Illegal Immigration’s Solution in the US


Illegal Immigration’s Solution in the US




Illegal Immigration’s Solution in the US

Illegal immigration is a subject that is as controversial as it is complex. The longevity of the debate is surpassed only by the elusiveness of the solution. The prevailing sentiment is that all illegal immigrants should be deported immediately. Unfortunately, the practicality and wisdom of such a solution has continually been criticized. Majority of the illegal immigrant population in the USA comprise of Mexicans. The immigration conundrum has no single solution, and thus a multi-pronged approach will prove effective. This will help to identify the systemic issues that facilitate the growth of the illegal immigrant population in the US and the subsequent contentment. New layers of policies to counter illegal immigration are being unanimously passed by congress with little impact. The past has made it clear that narrow and half-baked strategies will not result in a lasting solution. Consecutive administrations have implemented several strategies at times simultaneously without success. Among the proposed solutions, one stands pronounced, inducing self-deportation. This implies creating an uncomfortable atmosphere in the US that will force the immigrants to return to their native countries voluntary. Though one may favor a single resolution, the merits of each proposed solution should be evaluated and the resultant strength combined to tackle illegal immigration.

Augmenting the border security may aid to reduce the entry and reentry of illegal immigrants into the country. This may include building a fence the stretch of the US-Mexican border that is 1,954 miles. The Secure Fence Act of 2006 promulgated during George W. Bush’s regime already facilitated the enactment of a third of the above figure, 651 miles as of February 2012 (Johnson, 2014). Even that proved in adequate as the illegal immigrants’ desperation led them to innovate new ways of crossing into the country. As majority of these immigrants have relatives in this side of the fence, they are sufficiently motivated. Those successful aid the aspiring immigrants financially by giving them money to pay professional smugglers to get them inside the US through underground tunnels among other means (Kim, Carvalho, Davis, & Mullins, 2011). The rest ventured into the rough terrain of the desert where the security was relaxed entering with ease. The above reason weakened the validity of utilizing resources towards this end. The fence and its corresponding security equipment will not operate autonomously. Additional guard posts, vehicle barriers, and support including technological tools like drones become necessary. Furthermore, additional cost of maintenance and increased reinforcement becomes an issue. A wall the entire length of the Southern boundary will slow the rate of immigration rather than stop it completely. The US government should try this solution rather than complaining about its estimated costs.

While only 5000 soldiers are in active duty in the Southern border, the illegal alien population number at 11 million as of December 2011. There are civil groups willing to volunteer to increase the number of people defending the borders. Citizens have constitutional right to defend themselves and carry out a civilian arrest of any threat to their security. Communities living near the border will volunteer, as they are victim to plundering of their property as the aliens move inwards towards their chosen destinations. The volunteer groups will not be limited to the borders as neighbors and employers will be advised to report any illegal immigrant they encounter (Lakoff & Ferguson, 2016). At the same time, the government will toughen its visa laws. Majority of the illegal immigrants do not risk their lives going past the border patrol and angry vigilante groups. The aliens comprise of individuals whose work orders have expired and they have decided to overstay their welcome. Often they are cultured by then and even the neighbors are oblivious of the fact. The government and all relevant agencies should implement improved visa programs. They should find ways of tracking these workers consecutively deporting those who contravene their work permits.

Self-deporting is a concept that entails removing the motivations of illegal immigrants to come into the USA. Illegal immigrants flow into the US in search of employment and a better life for their kin. The illegal immigrants eventually find their struggles worth the effort as the find employment they sought. An attempt to restrict employment of illegal immigrants through e-verification is futile. The above is an online program that will increase scrutiny by employers of potential recruits. The internet-based program is recommended to all corporate firms in liaison with the Social Security Administration (SSA) as well as the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Nonetheless, firms are required to implement it voluntary (Menjívar & Kanstroom, 2013). This solution will imply making it mandatory to all corporate human resource and attaching legal sanctions to the rogue employers who contravene the statute. As there would be no jobs, the illegal immigrants will slowly deport themselves. Similarly, the working conditions should shatter their visions of the American Dream. By killing their motivations, they will lack strength to persevere the harsh treatment. Similarly, the illegal immigrants should not be accorded any rewards of any kind for their behavior.

The greatest reward that illegal immigrants get is entrenched in the constitution. Any child born within the US’s borders regardless of their parents’ background become American citizens. It follows that they qualify for welfare services. The parents will weather any challenges to secure a better future for their lineage. Illegalizing any future children by illegal immigrants will further limit their zeal and inspiration for sneaking into to the country. Apart from tougher employment terms, accessing other amenities such as health will only be possible upon verification that the recipient is a US national. Unlike forced deportation, they will be less likely to return, as they will be better off at their home country. Their endurance is attached to the privileges they receive.

Not all proposed solutions are geared toward deporting the aliens. Another solution is to increase the quality of jobs at their home country by helping improve their local economy. By having quality jobs at their backyard they will not require to seek foreign intervention for betterment of their standard of living (Spalding, Zuckerman, & Carafano, 2013). The above will prevent any aspiring immigrants. Coupled with the above strategy, citizens will opt to stay within their borders. This strategy posits that prevention is better than cure. Similarly, the US government has considered legalizing the current illegal immigrants amid protests into US citizens. However, a precaution will be undertaken to screen out individual with criminal backgrounds. While some illegal immigrants come to seek normal employment, others come to leverage the lucrative drug trade. The strategy though marred with controversy may have positive implication for the US economy. The will be an increase in government revenue through tax and an increase in labor force for the industries. Unfortunately, it will motivate new immigrants hoping to be integrated like their predecessors.



Johnson, K. R. (2014). Possible Reforms of the US Immigration Laws. Chap. L. Rev., 18, 315.

Kim, S. H., Carvalho, J. P., Davis, A. G., & Mullins, A. M. (2011). The view of the border: News framing of the definition, causes, and solutions to illegal immigration. Mass Communication and Society, 14(3), 292-314.

Lakoff, G., & Ferguson, S. (2016). The framing of immigration.

Menjívar, C., & Kanstroom, D. (Eds.). (2013). Constructing Immigrant ‘Illegality’: Critiques, Experiences, and Responses. Cambridge University Press.

Spalding, M., Zuckerman, J., & Carafano, J. J. (2013). Immigration reform needs problem-solving approach, not comprehensive legislation. Washington (DC): Heritage Foundation.