Last Saturday, I attended the local immigration rights march held in downtown Santa Barbara. It was easily one of the most inspiring events in which I have participated - and easily the largest march I’ve seen in Santa Barbara. Luckily, the rain was tolerable, and I can only imagine what the turn out would have been had the weather cooperated. Still, it was an amazing experience.
The main focus of the march was H.R. 4437, a bill that the House of Representatives approved last December, and is now awaiting Senate approval. Of course, the best time for congress to focus on illegal immigration is when the economy is in the toilet, gas prices are through the roof, and we’re in a mission-accomplished war that is still costing us billions. The proponets of H.R. 4437 will say that those issues are exactly why immigration reform is needed. After all, you know how much illegal immigrants cost this country, right?
According to a 2004 report by the Center for Immigration Studies (an organization that promotes stricter immigration laws), illegal immigrants cost the federal government $10 billion each year, which includes costs associated with “Medicaid, medical treatment for the uninsured, food assistance programs, the federal prison and court systems, and federal aid to schools.” I’ll assume their number is accurate. That should, and does, seem like a lot of money - especially given the fact that it is presented completely out of context.
For the purposes of this blog entry, I’ll ignore some little things. Little things like a Center for Disease Control report entitled, Annual Smoking-Attributable Mortality, Years of Potential Life Lost, and Economic Costs, which states that between 1995 and 1999, the health-related economic losses as a result of smoking was over $150 billion annually. Or little things like the total of the Operation Iraqi Freedom, which is now over $248 billion (about $80 billion annually). No, let’s focus on this $10 billion.
According to the American Farm Bureau Federation:
There are about 11 million illegal immigrants in the United States, of which 500,000 to 800,000 are working in agriculture. AFBF says many of these agricultural workers do jobs that most Americans are not willing to do at any price, and certainly not at a price that would allow U.S. farmers to compete against farmers in countries where labor costs less…
According to an analysis by AFBF economists, $10 billion to $14 billion of U.S. agricultural production would go away if there is no program that makes it easier for farmers to hire immigrant workers. Between $5 billion and $9 billion of that would be U.S. fruit and vegetable production lost to foreign competition. (from Senate begins immigration debate, 20 March 2006)
The Cato Institute, an institute devoted to the “traditional American principles of limited government, individual liberty, free markets and peace“, released a 2002 report on illegal immigration (the report in PDF form can be found here). The 28-page report was authored by Daniel Griswold, and has some interesting findings:
In one of the most comprehensive economic studies ever done on the impact of immigration on the U.S. economy, the National Research Council concluded in a 1997 report that immigration delivers a “significant positive gain” of $1 billion to $10 billion a year to native Americans. The President’s Council of Economic Advisors, in its February 2002 Economic Report of the President, estimated that immigrants raise the income of Americans by $1 billion to $14 billion a year…
According to to a study by the Council of Economic Advisers, household incomes rose strongly from 1993 to 1999 across all income groups, including the poorest one-fifth of American households. America’s poverty rate fell by three percentage points during the 1990s, and by almost 10 percentage points among African Americans. These remarkable gains occurred during a decade of large immigration inflows, including low-skilled immigrants from Mexico. (from Willing Workers: Fixing the Problem of Illegal Mexican Migration to the United States)
I also recommend reading the section of the report that deals with illegal immigration prior to the passage of Immigration Reform and Control Act in 1986. Prior to 1986, the average stay of an undocumented worker in the U.S. was 2.6 years. By 1998, the average rose to 6.6. According to Griswold, this is due to an increase in the cost of crossing the border.
Griswald ’s conclusion, as stated in his executive summary:
Legalizing Mexican migration would, in one stroke, bring a huge underground market into the open. It would allow American producers in important sectors of our economy to hire the workers they need to grow. It would raise wages and working conditions for millions of low-skilled workers and spur investment in human capital. It would free resources and personnel for the war on terrorism.
Contrary to common objections, evidence does not suggest that a properly designed system of legal Mexican migration will unleash a flood of new immigrants to the United States, hurt low-skilled Americans, burden taxpayers, create an unassimilated underclass, encourage lawbreaking, or compromise border security.
Now, I’m not going to endorse every conclusion Griswald makes (I particularly like the “war on terrorism” bit - it’s language Republicans can understand). There are, however, some interesting points here. While I have issues with labeling all hispanic immigrants as “low-skilled labor”, providing a more flexible immigration policy, rather than a more stringent one, makes economic sense. Draw your own conclusions as to why illegal immigrants’ economic contributions are either minimized, or left out of the debate entirely.
Hopefully, the large national turnout of protestors against H.R. 4437 is a sign that perhaps folks are seeing through the smokescreen of immigrants as an “economic burden”, and rather as beneficial members of our communities - economically, socially and culturally. Disavowing or ignoring the need for immigrants isn’t going to solve any issues, and is simply an exercise in xenophobia. That is simply unforgivable.
The 
