In the end Wednesday, a legislative panel put the Kansas Legislative Division of Post Audit to work on a limited survey of the existing data about the financial costs and benefits of illegal immigration, rather than the sweeping audit sought by state Rep. Nile Dillmore, D-Wichita. That’s something. And the discussion was telling, as lawmakers wrestled with how to get solid data to guide further attempts to pass laws targeting illegal immigration. The point is that any legislative action should be informed by facts, rather than fear and ignorance.
Sen. Les Donovan, R-Wichita, even cast doubt on the notion that, full audit or not, the Legislature would or could do much about illegal immigration (“Not in my lifetime,” he predicted), because federal law already requires that public schools accept undocumented children and emergency rooms aren’t going to start turning away illegal immigrants in need of help. “This is America,” Donovan said. “We don’t do that.”
Every time the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency stages a major raid to arrest illegal immigrants, it causes a stir among those who say the federal agents are hurting businesses and breaking up families. The most recent example happened in Laurel, Miss., where agents raided a factory and took 595 suspected illegal immigrants into custody. It was the biggest workplace raid in U.S. history. Some workers at the plant where the raid took place applauded as the suspected illegal workers were taken away. Employees had long complained about illegal workers being allowed to work more overtime and being promoted over legal workers. So what are federal agents to do? Ignore the problem, and let illegal immigrants continue to take jobs away from U.S. citizens? No. We suggest they be allowed to continue to do their job.
— Minot (N.D.) Daily News editorial
On behalf of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, I call upon the Department of Homeland Security and President Bush to re-examine the use of work-site enforcement raids as an immigration enforcement tool. The humanitarian costs of these raids are immeasurable and unacceptable in a civilized society. For more than a year now, the department has targeted employers that hire unauthorized workers by using force to enter work sites and arrest immigrant workers. During the process of these raids, U.S.-citizen children have been separated from their parents for days, if not longer; immigrants arrested have not been afforded the rights of due process; and local communities, including legal permanent residents and U.S. citizens, have been disrupted and dislocated. As our government confronts the challenges of immigration, let it not forget one of its core duties: protecting the family unit as the fundamental institution upon which society and government itself depends.
— Bishop John C. Wester, chairman of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Committee on Migration
If the Legislature intends to inject itself into the federal problem of illegal immigration, it should do so knowing as much as possible about what undocumented residents cost Kansas, how much they pay in taxes and how they affect labor costs and employment. That was why state Rep. Nile Dillmore, D-Wichita, successfully sought an off-session audit of illegal immigration’s economic impact. So it was good to see such a planned legislative study escape the ax last week in Topeka, after deputy post auditor Leo Hafner told legislators that studying illegal immigration is “one of those things where you’re literally trying to nail Jell-O to the wall.” When the audit panel considers the issue again this month, it should try to focus the study, not scrap it.
“Before we decide on fiscal policies that affect our economy, shouldn’t we have some idea on what we are doing and what the outcomes might be if we make those changes?” said state Rep. Nile Dillmore, D-Wichita. Absolutely. That’s why Dillmore was smart to insert a provision in the state budget requiring an audit of the cost of illegal immigration in Kansas. The audit, which is expected to be completed during the next legislative session, will try to determine the costs to the state of Kansas for benefits and ervices provided to illegal immigrants, the estimated tax revenues from illegal immigrants, and whether the taxes they pay offset the costs of benefits provided. Though there is a lot of rhetoric about how much illegal immigrants cost taxpayers, it may be that the taxes they pay and the economic impact they make exceed the social costs, and that punitive laws might harm the state’s economy. A study by the Oklahoma Bankers Association determined that an anti-illegal immigration law in that state will cause $1.8 billion in economic losses.
The legal challenge of a 2004 in-state tuition law reached the finish line Thursday, as the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the case. The law has been allowing about 200 eligible kids of illegal immigrants to pay in-state tuition at Kansas’ public colleges and universities — and better their lives and the state’s economy in the process. The rejections at the federal district court and appellate levels were based on the plaintiffs’ lack of “standing” to sue, so no court has yet passed judgment on the law itself. But it’s good to know this case has run its course.
Maybe now people will stop believing that thousands of illegal immigrants are receiving public assistance in Kansas. Unfortunately, dispelling the myth cost taxpayers millions of dollars and cost thousands of citizens their health insurance.
Kansas Medicaid director Andy Allison told state lawmakers this week that it cost the state $1 million to comply with new federal requirements that Medicaid recipients provide proof of citizenship, and that 20,000 eligible Kansans lost their health insurance because they had difficulty producing the required documentation. So how many illegal immigrants did the state catch in this crackdown? One.
Other states have had similar results. In fact, Kansas actually did better than Colorado, which spent $2 million and didn’t catch a single illegal immigrant seeking benefits.
“State taxpayers are picking up the dollars-and-cents costs of a failed federal policy,” complained Senate Majority Leader Derek Schmidt, R-Independence.
Four local families have filed a discrimination lawsuit against St. Anne Catholic School, challenging a rule that students can speak only English during the school day.
We’re not inclined to wade into a private school matter. But before activists against illegal immigrants get up in arms, some points to consider:
The Spanish-speaking students in this case are U.S. citizens who are bilingual — English is their primary language. The parents aren’t asking that the students be allowed to speak Spanish in classrooms — at issue is whether the students should be able to speak Spanish outside the classroom, during recess or other free time.
It’s too bad that any American student would be dissuaded from being bilingual, when U.S. schools, public and private, actively promote the benefits of being fluent in more than one language. How does this “English only†school rule support that educational goal?
It’s a common gripe of immigration critics: Immigrants today aren’t as interested in assimilating into American society as past immigrants. But a new study found that as a group, immigrants of the past quarter century have been assimilating at a notably faster rate than did previous generations, the Washington Post reported. And this is in spite of the fact that today’s immigrants arrive here with lower levels of English proficiency and less earning power than immigrants at the turn of the 20th century.
Good for the joint Legislative Post Audit Committee for green-lighting a study this week of the impact of illegal immigration in the state. The study, requested by state Rep. Nile Dillmore, D-Wichita, is needed to inform any future state legislation on illegal immigration. It will assess the costs to the state for social services due to illegal immigration, the revenues or other benefits to the state (such as taxes paid), and the effect on the labor market. If the frustrating debate on illegal immigration this session has proved anything, it’s that the state should take action carefully, based on facts rather than fear.
Rep. Todd Tiahrt, R-Goddard, told an El Dorado audience recently that a physical fence has yet to be built on the southern border because of “technical problems†but also because of lawsuits, primarily brought by organizations concerned about endangered species’ migration patterns. He also said: “One of the things we look at is what damage is caused by illegal immigrants coming through the national park system. They have a huge environmental impact. We find abandoned cars, a lot of trash. We spend millions of dollars every year just cleaning up after illegals coming through here, and we can’t build a fence because of the lawsuits. It’s a really frustrating experience.â€
A key Kansas lawmaker is opposing a provision in an immigration bill to repeal a state law allowing children of illegal immigrants to pay in-state college tuition.
Sen. Pete Brungardt, R-Salina, chairman of the Senate Federal and State Affairs Committee, called the repeal efforts a “nonstarter,†and noted that the Legislature had failed in three previous efforts to repeal the law.
Under the 2004 law, children of illegal immigrants are eligible to pay in-state tuition if they have lived in Kansas for at least three years, graduated from a Kansas high school and are on the path toward citizenship.
According to the Kansas Board of Regents, 243 students are benefiting from the law, with 193 attending community colleges, 46 at state universities, and four at technical colleges or schools.
Would we rather these young people not attend college? Be unemployed?
As supporters of the law noted in testimony last week, regardless of how one stands on illegal immigration, this is about making sure our young people are prepared for the future.
“Why would we want to deprive a young man or woman from the opportunity to develop their skills and abilities so that they will be a productive and contributing member of our society?†asked Archbishop Joseph Naumann of Kansas City, Kan., chairman of the Kansas Catholic Conference.
State Sen. Peggy Palmer (in photo), R-Augusta, claims in a commentary on today’s Opinion pages that opponents of her illegal immigration bill — which include our state’s most prominent business and farming organizations — are employing scare tactics. But she’s the one who has been promoting fear. Palmer titled her bill the Kansas Illegal Immigration Relief Act, implying that our state is suffering a scourge. And she has talked about stopping an “invasion,†warned about terrorists and said that “I don’t think we want to become like California.†Yet she seems surprised that some people are offended by her comments and concerned about the cost and harm of her proposals.
To his credit, Senate President Steve Morris (in photo), R-Hugoton, is expressing caution about proposed crackdowns on illegal immigrants and businesses. Getting tough on those who forge documents and pay employees in cash to dodge the law is appropriate, he said in a Hutchinson News article. But “I don’t think we need a law in place that is punitive, that punishes everyone for the sins of the few,†he said. He also said: “I think the feds have a big responsibility to step up to the plate and take care of it.â€
Good for state Rep. Nile Dillmore, D-Wichita, for seeking to ground the push to pass anti-immigration legislation in some facts. He filed a request last week that the Legislative Division of Post Audit do an analysis of the economic impact of illegal immigration — to look at the taxes they pay, social services they use and related labor costs — so that any bills passed are “based on factual, objective information,†he told the Topeka Capital-Journal.
“If the state Legislature is going to make a serious effort at immigration reform in 2008, then it is time to separate facts from partisan rhetoric,†he said.
He’s right. The questions are whether state auditors can accurately quantify this shadowy population, and whether the anti-immigration activists will care if the numbers don’t fit their plans.
None of the leading GOP presidential candidates has demogogued the immigration issue more than Mitt Romney. But that isn’t stopping him from appealing to Spanish-speaking voters. Romney is running a Spanish-language television ad in Florida, narrated by one of his sons.
State GOP leaders are putting a new voter ID requirement at the top of their legislative priorities, saying they fear that illegal immigrants are being registered to vote.
House Speaker Melvin Neufeld, R-Ingalls, pointed to “potentially thousands of those registrations out there, so it is important that we protect the integrity of this next election,†he said.
But there’s no evidence of illegal immigrant voters undermining the polls in Kansas — not one documented case.
Of far greater concern is the certainty that new photo ID requirements actually would dampen turnout by legitimate U.S. citizens. The fact is, many elderly who don’t drive and low-income residents have trouble producing or locating the right kind of identification.
Shouldn’t the goal be to help more people vote, not make it more difficult for them?
Vote ID supporters need to offer more proof that there is a real fraud problem. So far, it just sounds like more immigrant fearmongering.
State Sen. Peggy Palmer, R-Augusta, said that legislation she is proposing to crack down on illegal immigrants “will protect Kansas against the foreign invasion that undermines our national security and drains the resources of legal aliens and U.S. citizens.†But as a recent Wall Street Journal editorial noted, such overwrought, fear-based rhetoric doesn’t match reality.
Statistics and studies have shown that illegal immigrants neither increase the crime rate nor the welfare rolls in the United States. And “for all the talk about the ‘invasion’ of million upon million of job-consuming immigrants,†the editorial noted, the nation’s unemployment rate remains low, which indicates that immigrants aren’t stealing jobs but filling them and contributing to the overall economic growth.
Maybe the questions we’re asking about immigration are too narrow and too shortsighted. “We also ought to ask some broader questions about assimilation, about how to ensure that people, once outsiders, don’t forever remain marginalized within these shores,†wrote Ellis Cose of Newsweek. “That is a much larger question than what should happen with undocumented workers, or how best to secure the border, and it is one that affects not only newcomers but groups that have been here for generations.â€
Contrary to what its critics say, the 2004 law allowing eligible children of undocumented immigrants to pay in-state tuition is not a handout. The kids pay tuition, like any other graduates of Kansas high schools. Because of it, 243 students are in the state higher education system, mostly at community colleges. Unfortunately, the lawsuit over the law is costing taxpayers — more than $160,000 so far, to a Kansas City, Mo., law firm hired by former Attorney General Phill Kline to defend the law, according to the Lawrence Journal-World. And it’s not over yet. Kris Kobach, the plaintiffs’ attorney when he isn’t chairing the Kansas Republican Party, may ask the U.S. Supreme Court to consider the case, despite the refusal of the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver to rehear a challenge of the law. If Kobach is serious about wanting the state to spend less money, he can do his part by shutting down this losing lawsuit.
Posted by Rhonda Holman
America isn’t the only country dealing with immigration concerns. The World Bank recently discovered a trend of developing countries seeing higher rates of immigrants from even poorer countries.
The bank found that some 74 million migrants move from countries of extreme poverty to countries just slightly better off economically in hopes of providing for their families, sending back a collective $18 billion to $55 billion a year.
“South-to-south migration is not only huge, it reaches a different class of people,†said Patricia Weiss Fagen, a Georgetown University researcher. “These are very, very poor people sending money to even poorer people, and they often reach very rural areas where most remittances don’t go.â€
The crackdown on illegal immigration, combined with an economic downturn in housing and construction, appear to be reducing the numbers of Mexican immigrants entering this country, according to a Los Angeles Times article.
Among the many signs cited of a slowdown: According to a recent survey of Mexicans, about one-third fewer than a year before said they planned to seek work abroad. And in fiscal 2007, which ended in September, U.S. border officials apprehended some 877,000 illegal border crossers — down about 20 percent from the year before.
T ougher border and workplace enforcement seems to be having an impact, but some experts insist the slowdown follows a familiar pattern and is mainly about the sluggish economy.
Moreover, there are still an estimated 12 million illegals living and working here, many in complicated mixed families, with some children born here and legally U.S. citizens.
Is America willing to balance enforcement with pragmatism and compassion?
Posted by Randy Scholfield
The Christmas season illuminated the jarring contrast between the public piety of some conservative Christians and their intense anger toward illegal immigrants, noted Atlanta Journal-Constitution columnist Cynthia Tucker. “After all,†she wrote, “the Bible, which conservative Christians hold out as the inerrant word of God, includes several admonitions to practice kindness toward ‘strangers.’â€
Robert Parham, executive director of the Baptist Center for Ethics, said: “We welcome the stranger because the Savior himself was not welcomed in mainstream society. The whole teaching of ‘no room in the inn’ was about someone poor and marginalized and pushed off to a stable.â€
Posted by Kristin Mehler
The legal challenge to the 2004 law allowing some illegal immigrants to pay in-state tuition at Kansas public universities and colleges hit the wall last week when the federal appeals court in Denver denied a request that the full court rehear the case. This decision again hinges on the lack of legal standing of the out-of-state plaintiffs to challenge the law because they didn’t face “concrete and imminent†injury.
But the law remains a modest and humane recognition that capable illegal immigrant kids — brought to this state by their parents — ought to have the same shot at college as their fellow Kansas high school graduates. When they better themselves by going to college, Kansas benefits, too.
Posted by Rhonda Holman
Los Angeles producer Adrian Martinez is working on selling his new show, “Who Wants to Marry a U.S. Citizen?†to cable television. The trailer claims that “true love knows no borders,†and the disclaimer assures that the show’s producers do not give out green cards, noting “that’s the government’s job.â€
Posted by Kristin Mehler
GOP immigrant-bashing candidates, take note: A new study by the Pew Hispanic Center reinforces what has been long known about foreign language-speaking immigrants — that they pose little threat to the dominance of the English language in our country.
The study found Hispanic immigrants following the classic pattern of previous waves of immigrants: The first generation learns little English, the second uses primarily English, and the third is almost completely fluent in English.
In short, there’s no reason to fear immigrants who can’t speak English. Time isn’t on their side.
Posted by Randy Scholfield
In the end Wednesday, a legislative panel put the Kansas Legislative Division of Post Audit to work on a limited survey of the existing data about the financial costs and benefits of illegal immigration, rather than the sweeping audit sought by state Rep. Nile Dillmore, D-Wichita. That’s something. And the discussion was telling, as lawmakers wrestled with how to get solid data to guide further attempts to pass laws targeting illegal immigration. The point is that any legislative action should be informed by facts, rather than fear and ignorance.
