We have 30 million foreign nationals in this country without permission, with hundreds of thousands more arriving every year. The "asylum" process is a complete joke at this point, and has been abused to the point that it should probably be scrapped entirely and replaced with something else. Perhaps we can finance asylum processing in Mexico for Central Amercans - that will magically shrink ayslum claims 90%.
I would be more sympathetic to the concerns the author presents here if he was willing to even pretend to be concerned about illegal immigration and acknowledge the larger problem at hand which these imperfect solutions are attempting to grapple with. In the absence of that this reads to me like more of the endless neoliberal open borders propaganda we get a never-ending torrent of.
Unset, thanks for your comment. The point to be underscored in the piece is that even as a mechanism of controlling illegal immigration (the professed aim of the policy), the checkpoints are an ineffective and costly mechanism, accounting for only 2% of total apprehensions of undocumented immigrants. Proponents of stricter border controls, tighter immigration policy more generally, and a more humane approach to the situation at the southern border would all be able to agree, I imagine, that taxpayer resources and agents' time can be better spent (even if they disagree on how that spending would occur).
P.S. Most of the figures I've seen for undocumented immigrants in the U.S. are in the 10-11 million range. Did you see 30 million proposed as an alternative accounting?
That is the more commonly cited figure, but I've seen suggestions that it is a drastic undercount. Here is one source: Fazel-Zarandi M, Feinstein JS, Kaplan EH (September 21, 2018). "The number of undocumented immigrants in the United States: Estimates based on demographic modeling with data from 1990 to 2016". PLoS One. 13 (9): e0201193. I'm inclined to believe it is much little academic attention is paid to the costs of massive unskilled migration. Borjas at Harvard, one of the few academics to present a more balanced perspective, has suggested the pressure to underreport such things is immense.
As I said, I'm willing to consider your point, but I'd be more willing to concede your credibility if there was more willingness on your part to recognize illegal immigration as a problem.
Mr. Weinberg, my concerns with racial/ethnic profiling are largely those reflected by Justice Brennan's quote above: the practice makes second-class citizens of an entire group of fellow Americans whose only distinguishing characteristic is not a greater likelihood of being criminals, but their apparent complexion. That raises serious concerns, I think, about the principle (and right) of equal treatment under the law. This is especially the case when stops take place miles from the border.
But added to what we might consider the moral/constitutional case against the practice, there is, as the 9th Circuit recognized in the Montero-Camargo case cited above, a more mundane argument against it: in a nation growing increasingly heterogeneous, the probative value of appearance—that is, the likelihood that appearing "foreign" is actually a reliable indicator of being an undocumented immigrant—is small and growing smaller daily.
I'm no lawyer, so I don't really understand the technical elements of your point. Regarding the "probative elements," my understanding is that more than 90% of illegal immigrants in the US come from Latin America. If what you consider racial profiling increases the likelihood of correctly identifying an illegal immigrant by (say) 10%, I would feel uncomfortable about it, but I would certainly not feel uncomfortable about it if it increased the likelihood of correct identification by (say) 5-fold. So, at least for me, the issue seems quantitative, more than an abstract moral value.
Inspired by the 9th circuit opinion, let’s look at some quantitative data. Tucson is 72 miles from the border and 42% Hispanic or Latino. San Diego is 18 miles from Tijuana and is 31% Hispanic or Latino How probative would simply using race be in finding illegal immigrants in Tucson or San Diego? Seems racial profiling has the double problem of be both quantitatively useless and morally wrong.
Your data imply that it would be impossible for "racial profiling" to increase correct ID by as much as 5-fold in either Tucson or San Diego; it seems likely that roughly similar percentages apply throughout most of the southern border region. They do not, however, exclude the (to me likely) possibility that it would increase the likelihood of correct detection by a factor of 2. Is that "enough"? I don't actually know; my sense is that questions like that are properly the jurisdiction of legislatures and the voting public, not courts. In any case, it seems unlikely that it is quantitatively "useless"; that part of the question becomes one of empirical fact (whose answer I don't know). Regarding "morally wrong," it seems to me that different people could reach different conclusions regarding the morality of the issue.
Seems we were both operating a bit at the extremes. Your example threshold of a useful hit rate for something “useful” was 5X; I called profiling “useless”. So let’s say there would be some technical utility in using profiling, question is what would be morally “acceptable” and legal under the equal protection clause...a point on which we might differ. Doing this within 25 miles of the border might(?) be reasonable, but treating 30-40% of a city’s population that is up to 100 miles away from the border as second class citizen feels pretty extreme.
I'm really pleased that we're converging on what seems a reasonable view, or at least a reasonable level of residual disagreement. I'd call my personal views on illegal immigration "moderate." I'm appalled by the racist xenophobia of some on the Right, but taken aback by the most radical progressive views that seem to argue that borders are intrinsically immoral.
More to the point, I feel that the courts have been called upon to address far too many issues that should instead be determined by legislation. I think that this trend (fueled in part by ongoing legislative paralysis) is one element contributing to the poisoning of contemporary political dialogue.
Good article. Two reforms I’d add to your list: legalize marijuana, and decriminalize all drugs. The War on Drugs failed at its purported purpose (if you know anything about Nixon and the creation of the DEA you might reject the given reasons) and it has led to annual increases in opiate deaths for decades, and throws people into the criminal justice system who have no reason to be there. Not to mention that the thriving, multi-billion dollar black market it created leads to much of the instability and violence in Mexico, central and South America that drives so many people to seek refuge in America. Border Patrol would have you believe they’re playing an integral part in keeping drugs off the street, but any drug user knows how absurd that is and how naive someone needs to be to believe it.
Fascinating and horrifying, thank you for bringing this to our attention. I'm curious about a few things: What is the current political viability of reform? How's the legislative math looking? Is executive action a possible path if Congress proves a dead end? Are any advocacy orgs pushing reform? It'd be great to see a progressive -- libertarian alliance on this issue, reminiscent of the broader coalition for criminal justice/mass encarceration reform. Also, like the police reform movement, I imagine the potential for viral cell phone captured videos of Border Patrol excesses and wrongdoing could be a game changer. It'd be great if there was an effort to build robust political infrastructure -- a constellation of supportive think tanks, advocacy groups, thought leaders, etc. -- to make the most of the moment when such a viral video inevitable captures our attention.
Many thanks for your comment. I agree that it seems a number of different perspectives could align in opposition to the practice. Although the most comprehensive path would require congressional action, the Biden administration could pursue updated DoJ/DHS guidance on the use of racial profiling. It could also attempt to alter the regulation currently defining "reasonable distance" as 100 miles from the border, making at least the geographic scope of Border Patrol's powers more limited. On YouTube and elsewhere, there are videos of checkpoint stops (both those that proceed uneventfully and otherwise).
We have 30 million foreign nationals in this country without permission, with hundreds of thousands more arriving every year. The "asylum" process is a complete joke at this point, and has been abused to the point that it should probably be scrapped entirely and replaced with something else. Perhaps we can finance asylum processing in Mexico for Central Amercans - that will magically shrink ayslum claims 90%.
I would be more sympathetic to the concerns the author presents here if he was willing to even pretend to be concerned about illegal immigration and acknowledge the larger problem at hand which these imperfect solutions are attempting to grapple with. In the absence of that this reads to me like more of the endless neoliberal open borders propaganda we get a never-ending torrent of.
Unset, thanks for your comment. The point to be underscored in the piece is that even as a mechanism of controlling illegal immigration (the professed aim of the policy), the checkpoints are an ineffective and costly mechanism, accounting for only 2% of total apprehensions of undocumented immigrants. Proponents of stricter border controls, tighter immigration policy more generally, and a more humane approach to the situation at the southern border would all be able to agree, I imagine, that taxpayer resources and agents' time can be better spent (even if they disagree on how that spending would occur).
P.S. Most of the figures I've seen for undocumented immigrants in the U.S. are in the 10-11 million range. Did you see 30 million proposed as an alternative accounting?
That is the more commonly cited figure, but I've seen suggestions that it is a drastic undercount. Here is one source: Fazel-Zarandi M, Feinstein JS, Kaplan EH (September 21, 2018). "The number of undocumented immigrants in the United States: Estimates based on demographic modeling with data from 1990 to 2016". PLoS One. 13 (9): e0201193. I'm inclined to believe it is much little academic attention is paid to the costs of massive unskilled migration. Borjas at Harvard, one of the few academics to present a more balanced perspective, has suggested the pressure to underreport such things is immense.
As I said, I'm willing to consider your point, but I'd be more willing to concede your credibility if there was more willingness on your part to recognize illegal immigration as a problem.
I'm unclear why ethnic profiling in this specific context is intrinsically a Bad Thing. Perhaps others could help me understand?
Mr. Weinberg, my concerns with racial/ethnic profiling are largely those reflected by Justice Brennan's quote above: the practice makes second-class citizens of an entire group of fellow Americans whose only distinguishing characteristic is not a greater likelihood of being criminals, but their apparent complexion. That raises serious concerns, I think, about the principle (and right) of equal treatment under the law. This is especially the case when stops take place miles from the border.
But added to what we might consider the moral/constitutional case against the practice, there is, as the 9th Circuit recognized in the Montero-Camargo case cited above, a more mundane argument against it: in a nation growing increasingly heterogeneous, the probative value of appearance—that is, the likelihood that appearing "foreign" is actually a reliable indicator of being an undocumented immigrant—is small and growing smaller daily.
I'm no lawyer, so I don't really understand the technical elements of your point. Regarding the "probative elements," my understanding is that more than 90% of illegal immigrants in the US come from Latin America. If what you consider racial profiling increases the likelihood of correctly identifying an illegal immigrant by (say) 10%, I would feel uncomfortable about it, but I would certainly not feel uncomfortable about it if it increased the likelihood of correct identification by (say) 5-fold. So, at least for me, the issue seems quantitative, more than an abstract moral value.
Inspired by the 9th circuit opinion, let’s look at some quantitative data. Tucson is 72 miles from the border and 42% Hispanic or Latino. San Diego is 18 miles from Tijuana and is 31% Hispanic or Latino How probative would simply using race be in finding illegal immigrants in Tucson or San Diego? Seems racial profiling has the double problem of be both quantitatively useless and morally wrong.
Your data imply that it would be impossible for "racial profiling" to increase correct ID by as much as 5-fold in either Tucson or San Diego; it seems likely that roughly similar percentages apply throughout most of the southern border region. They do not, however, exclude the (to me likely) possibility that it would increase the likelihood of correct detection by a factor of 2. Is that "enough"? I don't actually know; my sense is that questions like that are properly the jurisdiction of legislatures and the voting public, not courts. In any case, it seems unlikely that it is quantitatively "useless"; that part of the question becomes one of empirical fact (whose answer I don't know). Regarding "morally wrong," it seems to me that different people could reach different conclusions regarding the morality of the issue.
Seems we were both operating a bit at the extremes. Your example threshold of a useful hit rate for something “useful” was 5X; I called profiling “useless”. So let’s say there would be some technical utility in using profiling, question is what would be morally “acceptable” and legal under the equal protection clause...a point on which we might differ. Doing this within 25 miles of the border might(?) be reasonable, but treating 30-40% of a city’s population that is up to 100 miles away from the border as second class citizen feels pretty extreme.
I'm really pleased that we're converging on what seems a reasonable view, or at least a reasonable level of residual disagreement. I'd call my personal views on illegal immigration "moderate." I'm appalled by the racist xenophobia of some on the Right, but taken aback by the most radical progressive views that seem to argue that borders are intrinsically immoral.
More to the point, I feel that the courts have been called upon to address far too many issues that should instead be determined by legislation. I think that this trend (fueled in part by ongoing legislative paralysis) is one element contributing to the poisoning of contemporary political dialogue.
Good article. Two reforms I’d add to your list: legalize marijuana, and decriminalize all drugs. The War on Drugs failed at its purported purpose (if you know anything about Nixon and the creation of the DEA you might reject the given reasons) and it has led to annual increases in opiate deaths for decades, and throws people into the criminal justice system who have no reason to be there. Not to mention that the thriving, multi-billion dollar black market it created leads to much of the instability and violence in Mexico, central and South America that drives so many people to seek refuge in America. Border Patrol would have you believe they’re playing an integral part in keeping drugs off the street, but any drug user knows how absurd that is and how naive someone needs to be to believe it.
Fascinating and horrifying, thank you for bringing this to our attention. I'm curious about a few things: What is the current political viability of reform? How's the legislative math looking? Is executive action a possible path if Congress proves a dead end? Are any advocacy orgs pushing reform? It'd be great to see a progressive -- libertarian alliance on this issue, reminiscent of the broader coalition for criminal justice/mass encarceration reform. Also, like the police reform movement, I imagine the potential for viral cell phone captured videos of Border Patrol excesses and wrongdoing could be a game changer. It'd be great if there was an effort to build robust political infrastructure -- a constellation of supportive think tanks, advocacy groups, thought leaders, etc. -- to make the most of the moment when such a viral video inevitable captures our attention.
Many thanks for your comment. I agree that it seems a number of different perspectives could align in opposition to the practice. Although the most comprehensive path would require congressional action, the Biden administration could pursue updated DoJ/DHS guidance on the use of racial profiling. It could also attempt to alter the regulation currently defining "reasonable distance" as 100 miles from the border, making at least the geographic scope of Border Patrol's powers more limited. On YouTube and elsewhere, there are videos of checkpoint stops (both those that proceed uneventfully and otherwise).
Great article. Now do game wardens.