THE AVENUE MAY 24, 2010
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Amid all the impassioned support for and angry backlash against Arizona’s new law to curb illegal immigration, the facts on the matter are being totally obscured. A new short brief by the Morrison Institute for Public Policy at Arizona State University finds that while some public policy claims about the state’s illegal immigration situation are well-founded, others are demonstratively false or not clearly established from given data. To help clear-up the public policy debate, the brief ticks off nine clarifications, from the popularity of the state’s new bill to the impact of undocumented immigrants on crime, health costs, and school systems.
For example, the brief does provide numbers to show that most Arizona voters (nearly two-thirds) do favor toughened immigration rules. And it does concur with the observation that low-skilled workers are hurt when undocumented workers compete for their jobs and push down their wages.
At the same time, the brief disputes several false or inconclusive claims. Most notably, it observes that:
· Data does not support the notion that most violent crime in Arizona is committed by undocumented immigrants. For starters, Arizona is currently enjoying a low-crime period. Further, crime data from Arizona (and most other states) rarely note the suspect’s immigration status. Moreover, national studies find that immigrant men have lower rates of crime and incarceration than native-born residents
· Despite assertions to the contrary, undocumented immigrants are no longer entering Arizona in record numbers. The flow of undocumented immigrants to the states probably peaked in the late 1990’s or early 2000’s. Most experts agree that since the start of the current economic downturn this migration has slowed markedly or essentially stopped with the disappearance of jobs in Arizona
· The claim about undocumented immigrants flooding the state’s public health system is just false. Undocumented immigrants have been ineligible for the state’s health care program for the indigent since 2004, and they make only six percent of the total cost to Arizona’s hospital system of treating uninsured and underinsured patients. Some national studies have indicated that undocumented immigrants actually use hospital emergency room services proportionately less often than native-born people
· While the children of undocumented immigrants do add to the state’s student population and thus its education costs, there is no evidence to support the claim that the public school system is overwhelmed.
Many thanks goes to the Morrison Institute for bringing these and other facts to the table, and providing some well-informed restraint to immigration debates that too frequently rage unchecked in a “fact-free zone.”
10 comments
Do look at the report. I find it disconnected and puzzling, as if it was assembled mindlessly. There are items such as a public poll changing radically over an interval of a few days, and no explanation given. If there is no visible explanation, then the poll itself is suspect. Que pasa?
- yerubal
May 29, 2010 at 9:12am
To my question about why a fifth of the suspects in Maricopa County jails were undocumented, I got the following response from my brother in Tucson: == no one to bail them out- either no one in the country or relatives who are afraid to go to the jails and be interrogated through the process- and they stay in jail much longer waiting deportations, etc. Normally, for the small crimes they are arrested for, a person would be out of jail pretty quickly. They really can't be let out on their own recognizance. Additionally, Maricopa county does target and profile Hispanics. == On the other hand, my other brother wrote: ========== On the other hand, I can see why folks in Arizona are getting upset about the issue. I remember that in Mom and Dad's last place of residence in Tucson, across the East Presidio Street from their place and a couple of houses down was a home where Mexicans would live temporarily while they had anchor babies at Tucson Medical Center thereby becoming relatives of their newly born American citizen. See this article in snopes describing some similar phenomena: http://www.snopes.com/politics/immigration/parkland.asp Also, last year there were 359 mostly Mexican style kidnappings reported in Phoenix, and perhaps a 1000 estimated kidnappings: http://ktar.com/?nid=6&sid=877515 So it's easy to see how the social and economic effects of illegal immigration are being felt by border states like Arizona, and are beginning to influence people's thinking on political issues. As Robert Frost and John McCain said, "Good fences make good neighbors." It's not a black and white issue. It's one where we need to balance the Pillar of Mercy and the Pillar of Justice. ==
- yerubal
May 29, 2010 at 10:22am
"So it's easy to see how the social and economic effects of illegal immigration are being felt by border states like Arizona, and are beginning to influence people's thinking on political issues." While I agree with sentiment, it's also easy to see why people's xenophobia influences their thinking as well. On students, the claim that "there is no evidence to support the claim that the public school system is overwhelmed" is patently absurd. We are failing poor kids at irresponsible levels. As it stands these kids need massive intervention that the public is unwilling to pay for. Adding children of illegal immigrants can only be an extra burden. That said, I have no problem paying more taxes to guarantee every child access to the human capital they need for success. We probably can't open our borders entirely - although I'm still not convinced it wouldn't be practical, thus making it perfectly moral - but we can treat all people with dignity.
- elirector
May 29, 2010 at 3:28pm
Eli, do you really not understand why we cannot open our borders to all comers? The median salary in the world is $8000. The US government spends $9500 to educate one child. If you are a farmer living in Africa, and you can get to the US and you and your wife work at McDonald's, then you will earn $32K/year for your family, and you will qualify for (on average) $8000 of medical care per year, financial assistance to the tune of roughly $11K, and then $20K of education per year for your two kids. All told, if you can get here, your $8000 farmer's salary will turn into the opportunity of a lifetime and you'll "get" $71K in salary, assistance and education. For that reason, if we accepted all comers, we'd literally see our population explode until we were broke. It has nothing to do with xenophobia. It has everything to do with numbers. if you are really intent on helping the world, the how about we tax our rich, poor and middle class at 70% tax rates. Afterall, even someone making $35K in the US is making a fortune compared to the farmer in Africa. Surely they can afford to give more than half away, can't they?
- seattleeng
May 30, 2010 at 8:16pm
Yerubal- There can be no doubt that there are undocumented immigrants who bear children in the United States for the obvious reasons. But the Snopes report that 70% of women having babies at Parkland hospital are illegal immigrants should be met with skepticism. Even if that were true, do you think women patients who are illegal immigrants would generally identify themselves as such? I am not asserting that the survey is inaccurate, but it should be regarded with skepticism. And what does your "other brother" mean by "Mexican style" kidnappings? We need to distinguish between people who cross the border to commit crimes and those who cross the border to work. Seattle- Please note that even though we currently have a "porous" Mexican/United States border, there is no influx of farmers from Africa. The transaction costs for that are simply too high. Thus, if we had a global free market, it is not at all clear that "our population would explode until we were broke." Even if transaction costs were not a barrier to an influx of workers from Africa and other countries across the ocean, it is likely that an equilibrium would be reached as the supply of labor met the demand for labor. Even now, immigration from Mexico, including illegal immigration, is declining as the demand for labor is declining. So, sure, we could help the world by taxing ourselves to assist those in third-world countries. Or we could live by our convictions. A free market is a free market.
- NR143296
May 30, 2010 at 11:19pm
Yerubal, the influx of those from Mexico is high because the transaction cost is low. But if not being sent back was guaranteed (open borders), then you can bet ships would make the route from Africa to the US routinely. The going rate to move a 150 pound plasma TV in a 7.5 cuft box is $52 from Asia to the US. The cost to fly to or from Asia, for example, in economy class (one way) is $460. Suffice to say, if someone wanted to make a business of getting people here cheaply, then you can bet a a $200 one way ticket can be done on a ship. Now, would you invest 1/10th of your salary for 10X return in benefits? I would. Would a person in the US with a $50K salary invest $5K to get $500K in benefits? Sure they would. Jobs? Who gives a crap if there's a job. If I can be unemployed in Africa or here, I'd pick here. The government will take care of me, educate me, give me health care. A free market doesn't include massive entitlements for those that don't pull their weight. That's why welfare states are so attractive to certain people. A free market WOULD have an open border, but zero welfare state (except for charity). How about my other question: Someone making $35K in the US is enormously wealthy relative to the others in this world. What about taxing them at 70% so that farmers in Somalia can benefit?
- seattleeng
May 31, 2010 at 3:18am
There already are open borders SE. Indeed, that is the BIG COMPLAINT by those who regard illegal immigration as a crisis. Yet no mass influx from Africa. The transaction costs/barriers to moving to another culture on the other side of the world include a lot more that the cost of travel. You certainly know that. You buy into the fallacy that immigrants to the US come here for "entitlements" rather than for employment. That is a ludicrous statement and I challenge you to prove it.
- NR143296
May 31, 2010 at 11:05pm
"You buy into the fallacy that immigrants to the US come here for "entitlements" rather than for employment. That is a ludicrous statement and I challenge you to prove it." Currently, you are correct. My point was that if we opened the borders, and offered all that we offer today to citizens REGARDLESS of citizenship, they would come in droves. If a farmer if Africa could get free school for his kids, free medical care, and a social safety net, and a job at McDonald's without fear of being kicked out, would he come? Of course he would. That observation is in response to Yerubal (or your) assertion that free market means porous borders. Fortunately, I don't think we're entertaining this hypothetical.
- seattleeng
June 1, 2010 at 11:23am
SE- You are right that no one is seriously talking about a global free market. But there is no reason to suppose that a global free market, any more than any other free market, would be unregulated. There thus is no reason to suppose that all immigrants would be entitled to all public benefits any more than all citizens are entitled to all public benefits. You say, "[i]f a farmer [in] Africa could get free school for his kids, free medical care, and a social safety net, and a job at McDonald's without fear of being kicked out, would he come? Of course he would." Well, neither citizens, legal immigrants nor illegal immigrants are necessarily entitled to free school. They all pay property taxes, either directly, or indirectly through rent payments. And only a small minority of citizens and immigrants receive free medical care, and most of them pay or have paid taxes in some form. And, of course, there would be no guaranteed job at McDonald's, particularly once the labor supply meets or exceeds the demand. And even if a job at McDonald's, free education and free medical care were guaranteed (and again, there is no reason to believe they would be), I think you underestimate the cultural and social ties that would nevertheless prevent most people from leaving their native lands for the United States. But coming back to earth, the point with current illegal immigration into the United States is that there is a demand for the labor of immigrants from Mexico and Central America (and from Eastern Europe), and, as long as that demand exists, illegal immigration will continue. If and when the demand subsides, so will illegal immigration. Indeed, illegal immigration has already subsided as a result of the economic recession and the concomitant reduction in the demand for labor. Under those circumstances, whatever dent militarizing the border would put in illegal immigration would come at too great a cost in terms of harm or death of the migrants, as well as in Mexican/U.S. relations. The only way to address illegal immigration would be to impose harsh sanctions on employers for hiring illegal immigrants, i.e., suppress the demand. That too would come at a great cost in terms of damage to the economy. But at least that is an alternative that could be taken seriously.
- NR143296
June 1, 2010 at 9:27pm
"And it does concur with the observation that low-skilled workers are hurt when undocumented workers compete for their jobs and push down their wages. " Why is this not enough of an issue for people to close the borders? Do the middle-class, urban, educated liberals really believe that the use of immigrant labor won't flood up to us? The H1-B visa has already pushed down wages and raised exploitation in the computing industry; why shouldn't we tackle the problem as a whole before it expands? The history of labor globalization and uncontrolled immigration is the history of capitalists performing labor arbitrage between different countries. We have immigration laws to prevent this arbitrage. We ought to stop worrying about incidentals such as "tolerance" or "xenophobia" and confront the solid issue: any and all of us can be outcompeted by a sufficiently cheap foreigner in the eyes of a capitalist who sees the cost of every worker and the value of none.
- egottlieb
June 25, 2010 at 4:28pm