Governor Perry has taken a lot of heat for his opinions on immigration. He supports giving to children of illegal immigrants the same educational benefits Texas gives to other state residents. Perry is right — we should not punish the children for the decisions of their parents. And he is right about the economics: Immigrants do not steal jobs from citizens.
That assumption has a superficial appeal: If more people are looking for jobs, there must be more unemployment, all things being equal. Similarly, if I spit into the ocean, the ocean level rises, all other things being equal. However, not all other things are equal.
Our $14 trillion economy is constantly changing. Lately, it has been growing slower than usual. Yet even now, immigrant workers not only take jobs, they also create jobs. They need goods and services just like the rest of us. Let’s look at the facts.
Obviously, we benefit from skilled immigrants — like those from Russia, Taiwan, and India who created Google, Yahoo, and Sun Microsystems, creating tens of thousands of jobs that changed the face of technology. Immigrants or their children founded more than 40 percent of today’s Fortune 500 companies.
But less-skilled immigrants are important too, as econometric studies repeatedly demonstrate. Consider the 2009 study of Giovanni Peri, a University of California economics professor (and a skilled immigrant from Italy). He could find “no evidence” that immigrants crowd out native employment. In the short run, there were no significant effects, but in the long run “a net inflow of immigrants equal to 1% of employment increases income per worker by 0.6% to 0.9%.”
One reason is that immigrants create demand for goods and services. Another is that immigrants usually dovetail with (rather than replace) the employment of U.S. citizens. For example, more than half (54 percent) of tailors in the U.S. are foreign-born, while crane operators are 99 percent natives; ditto for plaster-stucco masons (44 percent immigrant) versus sewer-pipe cleaners (more than 99 percent native). Immigrants — whether legal or illegal aliens — tend to complement rather than substitute for labor by Americans. More immigrants help our economy grow faster.
Enforcement resources, like everything else, are a finite resource. Homeland Security secretary Napolitano is correct when she says that we should focus our enforcement efforts where the problems are the greatest — high-priority cases involving convicted felons being at the top of the list.
Some people look to the states to stop the flow of immigrants, and that has led to plenty of litigation. Recently, a federal judge invalidated an Arizona law authorizing state police to ask arrestees their immigrant status. However, in DeCana v. Bica (1976), the Supreme Court upheld a California law that prohibited an employer from knowingly employing an alien not lawfully resident here. Later, in Muehler v. Mena (2005), the Court ruled that there was no constitutional violation when state police officers, while executing a search warrant, questioned Mena about her immigration status. Police need no “independent reasonable suspicion” to do that. More recently, Rhode Island state police started checking the immigration status of people stopped for traffic violations, reporting all illegal aliens to federal authorities for deportation. The federal appellate court rejected arguments that the state action was unconstitutional, in Estrada v. Rhode Island (Feb. 2010).
However, there is a simpler way than litigation: Congress can turn its attention to enacting legislation to deal with these issues directly instead of relying on bureaucrats and lower courts (and eventually the Supreme Court) to interpret the sounds of congressional silence. In the meantime, states can invest in human capital by offering educational opportunities to all of its residents.
— Ronald D. Rotunda is the Doy & Dee Henley chair and distinguished professor of jurisprudence at Chapman University School of Law.
Make it stop. My ears are starting to bleed. Mark K points out something troublesome and is strident about it and back comes someone who there is no common ground with and suddenly my head is ready to explode. I care deeply about this issue, but short of having someone pull a Bush / McCain amnesty on me, it is a distraction. We have Democrats wanting to give them all citizenship and ignore anything they have done in the past. I am all for getting it exactly right, but stop the bickering. It is petty and dare I say pointless, as neither of you are convincing anyone to change their minds!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNice job of making me hate Perry by linking him to a bunch of open borders balderdash.
That was your intention, right?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWell said. The amount of time and resources that is being wasted on trivial offenders is scandalous.
Let the enforcement oficers decide the priorities not politicians looking for a bump in their ratings.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe idea that not extending a huge taxpayer subsidy to illegal immigrants for higher education is "punishing" them is ludicrous. That is emotional and silly language that is more at home on the left. No one is saying that they can't go to college. But let them pay the same as out of state US citizens.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThere is no indication that this is a "Huge Taxpayer Subsidy". The Texas State Assessor examined this issue and found no economic impact from extending in-state tuition benefits to kids who happen to have lived in state. This is because they have been paying income and property taxes here for years and will continue to after they graduate.
These are people who do everything that US Citizens did (and more!) to earn the status as state residents. They pay the same as some other out-of-state resident who comes to live in the state for 3 years.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHere's the point: illegal aliens -- that is, people who breached the most fundamental concept of national sovereignty to enter the country -- receive a benefit not afforded to non-Texas US citizens. US citizens, who have watched the value and distinctiveness of US citizen atrophy before their very eyes, don't like this. Why are they wrong?
Or should we not worry because, despite all evidence to the contrary, Hispanics are a "natural Republican constituency"?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWow - another poser arguing like a liberal.
How are children of illegal immigrants criminals?
Yet you would treat them as such. You wrote "Here's the point: illegal aliens -- that is, people who breached the most fundamental concept of national sovereignty to enter the country"
Only a liberal could conclude that an innocent person is guilty because of the misdemeanors of their parent(s).
For all practical purposes those children are TEXANS (as mandated by federal law). Now you can either choose to treat them as Texans or you can treat them like criminals.
And you apparently side with the latter. Just like the liberal Democrats did in the mid-1800s. In fact your argument sounds exactly like what the rabid xenophobic Democrats said about the Irish and Chinese: "US citizens, who have watched the value and distinctiveness of US citizen atrophy before their very eyes".
That laughable part is that you are the descendant of illegal aliens. So by your own rationale, you should be deported as you are guilty of the sins of your ancestors.
Don't let the door hit you on your way out!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMark in DC,
Wow another liberal arguing like.. a really, really unintelligent liberal.
Unless he is born in the US, a child of an illegal immigrant is ... an illegal immigrant.
And who also benefits when an illegal immigrant's child enjoys reduced tuition? The illegal immigrant, of course.
"For all practical purposes those children are TEXANS (emphasis Mark in DC)." Whenever a sentence asserts "for all practical purposes X is Y," one can be sure that X indisputably is not Y. Therefore, thank you Mark for conceding that these outsiders are not US citizens.
"Now you can either choose to treat them as Texans or you can treat them like criminals." Or I can treat them as what they are ... illegal interlopers in a nation they do not belong.
"[Y]ou are the descendant of illegal aliens." Please stop lying about my ancestors.
Other than that, Mark, you made some good arguments.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"This is because they have been paying income and property taxes here for years and will continue to after they graduate."
I'm pretty sure they're not paying *income* taxes in Texas. Nobody does.
Also, few if any "kids" pay property taxes.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSorry, I meant to say Sales taxes. Their parents have ostensibly been paying property taxes, haven't they?
And if others' reports about the issue are correct, then these kids have been contributing in other ways since they have to have good standing in the community and be in the 90th percentile of their class.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI have no idea where the meme that they have to have good standing in their community and be in the 90th percentile of their class came from. But it is wrong.
Here is the text of the law.
j) Notwithstanding any other provision of this subchapter, an individual shall be classified as a Texas resident until the individual establishes a residence outside this state if the individual resided with the individual's parent, guardian, or conservator while attending a public or private high school in this
state and:
(1) graduated from a public or private high school or received the equivalent of a high school diploma in this state;
(2) resided in this state for at least three years as of the date the person graduated from high school or received the equivalent of a high school diploma;
(3) registers as an entering student in an institution of higher education not earlier than the 2001 fall semester; and
(4) provides to the institution an affidavit stating that the individual will file an application to be-come a permanent resident at the earliest opportunity the individual is eligible to do so.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"These are people who do everything that US Citizens did (and more!) to earn the status as state residents. They pay the same as some other out-of-state resident who comes to live in the state for 3 years."
Ok, I'll bite: What did they do to earn the status of state residents that was more than what US Citizens did?
How were they paying income tax without Social Security numbers? If they were they are guilty of fraud.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSorry, I meant to say "paying sales taxes".
In the case of what they did "more" than other residents, my understanding is that in order for an illegal to qualify, they need to be towards the top of their class in school- a requirement that is not placed on in-state-students that are also American Citizens.
If my understanding is incorrect, then I apologize and amend my statement to be "they did everything that US Citizens did to earn the status as state residents".
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWell, not really. Giving in-state tuition to illegal aliens is a federal crime, those states that do so - and Texas is far from alone - simply do not ask the immigration status of applicants.
External Link
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt is about time that we had someone other than Krikorian talking about immigration here.
I am not an Open Borders guy, but my studies in economics lead me to accept the literature finding that additional workers- regardless of the jobs they take- are a net benefit to the economy. Even when they don't take jobs but put downward pressure on wages, immigrants are still improving the economy. When work is done cheaper, it frees up resources to spend elsewhere- which is why every American benefits from reduced costs of goods produced in China.
Un-addressed here are the Social costs of unfettered immigration, which are numerous enough to prevent me from being an Open Borders guy. If the US were more sensible in its approach to enforcement, and rigorous in its requirement that immigrants take the sort of steps that cause assimilation rather than allowing enclaves to develop, we could probably enjoy more of the economic benefits than we do now.
No doubt Rotunda will find a lot of hostility in these comments, but I tend to agree on the economic front and only ask that he not discount the social front.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhy not have some of the 20 million unemployed americans do those jobs? Are those jobs "American won't do anymore"? Maybe they'd do them if they'd otherwise starve to death.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"states can invest in human capital by offering educational opportunities to all of its residents."
No one is denying education to anyone--if universities are turning away illegal aliens it's news to me. What gets people angry is that illegal aliens are being given heavily discounted tuitions that are paid for by US taxpayers.
Given that affirmative action is in effect, either explicitly or implicitly, in all US public universities, this means that not only are illegal aliens getting taxpayer funded subsidies not available to many Americans, they also get to cut in line in front of American citizens that happen to not be non-Asian minorities.
Make excuses for Perry all you want but realize there's a good reason that conservatives abandoned him in droves.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"What gets people angry is that illegal aliens are being given heavily discounted tuitions that are paid for by US taxpayers. "
WHAT PART OF "SAME RATE AS OTHER TEXANS" DON'T YOU PEOPLE UNDERSTAND?
There is "heavy discount."
If the rate for state residents is $10,000 per year, then illegal aliens who qualify pay $10,000 per year.
Texas chooses to make non-Texans pay more. So if Mitt Romney chooses to send his kids to UTA instead of Harvard, he pays the same rate as any other non-Texan.
This is not rocket science. It is, however, a distraction. We need to be attacking Obama and the democrats who want to give blanket amnesty and open the borders to anyone who will vote democrat, not attacking conservatives and Republicans who fall short of a Tom Tancredo ideal that will never be supported by the majority of Americans.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe problem, gullyborg, is that the controversial kids getting in-state tuition are not getting "the same rate as other Texas" because they AREN'T TEXANS. A kid who was born in Texas of parents who are illegal immigrants is a citizen and has never been discriminated against in admission or tuition to Texas universities based on their parents status.
The controversy is that the policy allows someone who is themselves an illegal alien to attend a Texas university at the same in-state tuition rate as a Texan, provided they were a minor when they came here illegally and they have stayed here illegally for several years. So you wind up with a citizen of Guatemala getting a lower tuition than that kid from Massachusetts!
Of course, if you think a foreign national can become a Texan by just sneaking into the Lone Star State illegally and staying here uncaught for several years, then none of this makes sense to your cosmopolitan mind.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseA kid can too get the EXACT same benefit if he merely spends several years in texas. An illegal alien residing in Texas has spent more on sales taxes, and his parents have probably spent more on property taxes than a kid from MA. So obviously he should get the same bennies as everyone else who has been doing the same.
In other words, the fact that they are illegal to me doesn't change the fact that they have been in every other way a supporter of the state.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse