The Pros and Cons of Illegal Immigrants
NPR.org, March 29, 2006 · To form my opinion on Illegal (IL.) immigrants I have to balance my love for America with my Christian morals of being the good samaritan. I want my kids, our schools and my neighbors to live a safe and prosperous life. At the same time I want those repressed and downtrodden immigrants to be able to come to the land of opportunity.
So how do we balance the Republican tide of shutting off the world, with the Democrat view of letting the masses in? This forces the Republicans to look like the bad guys and the Democrats to look like they're weak on defense. In either case, it's all smoke and mirror politics. One side is trying to make the other side look bad, so their side can win an election.
Who gains and who loses when you have IL. immigrants?
Pro – Immigrant makes money in America to send to family.
Pro – Business gets cheap work.
Pro – Business doesn’t have to pay taxes.
Pro – Business doesn’t have to pay for healthcare.
Pro – Business doesn’t have to contend with OSHA.
Pro – Upper class Americans can save money on maids, lawn care, etc.
Con – America loses money on taxes.
Con – America’s schools lose funds teaching kids of IL. immigrants.
Con – Middle- and lower class Americans lose jobs to IL. immigrants.
Con – Nation's hospitals lose money in charity treatment of IL. immigrants.
Con – Nation is forever in bilingual debate.
Con – Those that come to America legally are disadvantaged in comparison having spent so much effort.
Con - Lack of control on how many terrorists make it across the border.
Con – Increased crime; A criminal will never take the proper route.
So having done this I feel that immigrants and Republicans stand more to gain from a porous border at the expense of the nation's taxes, middle class and security.
Democratic Party on Immigration
Path for undocumented aliens to earn citizenship
We will extend the promise of citizenship to those still struggling for freedom. Today's immigration laws do not reflect our values or serve our security, and we will work for real reform. The solution is not to establish a massive new status of second-class workers; that betrays our values and hurts all working people. Undocumented immigrants within our borders who clear a background check, work hard and pay taxes should have a path to earn full participation in America. We will hasten family reunification for parents and children, husbands and wives, and offer more English-language and civic education classes so immigrants can assume all the rights and responsibilities of citizenship. As we undertake these steps, we will work with our neighbors to strengthen our security so we are safer from those who would come here to harm us. We are a nation of immigrants, and from Arab-Americans in California to Latinos in Florida, we share the dream of a better life in the country we love.
Source: The Democratic Platform for America, p.36 Jul 10, 2004
Reform the INS; reduce immigrant backlog
Democrats support reforming the INS to provide better services, and investing the resources needed to reduce the backlog of citizenship applications from nearly two years to three months. Democrats also support increased resources for English language courses, which not only help newcomers learn our common language but also help us promote our common values. Family reunification should continue to be the cornerstone of our legal immigration system.
Source: Democratic National Platform Aug 15, 2000
Protect immigrants from exploitation by employers
We must punish employers who recruit undocumented workers in order to exploit them. We reject calls for guest worker programs that lead to exploitation. We should have equitable asylum policies that treat people the same whether they have fled violence from the Right and Left. We support restoration of basic due process protections, so that immigrants are no longer subject to deportation for minor offenses and are eligible to receive safety net services supported by their tax dollars.
Source: Democratic National Platform Aug 15, 2000
Immigration
The US admits about 660,000 legal immigrants per year (1998 figures).
The Immigration Act of 1990 allows for 480,000 immigrants with family in the US; 140,000 immigrants in needed employment fields; and the rest under per-country limits and diversity limits.
Foreign-born people accounted for 8% of the US population in the 1990 census; in the decades prior to 1930, the figure was 13%.
About 5 million illegal aliens reside in the US (1996 figures).
55% of all illegal aliens come from Mexico. (Other Latin American countries account for another 20%).
40% of all illegal aliens live in California. (TX, NY, FL, and IL account for the next 40%).
The illegal alien population is growing by about 275,000 each year.
The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) runs the Border Patrol as well as interior enforcement.
Immigrationn Advocacy
Pro-immigration advocates sometimes accuse anti-immigration advocates of racism, because of the large Hispanic component of current immigration. In that view, immigration restrictions are seen as limiting growth of the Hispanic population.
Anti-immigration advocates often seek Official English status (the US has no official language), which would enforce assimilation of non-English speaking immigrants. Similarly, anti-immigration advocates seek to terminate Bilingual Education, which is currently funded in school systems with large non-English-speaking populations.
Immigration Buzzwords
The biggest components of the immigration debate is how many legal immigrants to allow, and how to prevent illegal immigration.
Liberals and libertarians generally oppose restricting immigration. Look for buzzwords like "promote diversity" to define the liberal attitude, or "we're a nation of immigrants" to define the libertarian attitude. Any reference to providing illegal immigrants with services beyond emergency medical treatment, or any reference to "clemency" for illegal immigration, implies a strong pro-immigrant stance.
Moderate liberals and libertarians will oppose restricting immigration while paying lip-service to restrictions on illegal immigration. Look for buzz-phrases like "promote immigration, block illegal immigration" and "separate the functions of the INS and the Border Patrol," which mean the same thing.
Conservatives and populists generally favor restricting immigration. Look for buzzwords like "protect our borders" or "strengthen the INS". A call for "Official English" is a strongly anti-immigration stance, because most immigrants are from non-English speaking countries. That's the same attitude as "End bilingual education," which focuses primarily on Spanish-speaking immigrants.
Moderate conservatives and populists will favor restricting illegal immigration while paying lip-service to allowing legal immigration. The result is the same as moderates in favor of immigration: calls for separating out legal immigration from illegal, but with a focus on enforcement against illegals instead of a focus on respecting immigrant rights.
Republican Party on Immigration
Reform & toughen immigration system to emphasize family
Overhaul the immigration system:
- Devote resources to border control.
- Give priority to spouses and children.
- Emphasize needed skills in determining eligibility for admission.
- Overhaul Labor Certification Program to match qualified workers with urgent work.
- Reform the Immigration and Naturalization Service by splitting its functions into two agencies, one focusing on enforcement and one exclusively devoted to service.
Source: Republican Platform adopted at GOP National Convention Aug 12, 2000
Focus immigration on needed skills
We support increasing the number of H-1B visas to ensure high-tech workers in specialized positions, and we will expand the H-2A program for temporary agricultural workers.
Source: Republican Platform adopted at GOP National Convention Aug 12, 2000
Use Enforcement to Ease Situation
By Steven A. Camarota
The Arizona Republic
October 23, 2005
That America has an illegal-immigration problem is not in question. There are an estimated 10 million to 12 million illegal aliens in the country, a number estimated to grow by more than 400,000 a year. To deal with the problem some advocate a mass amnesty coupled with increased legal immigration, while others want mass deportations. But there is a third way: attrition through enforcement.
Mass roundups of millions is neither politically likely or practical. Legalization mocks legal immigrants and will spur more illegal immigration. Besides, we've already tried it. In the 1980s, 2.7 million illegal aliens were legalized. Legal immigration has doubled since the 1980s, but we have three times as many illegals.
Legalization also does not solve most of the problems associated with illegal immigration. The poorest and least educated American workers would still face job competition from millions of legalized illegal aliens. Letting illegals stay only makes sense if you think the poor are overpaid.
Moreover, illegal aliens create significant costs for taxpayers mainly because they are unskilled, not because they are illegal. At least 60 percent lack a high school diploma. Such people pay relatively little in taxes regardless of legal status because they earn so little in the modern American economy. My research indicates that the net fiscal drain (taxes minus costs) would triple if we legalized illegals. Unskilled illegal aliens are costly, but unskilled legal immigrants cost even more because they can more easily access social programs.
A strategy of attrition through enforcement, on the other hand, is both realistic and avoids the problems of illegal immigration by making illegals go home or self-deport. A March 2005 Immigration and Naturalization Service report estimates that 165,000 illegals go home each year, 50,000 are deported, and 25,000 die. But many more than that come in.
If America becomes less hospitable to illegals, many more will simply decide to go home. To do this, we should enforce the law barring illegals from holding jobs by using the national databases that already exist to ensure that each new hire is legally entitled to work here.
In 2004, only three employers were fined for hiring illegals. The Internal Revenue Service must also stop accepting Social Security numbers that it knows are bogus. We also need to make a much greater effort to deny illegal aliens things like driver's licenses, bank accounts, loans, in-state college tuition, etc.
Local law enforcement can also play a role. When an illegal is encountered in the normal course of police work, the immigration service should pick that person up and deport him. More agents and fencing are clearly needed at the border as well. At present, less than 4 percent of our southern border is fenced, and there are more New York City transit cops than Border Patrol agents on duty at any one time.
Attrition through enforcement is really the only option if we want to solve our illegal immigration problem. Implementing such a policy will save taxpayers money, help American workers at the bottom of the labor markets and restore the rule of law.
Secure Licenses Critical to Homeland Security
Testimony Prepared for the Joint Transportation Committee, Massachusetts State House
Boston, Massachusetts
October 25, 2005
Jessica M. Vaughan
Senior Policy Analyst, Center for Immigration Studies
Good morning, and thank you for the opportunity to testify on House bills 2190, 2191 and 2192, regarding the establishment of AAMVA-recommended standards and procedures to ensure the integrity of driver's licenses and non-driver identification cards issued in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. These bills stipulate that licenses and non-driver identification cards issued to temporary foreign visitors will expire at the end of the visitor's authorized duration of stay in the United States.
My name is Jessica Vaughan. I live in Franklin, Massachusetts, and I am a senior policy analyst with the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS)1, based in Washington, DC. The Center is a non-partisan, independent research institute devoted to immigration policy research and analysis. We produce research reports and assist lawmakers at the federal, state and local levels with immigration policy matters. I have worked with the Department of Motor Vehicles and legislators and in two other New England states (Vermont and New Hampshire) on reforming driver's licensing laws to enhance national security.
The purpose of the changes proposed in these bills is to ensure that visa overstayers (people who stay illegally in the United States after their temporary visa has expired) are not able to retain the driver's license to help mask their illegal status, while at the same time allowing legitimate long-term temporary visitors, such as foreign students, guestworkers and journalists, to receive licenses.
A secure driver's license issuance process helps protect Americans and visitors from identity theft and terrorist attacks. The key ingredients to a secure license are: a legal presence requirement, a state residency requirement, verification of key identity documents, a biometric identifier, and linking the expiration of the license to a foreign visitor's authorized duration of stay. The Massachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles (RMV) now does all of these things, except for the last item. Adoption of this suite of bills would complete the package.
Why it this important? First of all, visa overstayers represent a fairly large share of the 11-12 million illegal aliens residing in the United States -- roughly 33 percent, according to the Department of Homeland Security2, or possibly more3. If those estimates hold true for Massachusetts, that would mean that roughly 58,000 of the estimated 175,000-200,000 illegal aliens residing here4 are visa overstayers.
This law would prevent visa overstayers from retaining use of a license (or non-driver identification card) issued while in good standing to cover up subsequent illegal presence. For example, under current law, if a foreign student is admitted for a two-year degree or certificate program, the visa is valid for a period just over two-years, but the RMV would issue the student a full-term license. If that student were to drop out of the program (invalidating the student visa) under current law, he could retain the license and use it to obtain illegal employment or pursue other activities, including terrorism. This suite of bills would cut off that opportunity.
In addition, the new law should deter many temporary visitors from staying beyond the time authorized, as it will be clear from the time of license issuance that it may not be used to provide cover for illegal presence.
For an illegal alien, the driver's license is the next best thing to a green card -- it is a widely-accepted document that allows them to function as if they were here legally. Far more than mere permission to drive, the license facilitates employment and enables the bearer to board airplanes and trains, rent cars or trucks, wire money overseas, enter government buildings, and purchase a gun in some states.
The document has been coveted by terrorists. All of the 9/11 hijackers had driver's licenses or non-driver identification cards, and the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks (also known as the 9/11 Commission) noted that obtaining the documents was a key step in the ultimate success of the operation.
According to a report issued by my organization, a significant proportion (35 of 94) of terrorists who operated in this country between the early 1990s and 2004 used valid temporary visas to enter the United States. This includes six of the nineteen 9/11 hijackers.5 Many also overstayed their visas, including Mohammed Atta, the apparent ringleader.Under current law, individuals like these would have access to a full-term license. Denying them this privilege in the manner set forth in this legislation would provide an additional layer of defense against future terrorist acts.
For these and other reasons, tying the expiration date of the license to the expiration date of a visitor's permitted stay is considered a fundamental "best practice" by the Association of American Motor Vehicle Administrators. AAMVA's Driver's License/Identification Security Framework released in Feburary, 2004 states that "all jurisdictions that accept an immigration document as a source document shall tie the end of stay date to the expiration date of the driver's license or identification card."
A growing list of states has adopted that standard. After all, no legislator or motor vehicle administrator wants to have to explain after some future attack why the terrorist was carrying a driver's license or identification card from their state.
I'd like to take this opportunity to comment on another bill to be considered by this committee, H.2129, which, by allowing illegal immigrants to obtain a license, would essentially undo all the progress Massachusetts has made in developing a model driving document.
Proponents of this legislation have tried to argue that this change would actually improve security by enabling the government to identify and track illegal immigrants. Said one lawmaker in support: "From a public safety viewpoint, we'll know who these individuals are."6