2014 immigration debate

With the chain of historic fraud and lies from the WH and the disastrous failure of Obamacare, can President Obama shift gears and convince the American people that it’s time to approve comprehensive immigration reform now in gestation? Or would the loss of credibility and competency make his pitch an issue folks could easily dust off as just another irrelevant rhetorical nuisance?

Beyond the paralysis in Washington, it’s important to explore the mounting opposition to immigration and amnesty across the country. The federal government provides four types of benefits and services that are relevant to this issue:

Direct benefits: It includes Social Security, Medicare, unemployment insurance, and workers’ compensation.

Means-tested welfare benefits. There are over 80 of these programs that, at a cost of nearly $900 billion per year, provide cash, food, housing, medical, and other services to roughly 100 million low-income Americans. Major programs include Medicaid, food stamps, the refundable Earned Income Tax Credit, public housing, Supplemental Security Income, and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families.

Public education: At a cost of $12,300 per pupil per year, these services are largely free or heavily subsidized for low-income parents.

Population-based services: Police, fire, highways, parks, and similar services, as the National Academy of Sciences determined in its study of the fiscal costs of immigration, generally have to expand as new immigrants enter a community; someone has to bear the cost of that expansion.

The cost of these governmental services is far larger than many people imagine, according to Robert Rector and Jason Richwine, Ph.D., of Heritage Foundation. For example, in 2010, the average U.S. household received $31,584 in government benefits and services in these four categories.

“The governmental system is highly redistributive. Well-educated households tend to be net tax contributors: The taxes they pay exceed the direct and means-tested benefits, education, and population-based services they receive.

“For example, in 2010, in the whole U.S. population, households with college-educated heads, on average, received $24,839 in government benefits while paying $54,089 in taxes. The average college-educated household thus generated a fiscal surplus of $29,250 that government used to finance benefits for other households.

“Other households are net tax consumers: The benefits they receive exceed the taxes they pay. These households generate a “fiscal deficit” that must be financed by taxes from other households or by government borrowing. For example, in 2010, in the U.S. population as a whole, households headed by persons without a high school degree, on average, received $46,582 in government benefits while paying only $11,469 in taxes. This generated an average fiscal deficit (benefits received minus taxes paid) of $35,113.

“The high deficits of poorly educated households are important in the amnesty debate because the typical unlawful immigrant has only a 10th-grade education. Individuals with less than a high school degree head half of unlawful immigrant households. Another 25 percent of household heads have only a high school degree.

“Some argue that the deficit figures for poorly educated households in the general population are not relevant for immigrants. Many believe, for example, that lawful immigrants use little welfare. In reality, lawful immigrant households receive significantly more welfare, on average, than U.S.-born households. Overall, the fiscal deficits or surpluses for lawful immigrant households are the same as or higher than those for U.S.-born households with the same education level. Poorly educated households, whether immigrant or U.S.-born, receive far more in government benefits than they pay in taxes.

“In contrast to lawful immigrants, unlawful immigrants at present do not have access to means-tested welfare, Social Security, or Medicare. This does not mean, however, that they do not receive government benefits and services. Children in unlawful immigrant households receive heavily subsidized public education. Many unlawful immigrants have U.S.-born children; these children are currently eligible for the full range of government welfare and medical benefits. And, of course, when unlawful immigrants live in a community, they use roads, parks, sewers, police, and fire protection; these services must expand to cover the added population or there will be ‘congestion’ effects that lead to a decline in service quality.

“In 2010, the average unlawful immigrant household received around $24,721 in government benefits and services while paying some $10,334 in taxes. This generated an average annual fiscal deficit (benefits received minus taxes paid) of around $14,387 per household. This cost had to be borne by U.S. taxpayers. Amnesty would provide unlawful households with access to over 80 means-tested welfare programs, Obamacare, Social Security, and Medicare. The fiscal deficit for each household would soar.”

As you can see, the issue transcends our paper tiger supplanting indigenous hegemony. At the same time, how would farmlands weather denial of illegal immigrants who work daily to doing the 3Ds: dirty, dangerous and difficult?

Would Congress take up comprehensive immigration reform this year? The one difficult issue is the pathway to citizenship where the parties remain so far apart. A possibility is a compromise involving a pathway that is longer and has more conditions attached to it than were in the Senate bill.

That would displease reformers in that it involves some 11 million illegal immigrants. But both parties must look into luring Latino voters and therein lies the focus of attention as this year’s midterm election begins moving down the campaign trail. We shall see how this issue pans out at the national level.

Here at home, there’s powerful opposition from an indigenous group to provide pathway to citizenship for some 12,000 foreigners. It’s an issue that has picked up much heat and discussion. It would be interesting to know how this issue would pan out on the campaign trail. Discontentment would be a difficult one to quell on this score.