Archived Articles

Simeon Mitropolitski is a Canadian analyst, of Bulgarian origin, and a former syndicated columnist with the Bulgarian News Agency (BTA). He is the author of several hundred articles dealing with hot political and economic topics, both national and international.

He was part of the first group of Bulgarian intellectuals and students that began the opposition movement that finally put an end to the communist regime in this country in 1989, and in 1996-1997 participated in international observation teams during the elections in several Balkan countries - Romania, Albania and Bulgaria.

In 2002 Simeon and his family moved from Bulgaria to Canada where they live now in Montreal, province of Quebec. Simeon is a Master of Political Science from McGill University and a B.A. of Political Science and History.

Global Real Estate Project
News Index

Directories
  Int'l Realty
  US Realty

When we have a problem, there are many ways of responding. First way, which usually is regarded as the easiest, is to do nothing and hope for the problem to be solved by itself. Some people hope that their dents may heal by themselves without going to a dentist. Second solution is to try to do something and here we have many options, depending on our different opinions. In a democracy everyone is free to give advices, so when we have a problem, usually the solutions look more than one. Some look to be easier to implement than the others, some require more finances, some demand more psychological adjustments. The bad side of any decision on any issue is that we never know that it's the best answer to our problem. We can't replay the history twice or three times in a laboratory under different circumstances and see which solution will bring the most desired and acceptable results. Nevertheless we continue to try different options, solving some problems and at the same time creating some more, sometimes even bigger and harder to solve than the one we just thought to have answered.

My task here isn't to give definitive answer to one of the main current American social problems but rather to sketch some of the possible answers to the problem is of course the American society decides that such a problem exists and should be dealt with. As a foreigner I understand the fragility of my position, but as a friend of the United States I prefer to speak on this issue rather than hiding in my private domain.

The fact is that in the US there are many illegal immigrants. Some say they are 8 million; some increase this number up to 15 million. One thing is certain, these numbers recently went up and nobody expects radical improving on this front. Nobody expects that suddenly these 8 or 10 or even 15 million will go out of the country. So is this a problem per se? The United States is a country of 300 million so even if the highest numbers are correct, we have no more than 5% illegal population. Some say it's a big problem because these up to 15 million illegal aliens receive up to $200 billion each and every year, money that could go to the American citizens and the legal immigrants, money they will pay taxes with, money that will be put in the banks, generate credits, and encourage better the economic activity in the country. So perhaps there is a problem to deal with.

Which are the possible solutions? First is to do nothing and believe me or not, this was the option taken by every previous administration in Washington since late 1980s when president Reagan made an amnesty. If this course continues, the illegal immigrants will increase in number and in proportion. It seems that some sections of American public opinion favor this option of doing nothing. Second solution is to try to do something and one of the possible options is to catch and deport every illegal alien, those that have entered the country illegally and those that have stayed beyond their travel, student or other temporary visas.

With all due respect for the laws in America I don't think such solution is technically feasible. Imagine that all these 15 million are caught, detained and are waiting for extradition. Without proper papers their country of origin is unclear. Many of them look like Mexicans but in fact up to half of all illegal immigrants come from other countries. Waiting for months to be deported following even the quickest judicial procedures, the American taxpayers will have to pay the whole bill from the search through detention, procedures and deportation. Let's assume that the bill for every case amounts to $10,000, thus the whole operation may cost up to $150 billion.

The effect will be that the United States will become a perfect police state, where the government may track everyone, everywhere. Not knowing where exactly to deport the illegal aliens, the authorities will throw them into Mexico, creating suddenly a humanitarian earthquake of biblical proportions. There is at least one more practical objection that should be considered before applying this radical measure. If the number of illegal aliens is 15 million this means that in the United States there are 7-8 million jobs that couldn't be fulfilled even if all unemployed Americans suddenly decide to take them. These 7-8 million vacant jobs will be like a magnet for new illegal immigrants and the catch-catch game will have to start again.

There seem to be at least two solutions for this problem. One will be to import back this time legally 7-8 million foreigners; the other is to export these jobs abroad. The same strategy should be applied to any new job in the country that can't be taken due the demographic decline expected in the years to come.

I don't think all the above mentioned measure are pure nonsense, but if the American society wants to deport 15 million or if it wants to keep the situation as it's now, it should be aware of the consequences of such decision.

What president Bush proposes is neither keeping the problem in its present situation nor solving it by deporting millions. The main idea is to lure the illegal immigrants to show up, to pay taxes and eventually to face deportation when their legal status ends. The polls show that this idea is unpopular, to use diplomatic term. It's widely considered that this measure will encourage new illegal immigration and that the legalization will press down the salaries. These arguments aren't new. As far as I know they were played many times since mid-19th century. In different periods Irish, German, Italian and East-European immigrants were blamed for the salary level depressions. Twice in American history, after the War of Independence* till mid-19th century and during approximately 30 year before the WWI the immigration was encouraged and the new settlers were more or less welcomed. Ever since 1920s the new independent immigration was restricted. If today's immigration laws existed in earlier American history, there is no doubt that the Wild West couldn't have been explored and colonized, that California would have continued to be part of Mexico and that today's United States, less powerful and smaller in size, couldn't have played the same role in the world.

Bush's measures try to face the problem without outright amnesty for the illegal immigrants. Perhaps such amnesty would come later when the government is faced with the options to deport these millions or to grant them permanent status. Till then perhaps it's expected that the general population would be accustomed with the presence of these 15 million "new" co-workers and would accept willingly their naturalization. If this is the case, I doubt the procedures will be that easy. And the problem would come from a place nobody expects. I'm not convinced that many illegal immigrants would benefit from the new program to show up, to start paying taxes and ultimately to face deportation. Many of them will prefer to keep the things going as they are now, working underground for $2-3 per hour and waiting for a general amnesty.

-----

* - One of the reasons for the Americans to declare their independence from Great Britain was the obstruction of further immigration. The original text of the Declaration of Independence speaks for itself: "He (the King of Great Britain) has endeavored to prevent the Population of these States; for that Purpose obstructing the Laws of Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their Migration hither, and raising the Conditions of new Appropriation of Lands."

Could we imagine today that 230 years ago the Americans were paying with their own blood for the right of the foreigners to come and live in their country? Perhaps they didn't realize how harmful this immigration would be on their incomes.