugs, the Economy...," Business Week Online, 17 July 2000, http://www.businessweek.com/2000/00_29/b3690043.htm
Mel MelÈndez and Elvia D"az, "False Documents Everywhere," The Arizona Republic, 26 Aug 2001: 1, http://www.azcentral.com/news/specials/migrants/0826docfraud.

Terry McCarthy, "The Game," TIME, 11 June 2001: 56-60.

North American Development Bank, "General Overview," www.nadbank.org/english/general_frame.htm.

Marlene Peralta, "Let My Friends Live Their American Dream," New Youth Connections, New Youth Connections, Inc, Dec. 1998.

Perry & Baker, "Deportation and Removal Proceedings and Bond," www.callyourlawyers.com/mobile/imm/mobiledeport.html, 10 Feb. 2002.

Susan Martin, "Towards a Global Migration Regime," Georgetown Journal of International Affairs, Vol.1.2, Summer/Fall 2000.

Scarlett Pruit, "Choice or Corruption," Nando Media, 10 Nov. 1999, http://www.salon.com/news/feature/1999/11/10/mexico.htm.

Mei Ling Rein, Nancy R. Jacobs, & Mark S. Seigel, Immigration and Illegal Aliens - Burden or Blessing?, Information Plus, Wylie, TX, 1999.

Stephen P. Robbins, Organizational Behavior, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2001: 135.
Jim Vicini, "U.S. Charges Tyson Foods with Smuggling," Reuters Business News, 19 Dec. 2001, http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20011219/ts/crime_tyson_dc_1.html.

Dennis Wagner and Pat Flannery, "Dying to Work," The Arizona Republic, 26 Aug. 2001: 4, http://www.azcentral.com:80/news/specials/migrants/overview.html.

Shang-Jin Wei, "Corruption and Globalization: Policy Brief #79," The Brookings Institution, Apr. 2001, http://www.brook.edu/comm/policybriefs/pb079/pb79.htm.

El TRI, "Nosotros Los Latinos," No Podemos Volar, Wei International, 15 Aug. 2000.

Washington State Department of Transportation, "Examination of the Ownership of the Washington State Grain Train," 1998, http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/pubtran/freight/grain/findings.cfm.
Harris Whitbeck, "Fox blames PRI for crime, drugs, and corruption," CNN, 27 June, 2000.

David L. Wilson, personal interview, 28 Feb. 2002.
www.foxnews.com/story/0,2033,29792,00.html.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Nancy Gibbs, "On the Mexican Front," Time, 11 June 2001: 38-56.

[2] Helen Cothran, Illegal Immigration, Greenhaven Press, San Diego, CA, 2001: 70.

[3] Pat Flannery and Dennis Wagner, "Once Across, They're Home Free," The Arizona Republic, Aug. 26, 2001, http://www.azcentral.com/news/specials/migrants/how.html.

[4] Mel Melendez and Elvia Diaz, "False Documents Everywhere," The Arizona Republic, 26 Aug 2001, 1, http://www.azcentral.com/news/specials/migrants/0826docfraud

[5] Melendez and Diaz, 2.

[6] Melendez and Diaz, 2.

[7] Jeff Harrington, "Embracing Immigrants," St. Petersburg Times, 17 Sept 2000, www.sptimes.com/News/091700/Business/Embracing_immigrants_.shtml

[8] Jeffery Kaye, "Illegal Workers," Online News Hour, PBS, 7 Sept 2001, http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/latin_america/july-dec01/illegal_9-04.html.

[9] Mei Ling Rein, Nancy R. Jacobs, & Mark S. Seigel, Immigration and Illegal Aliens - Burden or Blessing?, Information Plus, Wylie, TX, 1999, 93.

[10] Rein, Jacobs, and Seigel, 2.

[11] Dennis Wagner and Pat Flannery, "Dying to Work," The Arizona Republic, 26 Aug 2001, 4, http://www.azcentral.com:80/news/specials/migrants/overview.html.

[12] Steven Camarota, "Immigration from Mexico: Assessing the Impact on the United States," Center for Immigration Studies, 2001.

[13] Peter Andreas, "The Making of Amerexico: (Mis)Handling Illegal Immigration," World Policy Journal, vol. 11, no. 2, Summer 1994.

[14] Flannery and Wagner, 4.

[15] Capaldi, Nicholas Immigration: Debating the Issues, Prometheus Books, Amherst, NY, 1997, 234.

[16] Robert S. Leiken, "Border Colleagues," Washington Post, 2 Sept. 2001: B2.

[17] Pat Flannery, Dennis Wagner, "Dying to Work," The Arizona Republic, 26 Aug. 2001, www.azcentral.com:80/news/specials/migrants/overview.html

[18] Rein, Jacobs, and Seigel, .99.

[19] Rein, Jacobs, and Seigel, 1.

[20] Rein, Jacobs, and Seigel, 2.

[21] Rein, Jacobs, and Seigel, 101.

[22] Rein, Jacobs, and Seigel, 101.

[23] Rein, Jacobs, and Seigel, 102.

[24] Rein, Jacobs, and Seigel, 102.

[25] Rein, Jacobs, and Seigel, 102.

[26] Rein, , Jacobs, and Seigel, 103.

[27] Susan Martin, "Towards a Global Migration Regime," Georgetown Journal of International Affairs, Vol.1.2, Summer/Fall 2000.

[28] Jeff Faux, "NAFTA at Seven: Its impact on workers in all three nations," Economic Policy Institute: 1, http://epinet.org.

[29] Faux, 2.

[30] American Immigration Lawyers Association, "America is Immigration," www.aila.org/public/aboutimmigration.html, 2001: 1.

[31] AILA, 1.

[32] AILA, 2.

[33] Immigration and Naturalization Service, "Overview," http://www.ins.gov/graphics/services/asylum/overview.htm, 15 Jan. 2002: 1.

[34] AILA, 1.

[35] Perry & Baker, "Deportation and Removal Proceedings and Bond," www.callyourlawyers.com/mobile/imm/mobiledeport.html, 10 Feb. 2002.

[36] David L. Wilson, personal interview, 28 Feb. 2002.

[37] Scarlett Pruit, "Choice or Corruption," Nando Media, 10 Nov. 1999, http://www.salon.com/news/feature/1999/11/10/mexico/.

[38] Harris Whitbeck, "Fox blames PRI for crime, drugs, and corruption," CNN, 27 June, 2000.

[39] Greg Flakus, "Mexico Corruption," Dateline Mexico City, 6 Jan 2000. http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/ops/war/2000/01/000106-mex1.htm, 11 Dec 2001, 4.

[40] Flakus, 5.

[41] Flakus, 5. http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/ops/war/2000/01/000106-mex1.htm.

[42] Leiken, B2.

[43] Mike Allen, "Fox, Bush Urge Route to Legalization for Immigrants," Washington Post 7 Sept. 2001: A16.

[44] Leiken, B2.

[45] Allen, A16.

[46] Allen, A16.

[47] Allen, A16.

[48] Rein, Jacobs, & Seigel, 105-106.

[49] Camarota, 3.

[50] Dr. Raul Hinojosa Ojeda, "Comprehensive Migration Policy Reform in North America: The Key to Sustainable and Equitable Economic Integration," (Los Angeles, CA: UCLA North American Integration and Development Center, 2001), 22.

[51]Capaldi, 50.

[52] Terry McCarthy, "The Game," Time, 11 June 2001: 56-60.

[53] Associated Press, "Amnesty Could Prompt Border Rush," www.foxnews.com 17 July 2001.

[54] Thomas E. Lehman, "Coming to America: The Benefits of Open Immigration," Freeman, December 1994, 1.

[55] Lehman, 2.

[56] Lehman, 4.

[57] Lehman, 5.

[58] Camarota, 16.

[59] David Bender & Bruno Leone, "Securing Our Nation's Borders," Illegal Immigration: Opposing Viewpoints, San Diego, CA, 1997, 113.

[60] Bender, Leone, 112.

[61] Bender, Leone, 112.

[62] Hinojosa, 12.

[63] Hinojosa, 15.

[64] Hinojosa, 18.

[65] Hinojosa, 21.

[66] Hinojosa, 21.

[67] Hinojosa, 22.

[68] Hinojosa, 23.

[69] Hinojosa, 24.

[70] Hinojosa, 25.

[71] Hinojosa, 27.

[72] www.foxnews.com/story/0,2033,29792,00.html.

[73] Hinojosa, 28.

[74] Hinojosa, 29.

[75] James D. Gwartney and Richard L. Stroup, Economics: Private and Public Choice, Dryden Press, New York, NY, 1997: 612.

[76] Hinojosa, 29.

[77] Hinojosa, 30.

[78] Hinojosa, 31.

[79] North American Development Bank, "General Overview,"www.nadbank.org/english/general_frame.htm.

[80] Shang-Jin Wei, "Corruption and Globalization: Policy Brief #79," The Brookings Institution, Apr 2001, http://www.brook.edu/comm/policybriefs/pb079/pb79.htm.
 

[81] George Draffan, "Matrix of Energy and Transportation Subsidies," Atmosphere Alliance, Mar 1997, http://www.endgame.org/energy.html.

[82] Washington State Department of Transportation, "Examination of the Ownership of the Washington State Grain Train," 1998, http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/pubtran/freight/grain/findings.cfm.

[83] Stephen P. Robbins, Organizational Behavior, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 2001, 135.

[84] Ronald G. Ehrenberg and Robert S. Smith, Modern Labor Economics: Theory and Public Policy, Addison Wesley Longman, Inc, New York, NY, 2000, 354.

[85] Ehrenberg and Smith, 355.

[86] Ehrenberg and Smith, 356.

[87] Ehrenberg and Smith, 358.

[88] Ehrenberg and Smith, 358.

[89] Ehrenberg and Smith, 359.

[90] Ehrenberg and Smith, 361.

[91] Ehrenberg and Smith, 361.

[92] Ehrenberg and Smith, 362.

[93] Cothran, 70.

[94] Ehrenberg and Smith, 363.

[95] Jim Vicini, "U.S. Charges Tyson Foods with Smuggling," Reuters Business News, 19 Dec 2001, http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20011219/ts/crime_tyson_dc_1.html.

[96] Marlene Peralta, "Let My Friends Live Their American Dream," New Youth Connections, New Youth Connections, Inc, Dec 1998.

[97] CeGE, Goettingen University and Transparency International , "Transparency International 2001 Corruptions Perceptions Index," 2001, http://www.gwdg.de/~uwvw/icr.htm.

[98] Stryker McGuire, "Mexico's promise - and its problems," Newsweek, 28 Jan 2001, http://stacks.msnbc.com/news/522496.asp.

[99] Elisabeth Malkin, "Vicente Fox on the Transition, NAFTA, Corruption, Drugs, the Economy...," Business Week Online, 17 July 2000, http://www.businessweek.com/2000/00_29/b3690043.htm

[100]Barbara Garrison, "Employers could help stop flow of illegals," The Messenger, University of Delaware Office of Public Relations, Vol. 6, No. 1, 1996.
[101] Michael Huspek, "Law and Lawlessness in San Diego," San Diego Union-Tribune, 26 Feb 1998.

[102] Huspek, "Law and Lawlessness in San Diego."

[103] El TRI, "Nosotros Los Latinos," No Podemos Volar, Wei International, 15 Aug 2000.