Important issues ignored in debate on immigration

The immigration legislation before Congress certainly has stirred up a great deal of interest and rhetoric. The disagreements have been quite clear, reflecting strongly held opinions on amnesty and legality issues.

I believe that the framing of the legislation has obscured broader and more important issues that should be addressed by any responsible legislation. These issues should concern all of us, and we should demand answers from our legislators.

We have seen no data-driven exploration of the impact of this legislation on social security, Medicare, Medicaid or other governmental welfare programs. The Office of Management and Budget, Congress and other external independent agencies and observers have noted that these programs are in financial and funding crisis.

Although it is politically incorrect to ask, do we know the age of the individuals seeking amnesty and the age of the likely family members they would bring with them? The age question is of some import, as the legislation allows them to be eligible for federal benefits after 16 quarters of work (or 4 years). Therefore, an older worker would enter into the social security net sooner than a younger worker. No one has addressed the impact of this legislation on these programs and their fiscal and financial viability going forward. Why not?

It has been estimated that between 12 million and 20 million individuals will be affected by this legislation. This enormous number of people would have rippling effects on our economy that have not been sufficiently discussed, which raises a number of questions: First, how can we act on this with such a great variance in the size of the problem? Second, how (or can) our workforce absorb this number of people in a relatively short period of time? The impact of this legislation will hit states disproportionately, with border states (California, Arizona, New Mexico) potentially facing the greatest challenges. Has Congress considered this and what additional resources may be needed by those states to deal with issues arising from an influx of new immigrants? If not, why not?

Many of these individuals have “worked under the radar” with employers who have paid them less than the minimum wage and afforded them no benefits. Many of them, as data seem to suggest, are low-skilled workers. This has been a form of corporate welfare. The question is: Will corporations want to employ them now that they will be required to provide benefits and minimum wages? How many existing citizens who would not work for less than minimum wage and no benefits now be attracted to these jobs? Since illegal aliens appear to be low-skilled workers, who will pay for any additional education and training that they might need? I would argue we do not know the answer here because we have not sought an answer.

How many individuals will actually migrate to the United States? Under one of the new visa forms, they can bring other family members into the country. If we assume 12 million (the lower figure) will migrate and each person brings in a minimum of two other family members (again, a very modest assumption), the result is that our economy will need to absorb 36 million people to our population in a very short period of time. This might be the largest immigration since the early founding of our country. I apologize for repetition, but what are the impacts of this on our educational system and our welfare system, and can our economy absorb this influx of individuals?

Under some visa proposals, these individuals will be able to work here, become eligible for benefits and never attain citizen status. As a result, they will return home, spending all of their income and receiving their benefits in another country. What is the impact of this on the value of the dollar in international currency transactions?

We are being told that these individuals will have a background check done in 24 hours. This is absolute nonsense, and anyone who has had to go through such a check knows this to be true. It takes five days to get checked for the purchase of a gun; it takes 3 months to get a passport renewed. I could go on and on, but do you actually believe that we have the ability to do a substantive background check on an individual in 24 hours?

It is amusing to hear debaters say that the status quo is not working. According to many respected individuals and organizations, the status quo has been to ignore existing laws and regulations regarding immigration – so it is true the status quo is not working – but not because it is ineffectual or inefficient, but because existing laws and regulations have not been enforced. But under the new legislation, we are “assured” that it will be enforced.

Finally, we are told that the building of a fence and ensuring border security are not possible. This is a sad state of affairs for a country that has built the Panama Canal, the Hoover Dam, the Empire State Building and other enormous public work projects under exceptional circumstances – under budget and early. We can do something if we put effort forward, and given new threats such as terrorism, securing of our border should be a major and primary priority.

Some will read this as a blanket opposition to immigration reform or as a thinly disguised argument still centered on the amnesty or legal issues. It is not. It is a concern centered on issues that are being obscured by the heat surrounding immigration by focusing on the amnesty and law dichotomy. We need to step back and consider at least some of the issues raised above, as they go far beyond the arguments advanced thus far. We seem to be rushing to judgment here without considering the impact of changes in immigration law, regulation and status.

Immigration reform occurred in 1965 and 1986, and according to our leaders, we still have not corrected the problems. Perhaps the real problem is our focus on a quick solution rather than a thoughtfully considered one. Now might be the time to consider thoughtfully the issues tied to immigration reform and do the job right. If not, we will revisit this issue yet again in the future.

John F. Mahon is the founding director of the School of Policy and International Affairs at the University of Maine.