House Speaker John Boehner's recent selection of Rep. Elton Gallegly of California over Rep. Steve King of Iowa to head the Judiciary Committee's immigration subcommittee is one step closer to the kind of reform for which past administrations, including those of former Presidents George W. Bush, Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan, had long called.
Both Republican congressmen may be opposed to the kind of reform that House Democrats call for. But Gallegly seems inclined to take a more reasoned approach. Especially if Democrats can explain the economic advantages to reform. And there are many.
Immigration brings formidable fiscal implications. Keeping immigrants here or sending them home can save or cost taxpayers dearly. Just count the ways that reform, which puts undocumented immigrants on the path to legalization, could foot our country's finances.
First, any deportation plan for undocumented immigrants would cost our country's gross domestic product a whopping $2.6 trillion over the next 10 years, according to a study by Raul Hinojosa-Ojeda, a professor at the University of California, Los Angeles.
Conversely, if we embrace comprehensive immigration reform, we could add $1.5 trillion to the U.S. GDP over the next 10 years. The economy could also benefit from a temporary worker program, Hinojosa-Ojeda projected,by raising GDP by $792 billion.
Second, immigrants who become U.S. citizens consistently pursue higher-paying jobs and higher education, spend more and provide higher tax revenue. Just imagine what 12 million newly documented Americans could do for the economy.
The legalization process also brings economic benefits -- like the retention of remittances. Workers send substantial portions of their salary to family members abroad, but reform could reunite families separated by our immigration system and keep monies in the U.S.
For example, total U.S. remittances to Latin America was almost $46 billion in 2008. Of that, Mexico received almost $24 billion. Reducing remittances offers obvious cash infusion for our economy, since billions of dollars now sent overseas would be spent instead on U.S. businesses -- creating jobs and helping to revive our economy.
Third, by giving 2.1 million American students the opportunity to pursue higher education or military service, our government could collect $3.6 trillion over the next 40 years. The DREAM Act, which failed in the Senate in December but remains a bipartisan effort, offers a conditional six-year path to permanent, legal U.S. residence for immigrant youth who demonstrate good moral character and complete at least two years of higher education or U.S. military service.
Without the DREAM Act, about 65,000 students a year -- honor-roll scholars, star athletes, talented artists and aspiring teachers -- will graduate high school and then hit a roadblock. Instead of upward mobility and higher education, they will be forced to live in the shadows and work low-paying jobs.
Fourth, the Reuniting Families Act, which I plan to reintroduce this Congress, would allow all Americans to be reunited with their families -- including gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender "permanent partners."
The economic benefits of this policy cannot be overstated. American workers, with their families by their side, are happier, healthier and more able to succeed than those living apart from loved ones for years on end. By pooling resources, families can do together what they can't do alone -- start small businesses, provide care for the young and old, create U.S. jobs and contribute more to this country's welfare.
Healthier communities have more expendable income and place a lower burden on government social services. This correlation is well substantiated -- but it is up to us to make it a reality.
We understand that during tough economic times, the natural reaction is to close borders and look inward. Yet the irony of an anti-immigration sentiment, which fears job losses for Americans if more workers enter the U.S., is that it is fiscally prudent to legalize, insure, employ, reunite and educate our immigrants than to keep families apart.
This is a time when we must use every available resource to stimulate our economy and control government spending. To my fiscally conservative Republican colleagues, the onus is on you. Left to future Congresses, the number of undocumented immigrants will only increase and the visa waits will only get longer. Meanwhile, we will lose an opportunity to do what's economically right.
The fiscal case is clear: reform now.
California Rep. Mike Honda serves on the Appropriations and the Budget Committees and is the Democratic senior whip. Follow Rep Honda on Facebook and Twitter.
Mexico's GDP per capita is double that of China, 50% better than the world average and 27% better than Brazil.
Given their proximity to the US, the fact that Chinese wages are rising steadily, Mexico absolutely has the means to compete with China in manufacturing - and the shift is already underway for many US companies to "Near Shore" manufacturing in Mexico.
There is no doubt that illegal immigration is costly and by finding a solution to it we could save the United States untold costs both in terms of money and resources. That solution should not be legalization.
a) A path to citizen approach favors those immigrants that share a border with the US or can easily get to a country that shares a border with US. This is totally unfair to the millions of people around the world that are patiently waiting in line to come to America legally and cannot easily subvert the process. They may have more deserving. This biased approach to immigration is un-American IMHO.
b) Until we secure our borders and enforce a very strict deportation scheme, no amount of episodic pardons will staunch the flow of new illegal immigrants, quite the opposite it will encourage more, and we will be back in the same situation we were before, with the same costs to hospital services, deportation, justice. This is ruinous.
c) At a time when many Americans are out of work and seeking employment. No amount of new labor at the entry level is going to help our employment situation. If people want to come to the US, let them invest in starting new businesses and go through the process the legal way.
I find any argument that we will save money or even make money by providing a path to citizenship to be specious and based on manufactured assumptions.
Kai
-Ha-Joon Chang
Economist (progressive) Cambridge
Author-"23 Things They Don't Tell You About Capitalism"
Who will then do the jobs they were doing - do we need an endless stream of new immigrants to keep the economy moving? That is patently unsustainable so is patently untenable.
Secondly - False economies in your argument - "For example, total U.S. remittances to Latin America was almost $46 billion in 2008. Of that, Mexico received almost $24 billion. Reducing remittances offers obvious cash infusion for our economy, since billions of dollars now sent overseas would be spent instead on U.S. businesses -- creating jobs and helping to revive our economy. There is no way they will stop sending money back home if they get citizenship.
Lastly the numbers of illegals have declined from 12M to 11M over the past 2 years (500,000 per year). We are also told that illegals are still streaming over the border at a rate of around 300,000 per year yet the number is steady - which means that number are also leaving, therefore around 800,000 self deport each year at no cost at all.
If the prohibition of hiring of illegals was enforced this problem would go away in a couple of years at
"Everyone recognizes that stricter border enforcement must be a central part of any politically feasible immigration reform package, which is why Congress and presidents of both parties have vastly increased the size of the Border Patrol in recent years. But the limiting factor for border enforcement is not manpower but facilities for detaining illegal migrants until they can be processed and deported. Once the limited detention capacity is reached, immigration authorities have no choice but to release migrants pending their actual removal. In practice, this almost assures that they will melt into the population and remain in the country indefinitely. More beds are something that more money can buy."
I support Immigration Reform and I ask the American people to do the same.
These are the only ways that the US can compete in a world markets - not importing poverty form 3rd world countries trying to prop up an untenable position on the backs of "slave labor".
The bulk of the general spending (87%) in AZ is on Helathcare, social services, education and prisons. Firstly - that does not sound like a shattered economy. Secondly on the contrary, keeping illegals in the loop will only continue to burden these critical sectors at a time where we can least afford it.
Its working great for billionaires. Now Mike Honda wants to keep flooding the US with more labor and thus push wages down even more and profits even higher.
What people need to realize is there are two economies. And for working people their self-interest is in rising wages. And wages ONLY rise if there is a labor shortage. And there will never be a labor shortage or rising wages if the US federal government keeps directly interfering with the labor supply.