Three Policies Your State Could Implement to Roll Back the Mass Migration Crisis
Is there any going back from Biden's Open Border?
Is the border battle winnable, or is it lost for good? Such is the question running through the minds of many in America as more than 12 million illegal immigrants will have crossed the border under the first term of his presidency.1 When added to the 22 million or so who were already here2 before Biden began his reign of terror, that problem looks insurmountable. But is it really?
No. Many battles have been lost, with Reagan’s amnesty of millions of illegals,3 the GOP’s failure to build a wall and defend it under Trump,4 and the Visigoth-like invasion that has occurred under the Biden Administration being particularly problematic. However, the tide can be reversed by proactive policies that not only stop illegals from flowing in but encourage them to leave en masse.
When reading these suggestions, it is important to remember that the time for limited or mutually agreeable policies is long past. Even building a border wall is no longer anywhere near enough, as far too many illegals are now in the country for America to remain America for much longer. Without a wholesale deportation campaign of the sort Trump is now calling for,5 or something that results in a similar end result, the voting patterns of the migrants mean that their kids will turn America deep blue6 while putting its finances even deeper in the red.7 Biden wants to give 11 million amnesty8 for a reason: they vote for his side. That’s an unacceptable outcome, and so it means that conservatives must start embracing policies that are effective rather than worrying about the left’s finger-pointing and accusations.
Three Policies to Reverse the Damage
#1: Following in Abbott’s Footsteps and Deploying Troops and Law Enforcement to Stop, Arrest, and Deport Those in the Country Illegally
Surprisingly, given his relatively moderate and lukewarm start as governor, Gov. Greg Abbott of Texas has recently become the man most willing to tackle the illegal immigration issue. While deploying the National Guard to prevent illegals from getting into the country,9 with the troops not just deploying concertina wire but even using riot control tactics to keep them off American soil,10 he has also signed a bill that makes it a crime to enter Texas illegally and gives Texas the legal authority to either lock them if they won’t leave the country. The Associated Press, describing the bill, noted:11
The law, which takes effect in March, allows any Texas law enforcement officer to arrest people who are suspected of entering the country illegally. Once in custody, they could either agree to a Texas judge’s order to leave the U.S. or be prosecuted on misdemeanor charges of illegal entry. Migrants who don’t leave could face arrest again under more serious felony charges.
The Texas Tribune, adding more details on the criminal penalties, notes12:
The law would make it a state crime to cross the Texas-Mexico border between ports of entry. The new crime is a Class B misdemeanor carrying a punishment of up to six months in jail. Repeat offenders could face a second-degree felony with a punishment of two to 20 years in prison.
Explaining the full suite of policies his team is using to defend the border, Abbott said13:
“We are using every tool that can be used, from building a border wall to building these border barriers, to passing this law that I signed that led to another lawsuit by the Biden administration, where I signed a law making it illegal for somebody to enter Texas from another country. And they're subject to arrest and subject to deportation.
“So, we are deploying every tool and strategy that we possibly can. The only thing that we're not doing is we're not shooting people who come across the border, because of course, the Biden administration would charge us with murder.”
Predictably, the left has gone berserk. The Biden Administration has sued,14 the AP noted that critics have compared it to a “Show Me Your Papers Bill,” implying similarities with Gestapo tactics,15 and “civil rights groups” and NGOs are suing as well.16
But, if Abbott’s Texas can run the gauntlet and either use appeals and courtroom stalling to drag out the legal fight until a friendly administration takes over or ignore the federal government’s demands like so-called “sanctuary cities” and states that have legalized marijuana, then the policy presents a viable way for red states to organize and keep out illegal immigrants while starting to force out those already here.
By mobilizing and deploying National Guard or volunteer units while using police officers, sheriff departments, and sheriffs’ deputies (sheriffs can generally deputize anyone, including private citizens, to enforce the law), red states could start to arrest and deport or lock up the illegal immigrants in the country while also defending the border. Internal red states like Tennessee, Oklahoma, and Arkansas could deploy their Guard units to the border in border states like Texas to assist the Guard units already there while law enforcement resources in red states around the county follow in Texas’ footsteps to arrest illegal immigrants and courts them deport them.
It’s a long shot of a policy. The federal government has claimed supremacy and seems ready to fight.17 The leftist networks that were activated in the summer of 2020 are starting to rear their ugly heads again. Border Patrol is attempting to enter areas to “process” illegal immigrants (meaning freeing them into the country for court dates years in the future to which they won’t show up18) as Texan troops block them, with a confrontation likely imminent.19
But it is possible under the current American legal regime. States can mobilize their National Guard units and deploy them to assist other governors, with some red states already doing so to assist Abbott and Texas.20 Sheriffs can deputize ordinary people to expand the law enforcement personnel base and enforce the law, which here would be the arrest and deportation of illegals.21 Some sheriffs expressed their willingness to deputize patriots en masse during the Virginia gun control fight, for example.22 And, as Gov. Abbott has argued and shown, if states craft their legislation in the right way, they can even arrest and deport illegal immigrants and use National Guard units to defend the border.
While not enough on its own, the full block of red states following in Gov. Abbott’s footsteps and deploying Guard units, building border barriers when applicable, and crafting and enforcing legislation to make illegal immigration a crime and deportation a penalty would be a good first step to reversing the illegal immigration crisis.
#2: Make E-Verify Mandatory and Rigorously Enforce Compliance
Though states could get a good start in reversing the illegal immigration crisis by following in Gov. Abbott’s footsteps, doing so would only be a first step and would likely make a small impression on the total number of illegal immigrants. Even if red states could somehow build a coalition for a more sweeping deportation effort in partnership with the feds, such an effort would likely end up failing due to pressure from the usual NGO suspects23 and the massive financial cost of the program.24
Much more effective and cost-effective would be crafting a policy that forces illegal immigrants to self-deport while also giving state law enforcement officers legal authority to go after those businesses that are hiring illegal immigrants, the very act that is encouraging them to invade the US in the first place. A mandatory E-Verify law established across all red states would provide such an outmigration incentive and legal authority, and, as ordinances in some towns in Michigan25 and the state of Arizona26 show, is already recognized as completely legal and within a state or municipality’s police powers.
E-Verify is “a web-based system that allows enrolled employers to confirm the eligibility of their employees to work in the United States.”27 With it, “E-Verify employers verify the identity and employment eligibility of newly hired employees by electronically matching information given by employees on the Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification, against records available to the Social Security Administration (SSA) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).”28 In other words, it enables employers to ensure that, among other things, the person whom they are hiring is a US citizen or legal immigrant.29
Though currently voluntary, E-Verify presents a massive opportunity for states that want to disincentivize illegal immigration and have a reason to go after those that employ illegal immigrants.
Further, beyond being effective, a rigorously enforced E-Verify system would be hard to challenge, except on the outright basis of wanting illegal immigrants to be able to work in America. As Francisco Burrola, the special agent in charge of Homeland Security Investigations in El Paso, noted: "I would love for the industry here in El Paso, Texas to join the Image program and utilize E-Verify. What is the challenge? Unless you have knowledge that you’re hiring undocumented foreign nationals who are not authorized to work here. That's the only thing I can think of."30 Similarly, as Tom Homan, an ICE Acting Director for Trump, argued: “It is mandatory for citizens and businesses to file taxes, so why don’t we require businesses to make sure their employees have the legal right to work here?”31
There are, of course, problems with E-Verify. As Cato’s report on Arizona’s attempt to implement mandatory E-Verify showed, employers found ways around using it, and that significantly diminished its effectiveness in catching illegal immigrants trying to work and employers trying to hire them.32 Further, illegal immigrants can get around it in some cases by using stolen identities.33
But those are reasons to expand and tweak the system, not ignore the opportunity it offers. Outside of America’s generous welfare system, economic opportunity is the main impulse driving illegal immigration.34 As numerous studies of the issue have shown, even ones coming from a leftist perspective on the issue like the book El Norte or Bust,35 most illegal immigrants come here because they want the opportunity to work. Further, employers hire them because they can do so for a lower wage than they pay American citizens or legal immigrants.36
The solution, therefore, is to encourage employers to refuse to hire illegal immigrants and those illegal immigrants to seek employment in other nations by mandating E-Verify and remaining constantly vigilant to prevent both employers and illegal immigrants from getting around it. That should be paired with substantial criminal and financial penalties for non-compliance with E-Verify requirements. Doing so would encourage outmigration, force employers to take the law seriously, and is already recognized as legal.
Finally, even the flawed Arizona experiment indicated that E-Verify requirements work at limiting illegal immigrant employment and encouraging illegal immigrant out-migration. A report on the matter that was released in 2010 found:37
The majority of employers interviewed in this study expressed the belief that unauthorized employment in Arizona has been reduced substantially because of LAWA. One-hundred twenty-four of the 126 employers reported an opinion on this issue. Of these 124 employers, 80 reported LAWA had a great impact on unauthorized employment in Arizona and another 36 thought it had a moderate impact (Exhibit IV-1). When asked to explain how E-Verify has had an impact on unauthorized employment, 53 reported that fewer workers without authorization were employed. Another 23 employers thought there were fewer authorized workers available to work, presumably because it was easier for authorized workers to obtain employment since employers are prohibited from hiring unauthorized workers under LAWA.
…
Although workers were not asked directly about the impact of LAWA on unauthorized employment, their responses to related questions indicate that they also have seen a reduction in unauthorized employment. One-hundred eighteen of the 160 workers expressed an opinion about whether LAWA was a good law. Thirty-five (of the 118 workers) responded they thought it was good primarily because it prevents people who are not authorized to work from taking jobs away from those who are.
…
More than a third of interviewed workers said they knew people who had moved from Arizona to Mexico or planned to do so as a result of E-Verify. Among the 159 workers responding to a question about whether they knew people who had left Arizona or planned to do so because of E-Verify, 67 reported that they did.53 Of these, almost all workers (61) said that these individuals had left Arizona or planned to leave Arizona after January 1, 2008, when LAWA went into effect. Although many of these workers were moving elsewhere in the United States, especially the states bordering Arizona, 31 of the interviewed workers knew of others who were planning to move to Mexico (Exhibit IV-2). It is not possible to estimate how large the population of workers leaving the United States is from this information since a given immigrant moving could be known by multiple people and, conversely, a given respondent could know multiple people leaving. Nevertheless, workers shared their perceptions about why people they knew were leaving Arizona, which strongly suggest that at least some unauthorized workers left the United States in the face of mandatory use of E-Verify in Arizona. Presumably, a higher number would leave if fewer jobs not subject to E-Verify screening were available in other states.
E-Verify works. It’s high time red states implement it to encourage outmigration and hold employers who don’t comply accountable.
#3: Cut Off Illegal Immigrant Access to Welfare Programs and Government Services
While most illegal immigrants might head to America because it is perceived as the land of economic opportunity, many others immigrate here because of the generous welfare policies and relatively functioning government services that America provides. That, at least, is the perception among many conservatives.
The data holds that perception to be true. For example, the 2022 Survey on Income and Program Participation found “that 54 percent of households headed by immigrants — naturalized citizens, legal residents, and illegal immigrants — used one or more major welfare program. This compares to 39 percent for U.S.-born households.”38 Examining that SIPP data, the Center for Immigration Studies found that the welfare program participation rate is even higher among illegal immigrants than immigrants generally. It found, “Our best estimate is that 59 percent of households headed by illegal immigrants, also called the undocumented, use at least one major program. We have no evidence this is due to fraud. Among legal immigrants we estimate the rate is 52 percent.”39
Theoretically, illegal immigrants are prohibited from participating in welfare programs. However, there are loopholes. The Center for Immigration Studies, describing those loopholes, noted, “Illegal immigrants can receive welfare on behalf of U.S.-born children, and illegal immigrant children can receive school lunch/breakfast and WIC directly. A number of states provide Medicaid to some illegal adults and children, and a few provide SNAP. Several million illegal immigrants also have work authorization (e.g. DACA, TPS, and some asylum applicants) allowing receipt of the EITC.”40 Continuing, it noted, “Most new legal immigrants are barred from most programs, as are illegal immigrants, but this has a modest impact primarily because: 1) Immigrants can receive benefits on behalf of U.S.-born children; 2) the bar does not apply to all programs, nor does it apply to non-citizen children in some cases; 3) most legal immigrants have lived here long enough to qualify for welfare; 4) some states provide welfare to otherwise ineligible immigrants on their own; 5) by naturalizing, immigrants gain full welfare eligibility.”41 Similarly, the Supreme Court ruled that states have to open schools to illegal immigrants,42 and some government housing developments, such as Colony Ridge in Texas, are filled to the brim with illegal immigrants.43
Fortunately, some of those problems are ones that, like employment, can be solved by the states.
For one, some municipalities have already found ways around the SCOTUS case requiring allowing illegal immigrants into public schools: proof of residency requirements.44 By requiring proof of residency, they can keep out illegal immigrants without technically violating the SCOTUS ruling. Red states could, as states control their schools,45 implement such district-level proof of residency to protect taxpayer-funded schools from being taken advantage of by illegal immigrants. As education is the biggest cost to the government of the services provided to illegal immigrants,46 this policy would significantly cut the cost to the state of illegal immigration while also encouraging outmigration.
Similarly, proactive, completely legal legislation can solve the housing issue. For example, the town of Fremont, Nebraska, has passed an ordinance that, in addition to mandating E-Verify, forbids renting property to illegal immigrants. Initially characterized as unenforceable,47 it remained in effect, and the town voted to keep funding and enforcing it in 2021.48 As the vast majority (nearly three-quarters) of illegal immigrants rent their housing,49 state-level ordinances would prove extremely effective at encouraging illegal immigrant outmigration from the state.
Unfortunately, many of the welfare programs for which illegal immigrants and migrants can register are administered by the federal government and federal agencies, not the states.50 However, some of the welfare problems are solvable by states. For example, many states, including red states, extend medical insurance to illegal immigrants.51 If states provide it, they should cut it to encourage outmigration, limit the costs of illegal immigration, and encourage those who have to deal with the situation, such as hospitals, to report the illegal immigrants to the police for the reasons outlined in suggestion 1. The same applies for all state welfare programs that illegal immigrants are currently taking advantage of: cut off that welfare pipeline to illegal immigrants to make residency less desirable to those there for welfare reasons and thus encourage outmigrations. Though states won’t have that power for federal programs, they should exercise it for state programs, such as insurance.
The Problem Can Be Solved. It Just Requires Political Power and the Will to Exercise It
There are currently 23 state government trifectas, meaning states where Republicans control both houses of the legislature and the governor’s office.52 Those states have the opportunity to implement all the proposals outlined here. They could send the National Guard to the border to help Abbott. They could pass a law making illegal immigration a crime punishable by deportation and use it to start arresting and deporting illegal immigrants. They could mandate E-Verify for all employers and then rigorously enforce it. They could pass laws making it illegal to rent to illegal immigrants. They could require proof of residency at public schools to keep illegal immigrants out. They could cut off illegal immigrant access to state welfare benefits, such as healthcare insurance.
Doing so is a matter of willpower, not political power, for those states. Those policies could be implemented. It’s time for Republicans to take action before it’s too late. A wall isn’t enough. Hoping for a federal deportation campaign isn’t enough. The states have to get involved and implement these common-sense policies.
Noting the much higher use of welfare programs among immigrants (including illegals) than native American households: https://cis.org/Report/Welfare-Use-Immigrants-and-USBorn
This is a state law, so you’ll want look it up for your state in the state code.
Triple this cost estimate to better reflect the total number of illegal immigrants already here (22 million before Biden + 12 million under Biden): https://www.americanprogress.org/article/what-would-it-cost-to-deport-11-3-million-unauthorized-immigrants/