So much of political debate (I almost said these days, but I’m guessing its always been this way) is about anecdote and misconception. Even given my pro-immigration stance I found much of the information in Doug Massey’s CATO Unbound essay suprising.
Mexican immigration is not a tidal wave. The rate of undocumented migration has not increased in over two decades. Neither is Mexico a demographic time bomb; its fertility rate is only slightly above replacement.
Mexico is not impoverished or disorganized. It is a dynamic, one trillion dollar economy and along with Canada, our largest trading partner. It’s per capita income is $10,000, which puts it at the upper tier of middle income countries, not far behind Russia’s per capita income of $11,000.
From 1965 to 1985, 85% of undocumented entries from Mexico were offset by departures and the net increase in the undocumented population was small. The build-up of enforcement resources at the border has not decreased the entry of migrants so much as discouraged their return home. Since the late 1980s the rate of undocumented out-migration has been halved. Undocumented population growth in the United States stems not from rising in-migration, but from falling out-migration.
If you can’t even get the scary information right – why is there even a debate? Just call Mexican immigrants drug-addled pedophilic baby killing communists and get it over with. The facts don't matter much anyway, do they?