OPINION:
The great Roman judge Lucius Cassius, who lived in the first century B.C., routinely sought to cut to the heart of a case or controversy by asking “cui bono?” (“who benefits?”).
It is a question we all should be asking about unlawful immigration to the United States, especially in the next few weeks as the number of people entering the United States illegally at the southern border will increase from the alarming rate of about 2 million per year to the truly dangerous tempo of 3 million per year.
The legacy media will ascribe this increase to the removal of restrictions associated with the recently terminated public health emergency. They will also tell tales of the heroic and tragic journeys of those who enter the United States without legal permission. For them, the answer to Lucius Cassius’ question is simple: Those committing a crime by entering the United States illegally are the principal beneficiaries of their actions.
But that’s only part of the story.
The full answer is that the well-off, businesses, and the more mercenary elements of the Democratic Party benefit from immigration crime. Businesses always advocate more immigration, through administrative action (expanding access to H-1B work visas), by hiring those who are in the United States illegally, and by complicating governmental efforts to do anything about unlawful immigration.
We are about to see a clear example of that, as the business community lines up again against the mandatory E-Verify provisions in the immigration legislation soon to be passed by the House of Representatives.
Anything that suppresses the wages of the working class — and make no mistake, that is exactly what illegal immigration does — works to increase the net worth of those higher on the economic ladder.
Illegal immigration exacerbates income inequality. It also crowds working-class neighborhoods and schools.
But the rich don’t care about that because they don’t live in those neighborhoods and their children don’t go to those schools.
With respect to Democrats, that story is about to unfold in the House, as what should be a simple vote to strengthen law enforcement’s authority with respect to immigration will become a partisan parting of the Red Sea — with those who want to prevent criminality on one side and those who believe they might benefit from it (always, cui bono) on the other.
It is no accident that the Biden administration has overseen the largest surge in illegal immigration ever.
What then is to be done? Walls are good and perhaps necessary. Going to war with the cartels may be interesting to think about but is almost certain to be bloodier than imagined. Altered incentives, however, tend to be more durable and more challenging.
We should consider taxing remittances — the cash legal and illegal immigrants send home. These are not small amounts of cash that flow out of the country. Mexico receives about $60 billion a year from people in the United States. That represents almost 4% of Mexico’s gross domestic product. Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador account for $30 billion or so. It will no doubt surprise and amaze you to learn that a lot of the cash winds up in the hands of the cartels.
A simple tax on these remittances would reduce the incentive to enter the United States and discourage many from doing so illegally.
Like illicit drugs, illegal immigration is a problem with a demand component as well. We need to address that demand — almost entirely originating from business — as energetically as we do supply.
Mandatory E-Verify is a good first step. More importantly, we need to get serious about putting those Americans who are complicit in violating immigration law in jail. Small businesses, medium-sized businesses, and big businesses all need to be put under a microscope by federal law enforcement.
Once corporate executives realize that they are at legal risk involving actual jail time, their assessments of the costs and benefits of hiring those in the country illegally will change dramatically.
The problem isn’t finding those who are here illegally. We see them in hotels, on construction sites, in restaurants. Many of us derive short-term economic benefit from their presence.
The problem is that there are powerful economic interests and incentives that keep them in place and keep them coming. We need to fight those powerful interests and change their incentives.
• Michael McKenna, a columnist for The Washington Times, co-hosts “The Unregulated Podcast.” He was most recently a deputy assistant to the president and deputy director of the Office of Legislative Affairs at the White House.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.