Sweden and Certitudes on Illegal Immigration

Sweden’s left-wing government has announced it will deport about 45% of the 160 thousand refugees who poured into the country last year - many as a result of the Syrian Civil War. That means up to 80 thousand refugees deported on flights out of Sweden.

So why is it that deportation is considered a non-viable alternative by both progressive and pro-business elites in America? Over and over again, politicians and academics - as well as liberal and even-more-left-wing activists who can be expected to do all they can to prevent deportations - begin any analysis of the immigration situation in the U.S. with the assumption, the certitude, that you can't deport all those millions back to (mostly) Mexico and Central America.

Is it a logistical certitude? That's likely rubbish and a reasonable amount of coordination between various State and Federal Agencies could put together a workable plan.

Is it a budgetary certitude? Congress does not want to waste the billions needed to deport millions of illegals, is what that means. And when think tanks start putting together estimates of what it would cost - based on an ICE estimate of $8,660 per deportee - the numbers can get crazy yuge. Of course the ICE number is just a rough baseline and the estimates skyrocket from there, all the way up to almost $50K for each illegal deported. And Congress has put a leash on immigration authorities' budgetary ability to deport more than the 300K to 400K per year that they currently do. Are these estimates realistic? Or just partisan propaganda?

Is it an economic certitude? Estimates of what the effect of deportation would do to the economy suggest that the US economy would be 6% smaller as a result. Twenty years from now that is. Give me a break. Any estimate of economic growth over 20 years is a crap shoot at best. And over 20 years, 6% works out to 0.3% per year. Assuming the estimate has any relation to reality. But it does show that business is worried about the effects of deportations and are - some more than others - silent and not-so-silent partners with pro-immigration groups.

Is it a legal certitude? It should be ridiculous to even ask this question. To pro-immigration groups, it is not. Latino Americans have used their rhetorical feistiness (also called being good at insulting each other and everyone else) to turn illegal immigrants into undocumented workers. As if they merely were waiting for the paperwork and had every right to be in the country. What started in Spanish is now firmly established in English as an apparently valid term to the pro-immigration crowd.

So, is it finally a political certitude? Should Trump win the nomination, and then be elected in November. And, should Trump be even modestly willing to pursue his immigration plans, we will then begin to get answers. Of course, the best way to deal with illegals may be to heavily fine business owners who employ them. And let the out-of-work illegals head back home. And you might even collect money rather than spend billions and billions showing that America's borders matter.

Posted by Keeley at January 29, 2016 11:13 AM
Comments
Comment #402241

Controlling illegal immigration is as easy as enforcing the rule on E-Verify. The challenge is that our liberal friends will go to court to harass employers who use it, since it may adversely affect particular groups. So employers are in a bind, even if they do not want to employ illegals. They can get in serious trouble for hiring illegals but they can also get in serious trouble for zealous checking in order not to do it.

The other thing we need to reconsider is the commitment among our elites to multiculturalism. I have travelled widely and lived in other countries. I like them. BUT I really do not want the U.S. to become more like China or Mexico, or almost anyplace else.

America is better than China or Mexico or Africa. I can welcome people from those places and invite them to bring their best ideas, but it is fair to demand that they learn my language and adapt to my laws and customs.

Posted by: C&J at January 29, 2016 11:57 AM
Comment #402279
So why is it that deportation is considered a non-viable alternative by both progressive and pro-business elites in America?

It’s called American exceptionalism. We are a nation of immigrants, Sweden is not.

I can welcome people from those places and invite them to bring their best ideas, but it is fair to demand that they learn my language and adapt to my laws and customs.
There are zero indications that assimilation is slower today than yesterday. Immigrants from Asia & Latin America are adopting English and American customs much more quickly than our grandfathers and great-grandfathers who came from Europe. Posted by: Warren Porter at January 30, 2016 9:39 AM
Post a comment