December PF Con File
Resolved: Immigration reform should include a path to
citizenship for undocumented immigrants currently living in the
United States.
Framework and Topicality
December PF Con File ........................................................................................................................... 1
Framework and Topicality .................................................................................................................. 2
Case Arguments ....................................................................................................................................... 6
A pathway to citizenship would hurt the economy .............................................................. 6
Fiscal Impact ................................................................................................................................... 7
Studies show that on the state level immigration has a negative impact in the
short-run ...................................................................................................................................... 7
Amnesty bills are incredibly costly – the 2007 bill would have cost the US 2.6
trillion............................................................................................................................................ 7
Amnesty will hurt American taxpayers because it is a fraud magnet and
encourages illegal immigration........................................................................................ 10
The estimated annual cost of illegal immigration is $113 billion ....................... 10
Costs of illegal immigration will only increase with amnesty for
undocumented immigrants ............................................................................................... 11
In 2004, households headed by an illegal immigrant created an annual net
deficit of almost $2700 per household .......................................................................... 11
A 2007 study found that low-skilled illegal immigrant families received three
dollars in government benefits for every one dollar they paid in taxes .......... 11
The children of illegal immigrants use up 10% (1.3 billion) of Title I funding
....................................................................................................................................................... 12
Illegal immigrants cannot be denied medical care under federal law .............. 12
$1 billion was spent from 2005-2008 on illegal immigrants in US hospitals 12
Fraudulent Medicaid costs tally up to $190 per illegal immigrant per year for
at least half the illegal population ................................................................................... 13
Medicaid coverage for illegal parents who bear children in the United States
push at least half of their costs on to taxpayers, and some cases, more than
70% ............................................................................................................................................. 13
In 2007 $2.4 billion was spent in Medicaid on the children of illegal
immigrants ............................................................................................................................... 13
The federal government alone spends nearly $29 billion annually on
supporting the population of illegal immigrants in the United States .............. 14
The collective state costs of illegal immigrants is a net burden 4x greater than
the federal (state: $80 billion annually; federal: $19.3 billion annually) ........ 14
No pathway to citizenship is fair ............................................................................................... 15
Making a cutoff for years lived in the US for citizenship is arbitrary and unfair
....................................................................................................................................................... 17
Immigrants lower American wages ......................................................................................... 18
From 1980 to 2000 immigration contributed to a decrease in average US
wages of 3% ............................................................................................................................. 18
Low-skilled workers saw a wage decrease of 9% from 1980 to 2000 because
of immigration ........................................................................................................................ 18
A pathway to citizenship undermines rule of law .............................................................. 19
The nation of laws approach – those who entered illegally shouldn’t be given
citizenship because it undermines the rule of law ................................................... 19
Pathway to citizenship ignores U.S Laws. .................................................................... 20
A pathway to citizenship will increase immigrant inflows ............................................. 21
Amnesty granted in 1986 lead to nearly quadruple the amount of illegal
aliens living in the United States...................................................................................... 21
Amnesty granted in 1986 lead to nearly quadruple the amount of illegal
aliens living in the United States...................................................................................... 21
The grand bargain immigration bill has many flaws ........................................................ 22
The grand bargain immigration bill proposed in the senate fails to implement
a system to ensure immigrants don’t overstay their visas .................................... 22
The grand bargain immigration bill proposed in the senate will triple chain
migration through 2016 and lead to mass importation of poverty ................... 22
The grand bargain immigration bill proposed in the senate would not have
background checks against criminal and terrorist databases ............................. 22
The grand bargain immigration bill proposed in the senate would leave
hundreds of thousands of violent and sexual criminals with amnesty ............ 22
The grand bargain immigration bill proposed in the senate would leave US
citizens with disproportionate tuition rates ............................................................... 23
Illegal immigration strains school resources ....................................................................... 24
Amnesty will only lead to an increased burden on the budgets of states that
are not enrolling many illegal aliens or reduced access for citizens ................. 30
Conservative estimates put the children of illegal aliens costing state and
local governments $41 billion annually for K-12 education................................. 30
Self deportation solves our immigration problems better than comprehensive
immigration reform (i.e. pathway to citizenship) .............................................................. 31
People in the United States should stop viewing immigration reform as a
dichotomy to better solve the issue of illegal immigration ................................... 31
There is no credible threat posed against illegal immigrants because of the
inefficiency of ICE, which will always leave the door open ................................... 31
Forcing businesses to verify the citizenship of their employees leads to selfdeportation for illegal immigrants who cannot find jobs ...................................... 31
The Arizona statute about businesses verifying employee citizenship
immediately lead to the self-deportation of thousands of illegal immigrants32
The self-deportation of thousands of illegal immigrants led to almost $50
million in public school budgets appearing ................................................................ 32
The number of illegal immigrant Pakistanis who self-deported is 10x greater
than the amount the US deported ................................................................................... 32
Approximately 183,000 illegal aliens self-deport every year .............................. 32
Employment ................................................................................................................................. 33
A pathway to citizenship will help naturalize “children” up to the age of 30
and will force them to compete with unemployed Americans for scarce jobs
....................................................................................................................................................... 33
Amnesty will hurt the unemployment rate of Hispanics ....................................... 33
Amnesty will create competition in the job market that will only harm
citizens and legal residents ................................................................................................ 33
Illegal immigrants are more likely to commit crimes ....................................................... 34
In 2005, 6.7% of all prisoners were non-citizens, increasing to 9% by 2008 34
In 2004 the illegal alien population in prisons was about 56,280 with an
annual cost of 24,500 per prisoner. In 2010 that cost reached 27,700 per
prisoner alongside an increase of the amount of prisoners ................................. 34
Illegal immigrants who have been incarcerated cost the US $1.8-3.5 billion
annually ..................................................................................................................................... 34
States spend hundreds of millions to incarcerate illegal aliens .......................... 35
Even a 1% crime rate of the illegal immigrant population (12 million) would
be huge (120,000 crimes per year) ................................................................................ 35
Illegal immigrants murder 12 Americans every day, which amounts to more
than 22,000 US deaths at the hands of illegal immigrants than military deaths
since 9/11 ................................................................................................................................. 35
A study conducted in Pennsylvania found 73 illegal immigrants charged over
400 times .................................................................................................................................. 35
A study conducted in Los Angeles found that 95% of all warrants for
homicide were directed at illegal aliens ....................................................................... 36
There is a disproportionate relationship between the amount of illegal
immigrants in the United States and the amount of illegal immigrants in
prisons (7.2% vs 12.9%) .................................................................................................... 36
A 2006 study found that every day 93 sex offenders and 12 serial sexual
offenders enter the US illegally every day, averaging 4 victims each for a total
of 960,000 victims total ...................................................................................................... 37
Some of the most violent criminals in the country are illegal immigrants ..... 37
A pathway to citizenship would be practically infeasible ............................................... 38
Less than half of Hispanic immigrants are eligible to naturalize ........................ 38
History shows that many illegal immigrants won’t accept a pathway to
citizenship; in the past, more than half of the roughly 3 million illegal
immigrants given legal residency chose not to naturalize .................................... 38
45% of illegal immigrants are unable to naturalize because of either
insufficient English or insufficient funds...................................................................... 38
We should increase the amount of visa holders instead ................................................. 39
Immigration reform will help regulate the flow of temporary visa holders,
leading to an approximate annual gain of $260 billion for American
households ............................................................................................................................... 39
Immigration reform that reduces the supply of illegal immigrants will end up
costing the US billions.......................................................................................................... 39
Immigration reform that increases the amount of temporary visas would lead
to welfare gains for US households around $170 billion ....................................... 40
Immigration reform will include a better designed temporary worker visa
system than the one currently in place ......................................................................... 40
Rebuttal/Summary Responses ....................................................................................................... 46
A2: Wages increased after immigration reform in 86 ...................................................... 62
After the amnesty granted in 1986 wages only increased because of inflation
....................................................................................................................................................... 62
While some illegal immigrants who were granted amnesty saw wage growth,
relative to other workers the gain was null ................................................................ 62
Rebuttal overview that answers lollipops and sunshine view of illegal immigrants
................................................................................................................................................................ 63
Proponents of amnesty falsely paint the illegal immigrant population of the
United States as voluntarily paying taxes, otherwise law-abiding, and making
a valuable contribution to the country’s economy ................................................... 63
A2: Immigrants pay their fair share of taxes ........................................................................ 64
Illegal immigrants are estimated to pay about $6 billion per year in taxes,
which has been largely overestimated .......................................................................... 68
A2: Pathway to citizenship won’t solve our immigration problem ............................. 71
Amnesty alone doesn’t solve the problem ................................................................... 71
Case Arguments
A pathway to citizenship would hurt the economy
Providing pathway to citizenship will cost $2.6 trillion.
Heritage Foundation, Robert Rector 2007, 6/6/2007, “Amnesty Will Cost U.S.
Taxpayers at Least $2.6 Trillion”,
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2007/06/amnesty-will-cost-ustaxpayers-at-least-26-trillion
The Senate is currently considering a massive immigration reform bill, the "Secure
Borders, Economic Opportunity and immigration Reform Act of 2007" (S. 1348).
This bill would grant amnesty to nearly all illegal immigrants currently in the United
States.¶ The fiscal consequences of this amnesty will vary depending on the time
period analyzed. It is expected that many illegal immigrants who are currently
working "off the books" and paying no direct taxes will begin to work "on the books"
after receiving amnesty, and therefore tax payments will rise immediately. By
contrast, under S. 1348, benefits to these immigrants from Social Security, Medicare,
and most means-tested welfare programs (such as Food Stamps, public housing, and
Temporary Assistance to Needy Families) will be delayed for many years. In
consequence, then, the increase in taxes and fines paid by amnesty recipients may
initially exceed slightly the increase in government benefits received. In the long
run, however, the opposite will be true. In particular, the cost of retirement benefits
for amnesty recipients is likely to be very large. Overall, the net cost to taxpayers of
retirement benefits for amnesty recipients is likely to be at least $2.6 trillion.¶
Fiscal Impact
Studies show that on the state level immigration has a negative impact in the
short-run
Gordon H. Hanson, Council on Foreign Relations. The Bernard and Irene Schwartz Series on American
Competitiveness. “The Economic Logic of Illegal Immigration”. April 2007.
http://irps.ucsd.edu/assets/022/8797.pdf
Based on federal, state, and local government expenditures and tax receipts,
the NRC estimated that the short-run fiscal impact of immigration was
negative in both New Jersey and California. In New Jersey, using data for 1989–
1990, immigrant households received an average net fiscal transfer from
natives of $1,500, or 3 percent of average state immigrant household income.
Spread among the more numerous state native population, this amounted to an
average net fiscal burden of $230 per native household, or 0.4 percent of average
state native household income. In California, using data for 1994–95, immigrant
households received an average net fiscal transfer of $3,500, or 9 percent of
average immigrant household income, which resulted in an average fiscal
burden on native households of $1,200, or 2 percent of average native
household income.
Amnesty bills are incredibly costly – the 2007 bill would have cost the US 2.6
trillion
Kris W. Kobach. Tulsa Journal of Comparative and International Law, “Attrition through Enforcement: A
Rational Approach to Illegal Immigration”. Volume 15, Issue 2, Article 3. 2007.
It is also extremely expensive to implement an amnesty and pay for the government
benefits enjoyed by the newly-legalized aliens. The amnesty considered by the
U.S. Senate in 2007 would have cost the United States $2.6 trillion over a tenyear period.
Methodology for the 2.6 trillion number
Heritage Foundation, Robert Rector 2007, 6/6/2007, “Amnesty Will Cost U.S.
Taxpayers at Least $2.6 Trillion”,
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2007/06/amnesty-will-cost-ustaxpayers-at-least-26-trillion
The $2.6 trillion figure is a rough estimate of future costs that would result from
putting 10 million adult illegal immigrants on a guaranteed pathway to citizenship.
There are a number of factors that could raise or lower these future costs. Among
the factors that could increase the net cost (benefits received minus taxes paid) well
above $2.6 trillion are the following:¶ The actual number of illegal immigrants may
be greater than 12 million. The estimated cost of $2.6 trillion in future retirement
costs outlined above assumes that the number of illegal immigrants in the U.S. in
2007 was around 12 million, based on data from the Pew Hispanic Center. While the
Pew Hispanic Center is the most widely used source for demographic information
about illegal immigrants, its data assume that some 90 percent of illegal immigrants
appear in the Census Bureau's Current Population Survey (CPS).[19] It is possible
that many illegal immigrants do not appear in the CPS and that the total number of
illegal immigrants is substantially higher than 12 million. Some estimates place the
number of illegal immigrants as high as 20 million. Clearly, if the illegal immigrant
population is greater than 12 million, then the net retirement costs resulting from
amnesty would be, ceteris paribus, higher as well.¶ There is a huge potential for
amnesty fraud. In order to receive amnesty and a Z visa and be put on a pathway to
citizenship, an illegal immigrant must demonstrate that he or she was in the U.S.
illegally and employed on January 1, 2007. However, the standard to demonstrate
residence is very loose. The illegal immigrant need merely produce two affidavits
from non-relatives asserting that he or she was working in the U.S. on the
appropriate date. The affidavits could even come from other illegal immigrants. It is
doubtful that the Department of Homeland Security has any real capacity to
separate true affidavits from bogus ones, especially in the crush of processing
millions of applications in the space of a year or two. Consequently, the potential for
amnesty based on fraudulent documents is very high. In the 1986 amnesty, an
estimated 25 percent of the amnesties granted were fraudulent.[20] In the last 20
years, the underground industry producing fraudulent documents has grown vastly
larger and more sophisticated. In this round of amnesty, the fraud rate could be as
high as or higher than in 1986, resulting in millions of additional amnesties.¶
Spouses and children living abroad may be added to the amnesty population. In its
present form, the bill grants amnesty to employed illegal immigrants who were in
the U.S. on January 1, 2007. Any spouses, children, and parents of employed illegal
immigrants who were residing in the U.S. on that date will also receive Z visas and
amnesty. However, many illegal immigrants have spouses and children living
abroad; under S. 1348, while illegal immigrants and their families inside the U.S. are
put on a path to citizenship, families living abroad are not. family members living
abroad would be denied Z visas and would not be permitted to reside in the U.S. for
the foreseeable future. Presumably, the Z visa holder could have his family join him
when he achieves legal permanent residence, but this would not occur until eight
years after he is initially given the Z visa. The designers of the bill appear to have
excluded spouses and children living abroad from eligibility for Z visas in order to
lower the apparent number of amnesty recipients, but pressure will build to
eliminate this exclusion. At some point, either before or after the bill's passage, a
"technical correction" will almost certainly be introduced allowing spouses and
children living abroad to obtain Z visas and get on the pathway to citizenship. For
every 10 illegal immigrants living in the U.S., there may be four dependents living
abroad; if the current illegal population is 12 million, the number of additional
dependents who could be brought permanently into the country should the
exclusion be eliminated may be as high as five million.[21] The overall number of
amnesty recipients and dependents could easily reach 17 million.¶ Medicaid and
Medicare costs are likely to rise faster than the rate of general inflation. To project
the future governmental costs of amnesty recipients during retirement, this paper
has used the current net governmental costs for elderly immigrants with skill levels
similar to the amnesty population. These net governmental costs amount to $17,000
per person per year in 2004; half of this cost was medical care expenditures under
the Medicare and Medicaid programs. The cost of government Medicaid and
Medicare benefits has tended to escalate rapidly both because medical cost inflation
has been greater than the general rate of inflation in the economy and because the
range of medical services provided by these programs has expanded. The cost of
Medicare and Medicaid services is likely to continue to increase more rapidly than
inflation for the foreseeable future. As a consequence, the actual retirement costs for
amnesty recipients will almost certainly be greater than $2.6 trillion, even after
adjusting for general inflation.
Amnesty will hurt American taxpayers because it is a fraud magnet and
encourages illegal immigration
Lamar Smith, Texas Congressman and chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. “Obama’s Amnesty
Hurts American Taxpayers”. July 6, 2012.
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2012/07/06/lamar-smith-obamas-amnesty-hurtsamerican-taxpayers
The president's amnesty hurts American taxpayers since it serves as a magnet for
fraud and encourages more illegal immigration, which already costs taxpayers
billions of dollars each year, including healthcare and education costs. Fraud
and more illegal immigration will further increase these costs on taxpayers.
The estimated annual cost of illegal immigration is $113 billion
Jack Martin and Eric A. Ruark, Directors of Specials Projects and Research. The Federation for American
Immigration Reform. “The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on United States Taxpayers.” February
2011. http://www.fairus.org/DocServer/USCostStudy_2010.pdf
This report estimates the annual costs of illegal immigration at the federal,
state and local level to be about $113 billion; nearly $29 billion at the federal
level and $84 billion at the state and local level.
Costs of illegal immigration will only increase with amnesty for
undocumented immigrants
Jack Martin and Eric A. Ruark, Directors of Specials Projects and Research. The Federation for American
Immigration Reform. “The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on United States Taxpayers.” February
2011. http://www.fairus.org/DocServer/USCostStudy_2010.pdf
One choice is pursuing a strategy that discourages future illegal migration and
increasingly diminishes the current illegal alien population through denial of job
opportunities and deportations. The other choice would repeat the unfortunate
decision made in 1986 to adopt an amnesty that invited continued illegal
migration.
In 2004, households headed by an illegal immigrant created an annual net
deficit of almost $2700 per household
Jack Martin and Eric A. Ruark, Directors of Specials Projects and Research. The Federation for American
Immigration Reform. “The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on United States Taxpayers.” February
2011. http://www.fairus.org/DocServer/USCostStudy_2010.pdf
A study published by the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) in 2004 found,
“Households headed by illegal aliens imposed more than $26.3 billion in costs
on the federal government in 2002 and paid only $16 billion in taxes, creating
an annual net fiscal deficit of almost $10.4 billion, or $2,700 per household.”
A 2007 study found that low-skilled illegal immigrant families received three
dollars in government benefits for every one dollar they paid in taxes
Jack Martin and Eric A. Ruark, Directors of Specials Projects and Research. The Federation for American
Immigration Reform. “The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on United States Taxpayers.” February
2011. http://www.fairus.org/DocServer/USCostStudy_2010.pdf
The Heritage Foundation published a fiscal cost study in 2007 that found, “On
average, low-skill immigrant households [used as a surrogate for illegal
immigrant households] received $30,160 per household in immediate
government benefits and services in FY 2004, including direct benefits, meanstested benefits, education, and population-based services. By contrast, low-skill
immigrant households paid only $10,573 in taxes.
The children of illegal immigrants use up 10% (1.3 billion) of Title I funding
Jack Martin and Eric A. Ruark, Directors of Specials Projects and Research. The Federation for American
Immigration Reform. “The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on United States Taxpayers.” February
2011. http://www.fairus.org/DocServer/USCostStudy_2010.pdf
The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, Title I is aimed at providing
supplemental funding to increase educational opportunities and improve academic
performance of children from poor families. In 2010, an estimated $13.8 billion
was budgeted for this program (after subtracting funding for Puerto Rico and U.S.
associated and dependent territories, and for Native Americans). With the vast
majority of the children of illegal aliens falling within the economic criteria of this
program, and these children constituting approximately 9.7 percent of K-12
enrollment nationally, we estimate that about $1.33 billion of this funding is
spent on children of illegal aliens.
Illegal immigrants cannot be denied medical care under federal law
Jack Martin and Eric A. Ruark, Directors of Specials Projects and Research. The Federation for American
Immigration Reform. “The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on United States Taxpayers.” February
2011. http://www.fairus.org/DocServer/USCostStudy_2010.pdf
The provision of medical care for illegal aliens is mandated by federal law—
the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) enacted in 1986
— for all persons having emergency medical conditions until the patient’s
condition is stabilized. This provision of law is often relied on by illegal aliens
who do not have medical insurance for medical treatment. Medical facilities
that provide emergency medical care and receive federal funds are required to
apply this open admission standard without regard to legal status or ability to pay
for the medical attention.
$1 billion was spent from 2005-2008 on illegal immigrants in US hospitals
Jack Martin and Eric A. Ruark, Directors of Specials Projects and Research. The Federation for American
Immigration Reform. “The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on United States Taxpayers.” February
2011. http://www.fairus.org/DocServer/USCostStudy_2010.pdf
Recognizing that the EMTALA admission requirement constituted a major funding
obligation on local medical facilities, and in light of the fact that many medical
facilities had begun to close their emergency rooms because of the burden of
uncompensated costs, Congress, in 2003, enacted Section 1011 in the Medicare
Modernization Act (PL 108-173). That legislation provided for federal
reimbursement of emergency medical care extended to illegal aliens. It
authorized a $1 billion program — $250 million each year for 2005 through 2008
— to be distributed on the basis of the federal government’s estimate of the size of
the illegal alien population in 2000 with an additional emphasis on facilities in
states on the border with Mexico.
Fraudulent Medicaid costs tally up to $190 per illegal immigrant per year for
at least half the illegal population
Jack Martin and Eric A. Ruark, Directors of Specials Projects and Research. The Federation for American
Immigration Reform. “The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on United States Taxpayers.” February
2011. http://www.fairus.org/DocServer/USCostStudy_2010.pdf
In three recent state fiscal cost studies, we found estimates of uncompensated
medical care for illegal aliens that appear to provide a median level of such outlays,
i.e., $184 per year per illegal alien in Colorado, $192 per illegal alien in Florida, and
$185 per illegal alien in Nevada. Most illegal aliens will be healthy and have no use
of emergency medical services, some will have employer-provided medical
insurance, and some, like Mariana de la Torre, above, will have enormous costs. We
assume that an average cost of about $190 per illegal alien per year would
apply to the half of the illegal alien population — not including U.S.-born
children of illegal aliens — that may be fraudulently using Medicaid.
Medicaid coverage for illegal parents who bear children in the United States
push at least half of their costs on to taxpayers, and some cases, more than
70%
Jack Martin and Eric A. Ruark, Directors of Specials Projects and Research. The Federation for American
Immigration Reform. “The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on United States Taxpayers.” February
2011. http://www.fairus.org/DocServer/USCostStudy_2010.pdf
Illegal aliens have access to Medicaid coverage for childbirth under the
concept that the service is provided to the child who will be born a U.S. citizen.
As noted above, the federal taxpayer assumes at least half of the cost of this expense.
The share varies by state with the federal government picking up as much as threefourths of the cost (in Mississippi). There are nine states in which the federal share
exceeds 70 percent and an additional 18 states where the federal share is more
than 60 percent in 2009 according to Kaiser State Health Facts. 21
In 2007 $2.4 billion was spent in Medicaid on the children of illegal
immigrants
Jack Martin and Eric A. Ruark, Directors of Specials Projects and Research. The Federation for American
Immigration Reform. “The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on United States Taxpayers.” February
2011. http://www.fairus.org/DocServer/USCostStudy_2010.pdf
That website also compiles the amount of federal expenditures on Medicaid for
children in 2007 as $90.3 billion. Applying the share of that used by the children
of illegal aliens indicates that the amount of those outlays was nearly $2.4
billion.
The federal government alone spends nearly $29 billion annually on
supporting the population of illegal immigrants in the United States
Jack Martin and Eric A. Ruark, Directors of Specials Projects and Research. The Federation for American
Immigration Reform. “The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on United States Taxpayers.” February
2011. http://www.fairus.org/DocServer/USCostStudy_2010.pdf
The above detailed calculations of the annual costs for educational, medical,
administration of justice, and social welfare outlays total about $20.6 billion. Adding
in general government expenditures increases that amount by nearly an additional
$8.2 billion. The total federal fiscal expenditures on illegal aliens, therefore,
amount to nearly $29 billion annually.
The collective state costs of illegal immigrants is a net burden 4x greater than
the federal (state: $80 billion annually; federal: $19.3 billion annually)
Jack Martin and Eric A. Ruark, Directors of Specials Projects and Research. The Federation for American
Immigration Reform. “The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on United States Taxpayers.” February
2011. http://www.fairus.org/DocServer/USCostStudy_2010.pdf
When the estimated tax collections from illegal aliens in the state are
subtracted from the estimated expenditures, the result is the net fiscal
burden. Compared to the federal net fiscal burden of about $19.3 billion, the
collective net burden at the state and local level is about 4 times larger at
about $80 billion.
Undocumented workers pose a demographic threat
340,000 children were born to illegal immigrants in 2008
New York Times, Marc Lacey, “Birthright Citizenship Looms as Next Immigration Battle”, January 4 2011,
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/05/us/politics/05babies.html?ref=fourteenthamendment
Blended families like hers are a reality across the United States. A studyreleased in
August by the Pew Hispanic Center found that about 340,000 children were
born to illegal immigrants in the United States in 2008 and became instant
citizens.
1 in 10 births in the U.S. is to an illegal immigrant mother
Center for Immigration Studies, Jon Feere, “Birthright Citizenship in the United States: A Global Comparison”, August 2010,
http://www.cis.org/articles/2010/birthright.pdf
Between 300,000 and 400,000 children are born to illegal immigrants in the United
States every year. Put another way, as many as one out of 10 births in the United
States is to an illegal immigrant mother.2
A pathway to citizenship would undermine democracy
Experts on large- scale immigration into liberal democratic states suggest that
2nd generation immigrants should not receive citizenship automatically
Amanda Colvin, Saint Louis University Law Journal, “ Birthright Citizenship in the United States: Realities of De Facto Deportation
and International Comparisons Towards Providing a Solution”, February 2009,
http://slu.edu/Documents/law/Law%20Journal/Archives/Colvin_article.pdf
T. Alexander Aleinikoff and Douglas Klusmeyer are authors and researchers
who, as part of the Comparative Citizenship Project of the Carnegie
Endowment’s International Migration Policy Program, have extensively
investigated and compared citizenship policies in liberaldemocratic states
that have experienced large-scale immigration.210 They have proposed a
similar approach to citizenship classification that would utilize generations as
the category of analysis.211 They recommend that thirdgeneration foreign
nationals be entitled to citizenship at birth, while secondgeneration foreign
nationals acquire citizenship from a modified jus solirule.212 Secondgeneration immigrants could acquire citizenship if they satisfy two
requirements: birth in the territory and either residence of the child for a
number of years prior to adulthood or lawful residence of the parent.213 In
either case, whether citizenship is granted based on the child’s residence in the state
for a period of time or based on the parent’s lawful residence in the state,214 such a
birthright citizenship regime will presumably negate any attack on the child’s
tenuous relation to the state in which he is granted citizenship
No pathway to citizenship is fair
Making a cutoff for years lived in the US for citizenship is arbitrary and unfair
Linda Bosniak, “Amnesty in immigration: forgetting, forgiving, freedom ”,
Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy , Volume 16,
2013.
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13698230.2013.795705#.UoB
7vmRDulZ
In response to Carens, one may raise at least two kinds of objections. First, Carens’
effort to salvage commitments to border exclusion alongside his commitment to
incorporate (a portion of the) already-present immigrants ends up, in my view,
partially undercutting the normative realism he wishes to exemplify. At least on
measures of internal coherence and practical effectiveness – surely necessary
constituents of any realistic theory – the time and- ties position founders in some
respects. To mention just a few: Making amnesty contingent on an immigrant’s
presence for a minimum number of years correspondingly excludes those who fall
short of the cut-off. Line drawing choices are inevitably difficult, but in this case,
drawing the line at seven or ten years or even five means that amnesty will be
withheld in some cases where it is – by dint of the significant ties immigrants have
formed over time – arguably warranted, according to the approach’s justifying
rationale.
Immigrants lower American wages
From 1980 to 2000 immigration contributed to a decrease in average US
wages of 3%
Gordon H. Hanson, Council on Foreign Relations. The Bernard and Irene Schwartz Series on American
Competitiveness. “The Economic Logic of Illegal Immigration”. April 2007.
http://irps.ucsd.edu/assets/022/8797.pdf
Labor inflows from abroad redistribute income away from workers who compete
with immigrants in the labor market. George Borjas estimates that over the period
1980 to 2000 immigration contributed to a decrease in average U.S. wages of 3
percent.34 This estimate accounts for the total change in the U.S. labor force
due to immigration, including both legal and illegal sources
Low-skilled workers saw a wage decrease of 9% from 1980 to 2000 because of
immigration
Gordon H. Hanson, Council on Foreign Relations. The Bernard and Irene Schwartz Series on American
Competitiveness. “The Economic Logic of Illegal Immigration”. April 2007.
http://irps.ucsd.edu/assets/022/8797.pdf
Since immigration is concentrated among the low-skilled, low-skilled natives are the
workers most likely to be hurt. Over the 1980 to 2000 period, wages of native
workers without a high school degree fell by 9 percent as a result of
immigration.
A pathway to citizenship undermines rule of law
The nation of laws approach – those who entered illegally shouldn’t be given
citizenship because it undermines the rule of law
Ayelet Shachar, “Earned Citizenship: Property Lessons for Immigration
Reform”, Yale Journal of Law and the Huma nities Vol 23, Issue 1 (2011).
http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1369&conte
xt=yjlh
The nation-of-laws stance on this matter is firm and relies on an intuitive appeal: if
unlawful admission (or unauthorized overstay) is wrong, then "why should people
who violated the law be given an opportunity 'of converting to legal status and
earning a path to citizenship'? Other proponents of this approach go further, arguing
that such legalization or "[a]mnesty undermines the rule of law. In the first
encounter these people had with our country, they broke our law.""
Changing the law, especially for something small, inherently weakens the rule
of law
Reason Magazine, Shikha Dalmia, “The Bogus Case Against Birthright Citizenship”, March 15 2011,
http://reason.com/archives/2011/03/15/the-bogus-case-against-birthri
Conservatives argue that this amendment is necessary to enforce the rule of law. But
the first principle of conservatism, constantly deployed against liberal reformers, is
that it is not wise to make radical changes to long-standing laws and institutions for
small gains. As Aristotle warned in the Politics two-and-half millennia ago:
“[W]hen the improvement is small, and since it is a bad thing to habituate
people to the reckless dissolution of laws, it is evident that some errors of
both legislations and of the rulers should be let go; for the city will not be
benefited as much from changing them as it will be harmed through being
habituated to disobey the rulers…The easy alteration of existing laws in favor
of new and different ones weakens the power of law itself.”
Pathway to citizenship ignores U.S Laws.
Heritage Foundation, David Inserra, June 21, 2013, “Amnesty: A Path to Permanent
Residency Is as Bad as a Path to Citizenship”,
http://blog.heritage.org/2013/06/21/amnesty-a-path-to-permanent-residency-isas-bad-as-a-path-to-citizenship/
Some in Congress have suggested removing the path to citizenship as found in the
Senate’s flawed bill and replacing it with a path to legal permanent residency(LPR).
While this might sounds like a serious and legitimate compromise, there is in fact
very little difference between LPR status and citizenship.¶ The main difference
between LPRs and citizens is that only citizens can vote, but in almost all other
respects, LPRs are equal with citizens. They have access to almost every welfare and
entitlement program, meaning that the long-term costs of such a proposal would
still total in the trillions of dollars.¶ A pathway to LPR status also ignores the rule of
law and rewards those who came here illegally by granting them legal residency
ahead of those who followed the law. Importantly, such amnesty would also still act
as a magnet for additional illegal immigration by rewarding those who illegally
entered the country. After the U.S. passed amnesty in 1986, new unlawful
immigrants came to the U.S., encouraged that they too could receive amnesty
eventually. As a result, the U.S. now has over 11 million unlawful immigrants.
Repeating the mistake of amnesty—be it by granting a path to citizenship or to LPR
status—would result in even more illegal immigration and would stretch U.S. border
resources even thinner than they are now.¶ While the Senate seems fixated on triedand-failed amnesty, the House is currently taking a different approach. For now, the
House is rightly handling immigration reform in a piece-by-piece manner, as it
allows each part of immigration policy to be considered and debated on its own
merits. However, conservatives should beware of efforts to include a pathway to
permanent residency as a concession to those who want amnesty. There is also the
dangerous potential for each of the House’s smaller bills to be mashed together,
which would allow a conference committee with the Senate to push amnesty into
the House’s approach.¶ Amnesty, whether leading to permanent residency or
citizenship, is the wrong approach. Instead, there is a better way that enforces U.S.
laws, enhances U.S. security, and enables legal immigrants to more easily pursue the
American Dream.¶
A pathway to citizenship will increase immigrant inflows
Amnesty granted in 1986 lead to nearly quadruple the amount of illegal aliens
living in the United States
Michael T. Eskey, Park University. “Crimes of Illeal Immigrants”. Professional Issues in Criminal Justice
Vol 3(3), 2008. http://www.picj.org/docs/issue7/PICJ%20V3N3Eskey%2043-62.2.pdf
Since its passage, the number of illegal aliens in the United States has grown to at
least 12 million, with some estimates as high as 30 million (Rumbaut & Ewing, 2007;
Camorata, 2004; Gilchrist & Corsi, 2006). Another assertion is that amnesty granted
to immigrants meeting specified conditions as part of the 1986 legislation2 has
contributed to a quadrupling of illegal aliens in the United States (from 8 to 20
million since 1986). It is estimated that 2.7 million illegal aliens were legalized
under the plan, and the current estimate of illegal aliens is more than 12
million; therefore, for each illegal alien granted amnesty under the plan,
approximately four new illegal aliens have replaced him.
Amnesty granted in 1986 lead to nearly quadruple the amount of illegal aliens
living in the United States
Michael T. Eskey, Park University. “Crimes of Illeal Immigrants”. Professional Issues in Criminal Justice
Vol 3(3), 2008. http://www.picj.org/docs/issue7/PICJ%20V3N3Eskey%2043-62.2.pdf
Since its passage, the number of illegal aliens in the United States has grown to at
least 12 million, with some estimates as high as 30 million (Rumbaut & Ewing, 2007;
Camorata, 2004; Gilchrist & Corsi, 2006). Another assertion is that amnesty granted
to immigrants meeting specified conditions as part of the 1986 legislation2 has
contributed to a quadrupling of illegal aliens in the United States (from 8 to 20
million since 1986). It is estimated that 2.7 million illegal aliens were legalized
under the plan, and the current estimate of illegal aliens is more than 12
million; therefore, for each illegal alien granted amnesty under the plan,
approximately four new illegal aliens have replaced him.
The grand bargain immigration bill has many flaws
The grand bargain immigration bill proposed in the senate fails to implement
a system to ensure immigrants don’t overstay their visas
Senator Sessions, NumbersUSA. “Senate Proposal is Full of Holes”.
https://www.numbersusa.com/PDFs/LoopholesInS1348.pdf
Sen. Sessions pointed to perhaps the biggest flaw by noting that the “ ‘enforcement
trigger’ fails to require the U.S. VISIT system – the biometric border check-in/checkout system established by Congress in 1996, but never implemented – to be fully
functioning before new worker or amnesty programs begin. Without the system in
place, the U.S. has no method of ensuring that workers and their families do
not overstay their visas.”
The grand bargain immigration bill proposed in the senate will triple chain
migration through 2016 and lead to mass importation of poverty
Senator Sessions, NumbersUSA. “Senate Proposal is Full of Holes”.
https://www.numbersusa.com/PDFs/LoopholesInS1348.pdf
While most Americans tell pollsters they want less immigration, this bill
dramatically increases overall immigration. It TRIPLES chain migration through
the year 2016 – all the while sanctioning a mass importation of low-skill
foreign workers and, by extension, a mass importation of poverty into this
country.
The grand bargain immigration bill proposed in the senate would not have
background checks against criminal and terrorist databases
Senator Sessions, NumbersUSA. “Senate Proposal is Full of Holes”.
https://www.numbersusa.com/PDFs/LoopholesInS1348.pdf
The completion of background checks, including checks against criminal and
terrorist databases, is “not required for” the granting of amnesty (in this bill, it
is referred to as “probationary status”);
The grand bargain immigration bill proposed in the senate would leave
hundreds of thousands of violent and sexual criminals with amnesty
Senator Sessions, NumbersUSA. “Senate Proposal is Full of Holes”.
https://www.numbersusa.com/PDFs/LoopholesInS1348.pdf
Criminals of all kinds – including gang members, some child molesters, and
absconders (i.e., “aliens who have already had their day in court [and who are now]
subject to…removal” [covering “more than 636,000 fugitives”]) are eligible for the
bill’s mass amnesty;
The grand bargain immigration bill proposed in the senate would leave US
citizens with disproportionate tuition rates
Senator Sessions, NumbersUSA. “Senate Proposal is Full of Holes”.
https://www.numbersusa.com/PDFs/LoopholesInS1348.pdf
“In-state tuition and other higher education benefits…will be made available
to current illegal aliens that are granted [amnesty], even if the same in-state
tuition rates are not offered to all US citizens,” a violation of current federal law,
which “mandates that educational institutions give citizens the same postsecondary
education benefits they offer to illegal aliens”;
Immigrants will be able to abuse path to citizenship system.
Heritage Foundation, Robert Rector 2007, 6/6/2007, “Amnesty Will Cost U.S.
Taxpayers at Least $2.6 Trillion”,
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2007/06/amnesty-will-cost-ustaxpayers-at-least-26-trillion
The Senate's immigration reform bill would offer amnesty and a path to citizenship
to the 12 million to 12.5 million illegal immigrants currently in the U.S. In addition,
its lax evidentiary standards would encourage millions more to apply for amnesty
fraudulently. Because there is no numeric limit on the number of amnesties that
could be granted under the bill, the actual number who would receive amnesty
under the bill could be far higher.¶ In general, under S. 1348, any person who was
illegally present inside U.S. borders on January 1, 2007, is eligible for Z visa status,
amnesty, and ultimately citizenship. Excluded from this rule are illegal immigrants
subject to a formal deportation order issued prior to enactment of the legislation
and illegal immigrants convicted of a felony or three misdemeanors prior to
enactment. The amnesty process consists of four stages leading to citizenship.
Pathway to citizenship would cost city governments
In LA, birthright citizenship costs taxpayers in L.A. $1 billion annually, not
including education costs
Center for Immigration Studies, Jon Feere, “Birthright Citizenship in the United States: A Global Comparison”, August 2010,
http://www.cis.org/articles/2010/birthright.pdf
Of course, states offer additional welfare benefits as well. Los Angeles County
Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich recently released data from the Los Angeles
County Department of Public Social Services indicating that children of illegal aliens
in Los Angeles Country received $50 million in welfare benefits during the month of
February 2010 alone. The report estimates that 23 percent of all CALWORKS and
food stamp issuances in Los Angeles County are to illegal immigrant parents who
collect on their U.S.-born children’s behalf. The supervisor estimates that illegal
immigration and birthright citizenship cost taxpayers in Los Angeles County
over $1 billion annually, not including education costs.6
Children of unauthorized immigrants take up 23% of all LA county welfare
and food stamp costs
LA Times. Teresa Watanabe. “LA County welfare to children of illegal immigrants grows.” 9/5/10.
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/sep/05/local/la-me-illegal-welfare-20100906
Welfare payments to children of illegal immigrants in Los Angeles County increased in
July to $52 million, prompting renewed calls from one county supervisor to rein in public
benefits to such families.
The new figure represents an increase of $3.7 million from July 2009 and makes up 23%
of all county welfare and food stamp assistance, according to county records.
40% of illegal alien-headed households receive some type of welfare,
compared to 19% of households headed by native born citizens
Center for Immigration Studies, Jon Feere, “Birthright Citizenship in the United States: A Global Comparison”, August 2010,
http://www.cis.org/articles/2010/birthright.pdf
Nationwide, 40 percent of illegal alien-headed households receive some type
of welfare. In some states, the rate is higher: in New York, 49 percent receive
welfare; in California, the rate is 48 percent; in Texas, it is 44 per- cent; and in
Georgia, 42 percent of illegal alien-headed households receive welfare.5Only 19
percent of households headed by native-born citizens make use of a major
welfare program.
Assuming no fraud 1.03 million illegal immigrants will enroll in public
institutions as a result of the DREAM Act
Steven A Camarota (Director of Research at the Center for Immigration Studies). Center
for Immigration Studies. Estimating the Impact of the DREAM Act. November 2010.
http://cis.org/dream-act-cost
Among the findings:
 Assuming no fraud, we conservatively estimate that 1.03
million illegal immigrants will eventually enroll in public
institutions (state universities or community colleges) as a
result of the DREAM Act. That is, they meet the residence and
age requirements of the act, have graduated high school, or will do
so, and will come forward.
DREAM Act does not provide funding to states and counties to cover the costs
it imposes; will require increased tuition or increased taxes for states to
finance
Steven A Camarota (Director of Research at the Center for Immigration Studies). Center
for Immigration Studies. Estimating the Impact of the DREAM Act. November 2010.
http://cis.org/dream-act-cost

The DREAM Act does not provide funding to states and
counties to cover the costs it imposes. Since enrollment and
funding are limited at public institutions, the act’s passage will
require some combination of tuition increases, tax increases
to expand enrollment, or a reduction in spaces available for
American citizens at these schools.
Chain migration
The children of immigrants can sponsor extended family members for
citizenship
CATO Institute, Will Wilkinson, “Arizona’s Latest Immigration Idea Makes Sense”, July 2 2010,
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=11952
There's ample reason to believe a change in policy could make America a more
immigrant-friendly place while simultaneously restricting the costly benefits of
citizenship. Though undocumented immigrants are ineligible for most forms of
government assistance, their America-born kids do qualify, which is no doubt an
attraction to some prospective immigrant parents. The hard-right Arizona State Sen.
Russell Pearce speaks for many Americans when he says birthright citizenship
"rewards lawbreakers." What's more, because these children, once grown, can
sponsor family members for authorized migration, they function as borderspanning bridges over which a retinue of relatives may trod. These relatives, once
naturalized, can in turn sponsor aunts and uncles and cousins without end.
Hence the fear of the "anchor baby," a gurgling demographic landmine set to
explode into a multi-headed invasion ofTelemundo fans.
66.1% of immigrants who were granted legal permanent residency are family
sponsored immigrants
Center for Immigration Studies, Jon Feere, “Birthright Citizenship in the United States: A Global Comparison”, August 2010,
http://www.cis.org/articles/2010/birthright.pdf
Family-sponsored immigration accounts for most of the nation’s growth in
immigration levels. Of the 1,130,818 immigrants who were granted legal
permanent residency in 2009, a total of 747,413 (or, 66.1 percent) were
family-sponsored immigrants.
Hospital overcrowding
Unauthorized Immigrants are a major factor behind emergency room closures
and crowding; 22% of the deaths in San Diego emergency rooms would have
been prevented if there was less overcrowding
The Social Contract Press. Edwin S Rubenstein. “Hospital Infrastructure – Immigration and Infrastructure.” Winter 2008-2009
http://www.thesocialcontract.com/artman2/publish/tsc_19_2/tsc_19_2_hospitals.shtml
Illegal immigration is a major factor behind the ED emergency. On the demand side,
illegal aliens utilize hospital EDs at more than twice the rate of the overall U.S.
population: 29 percent versus 11 percent.10 On the supply side, uncompensated illegal
alien care is the cause of many ED closures.
But EDs are an endangered species. The number of EDs fell from 5,108 in 1991 to 4,587
in 2006—a 10-percent decline. Over the same period ED visits increased by a whopping
33.8 percent. A Centers for Disease Control (CDC) study found that half of EDs
experienced overcrowding in 2003 and 2004. An ED is deemed to be “crowded” if
ambulances had to be diverted to other hospitals; if average waiting time for urgent cases
was 60 minutes or more; or if at least 3 percent of patients left before being treated.8
People die from these delays. Autopsies of accident victims who died after reaching
EDs in San Diego hospitals suggested that 22 percent of the deaths were
preventable.9
A pathway to citizenship would strain entitlement programs
Providing citizenship has huge net-retirement costs for immigrants.
Heritage Foundation, Robert Rector 2007, 6/6/2007, “Amnesty Will Cost U.S.
Taxpayers at Least $2.6 Trillion”,
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2007/06/amnesty-will-cost-ustaxpayers-at-least-26-trillion
Giving amnesty to illegal immigrants will greatly increase long-term costs to the
taxpayer. Granting amnesty to illegal immigrants would, over time, increase their
use of means-tested welfare, Social Security, and Medicare. Fiscal costs would rise in
the intermediate term and increase dramatically when amnesty recipients reach
retirement. Although it is difficult to provide a precise estimate, it seems likely that
if 10 million adult illegal immigrants currently in the U.S. were granted amnesty, the
net retirement cost to government (benefits minus taxes) could be over $2.6
trillion.¶ The calculation of this figure is as follows. As noted above, in 2007 there
were, by the most commonly used estimates, roughly 10 million adult illegal
immigrants in the U.S. Most illegal immigrants are low-skilled. On average, each
elderly low-skill immigrant imposes a net cost (benefits minus taxes) on the
taxpayers of about $17,000 per year. The major elements of this cost are Social
Security, Medicare, and Medicaid benefits. (The figure includes federal state and
local government costs.) If the government gave amnesty to 10 million adult illegal
immigrants, most of them would eventually become eligible for Social Security and
Medicare benefits or Supplemental Security Income and Medicaid benefits.¶
However, not all of the 10 million adults given amnesty would survive until
retirement at age 67. Normal mortality rates would reduce the population by
roughly 15 percent before age 67. That would mean 8.5 million individuals would
reach age 67 and enter retirement.¶ Of those reaching 67, their average remaining
life expectancy would be around 18 years.[17] The net cost to taxpayers of these
elderly individuals would be around $17,000 per year.[18] Over 18 years, the cost
would equal $306,000 per elderly amnesty recipient. A cost of $306,000 per
amnesty recipient multiplied by 8.5 million amnesty recipients results in a total net
cost of $2.6 trillion.¶ These costs would not occur immediately. The average adult
illegal immigrant is now in his early thirties; thus, it will be 25 to 30 years before the
bulk of amnesty recipients reaches retirement. At their peak level, it appears the
amnesty recipients will expand the number of beneficiaries under Social
Security by 5 to 10 percent. This will occur at a point when Social Security will
already be running deficits of over $200 billion annually.¶ This is a rough
estimate. More research should be performed, but policymakers should examine
these potential costs very carefully before rushing to grant amnesty, "Z visas," or
"earned citizenship" to the current illegal immigrant population.
The children of unauthorized immigrants can garner welfare benefits for their
unauthorized family members
Center for Immigration Studies, Jon Feere, “Birthright Citizenship in the United States: A Global Comparison”, August 2010,
http://www.cis.org/articles/2010/birthright.pdf
Most benefits Americans would regard as “welfare” are not accessible to illegal
immigrants. However, illegal immigrants can obtain welfare benefits such as
Medicaid and food stamps on behalf of their U.S.-born children. Many of the
welfare costs associated with illegal immigration, therefore, are due to the current
birthright citizenship policy. Put another way, greater efforts at barring illegal
aliens from federal welfare programs will not significantly reduce costs
because their citizen children can continue to access the benefits. Nationwide,
40 percent of illegal alien-headed households receive some type of welfare.
The number of Mexican immigrants living in poverty is double the native rate
Center for Immigration Studies, “Poverty and Income”, 2001,
http://www.cis.org/articles/2001/mexico/poverty.html
Mexican Immigrants Have Very High Poverty Rates. Poverty among immigrants
in general and Mexican immigrants in particular is significantly higher than that of
natives. In 1999, 11.2 percent of natives (compared to 16.8 percent of all immigrants)
lived in poverty. The poverty rate for Mexican immigrants is dramatically higher than
that of natives or immigrants in general. In 1999, 25.8 percent of Mexican-born
immigrants lived in poverty � more than double the rate for natives. In other words,
despite the current economic expansion, about one in four Mexican immigrants lives
in poverty, compared to about one in ten natives.
Illegal immigration strains school resources
Tuition hikes may increase the dropout rate
Steven A Camarota (Director of Research at the Center for Immigration Studies). Center
for Immigration Studies. Estimating the Impact of the DREAM Act. November 2010.
http://cis.org/dream-act-cost

Tuition hikes will be particularly difficult for students, as many
Americans already find it difficult to pay for college. Research
indicates that one out of three college students drops out
before receiving a degree. Costs are a major reason for the
high dropout rate.
Amnesty will only lead to an increased burden on the budgets of states that
are not enrolling many illegal aliens or reduced access for citizens
Jack Martin and Eric A. Ruark, Directors of Specials Projects and Research. The Federation for American
Immigration Reform. “The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on United States Taxpayers.” February
2011. http://www.fairus.org/DocServer/USCostStudy_2010.pdf
It should be noted that if an amnesty for illegal aliens were adopted —
whether the general amnesty as proposed by rep. gutierrez (h.r.4321), or the
schumer-graham outline, or a more limited amnesty for students as proposed
in the dream act — the consequences would be either a larger fiscal burden on
the states that are not enrolling illegal alien students at in-state rates or
reduced access for u.s.-born students and children of legal immigrants — or a
combination of both. That burden would be further increased by these same
students competing for limited financial aid.
Conservative estimates put the children of illegal aliens costing state and local
governments $41 billion annually for K-12 education
Jack Martin and Eric A. Ruark, Directors of Specials Projects and Research. The Federation for American
Immigration Reform. “The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on United States Taxpayers.” February
2011. http://www.fairus.org/DocServer/USCostStudy_2010.pdf
Based on an estimate of slightly more than 3.5 million children of illegal aliens in
public schools, the total cost of K-12 education to state and local governments
is about $40.9 billion annually. Our estimate is conservative also because our
state studies have identified the fact that average educational expenditures
tend to be higher in metropolitan areas, which are more heavily impacted by
illegal migration.
Self deportation solves our immigration problems better than
comprehensive immigration reform (i.e. pathway to citizenship)
People in the United States should stop viewing immigration reform as a
dichotomy to better solve the issue of illegal immigration
Kris W. Kobach. Tulsa Journal of Comparative and International Law, “Attrition through Enforcement: A
Rational Approach to Illegal Immigration”. Volume 15, Issue 2, Article 3. 2007.
This is a truly curious assertion. In no other area of law do serious people
suggest that the only options are either pursuing total enforcement in order to
achieve zero violations, or granting amnesty and thereby accommodating
lawbreaking. No one claims that the only options regarding driving under the
influence are mandatory breathalyzer checks at every bar and restaurant
prior to allowing patrons to drive home, versus the elimination of penalties
for driving under the influence. No one claims that the only options in
confronting theft are the imposition of a police state with an officer on every
block versus amnesty for all thieves.
There is no credible threat posed against illegal immigrants because of the
inefficiency of ICE, which will always leave the door open
Kris W. Kobach. Tulsa Journal of Comparative and International Law, “Attrition through Enforcement: A
Rational Approach to Illegal Immigration”. Volume 15, Issue 2, Article 3. 2007.
There is no credible threat of enforcement against most illegal aliens because
the U.S. Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has only
approximately 3,000 interior enforcement agents attempting to cover the
entire country. 2 Most police departments in large cities have more officers than
ICE does. Due to ICE's inadequate manpower, illegal aliens know that the
probability of actually encountering federal immigration enforcement officers
is very low. In this environment, the rule of law has eroded persistently and
pervasively.
Forcing businesses to verify the citizenship of their employees leads to selfdeportation for illegal immigrants who cannot find jobs
Kris W. Kobach. Tulsa Journal of Comparative and International Law, “Attrition through Enforcement: A
Rational Approach to Illegal Immigration”. Volume 15, Issue 2, Article 3. 2007.
When employers verify the employment authorization of every new employee
with the federal government it becomes difficult, if not impossible, for
unauthorized aliens to obtain jobs. Unauthorized aliens know that E-Verify makes
it impossible for them to fabricate Social Security numbers and use counterfeit
identity cards to deceive employers. And when the jobs dry up, unauthorized
aliens self-deport.
The Arizona statute about businesses verifying employee citizenship
immediately lead to the self-deportation of thousands of illegal immigrants
Kris W. Kobach. Tulsa Journal of Comparative and International Law, “Attrition through Enforcement: A
Rational Approach to Illegal Immigration”. Volume 15, Issue 2, Article 3. 2007.
Arizona's statute had immediate and profound effects. Newspapers in the state
reported in January 2008 that illegal aliens were already self-deporting by the
thousands. 5 Apartment complexes in Phoenix and Tucson confirmed that
thousands of alien tenants had vacated their apartments. 6
The self-deportation of thousands of illegal immigrants led to almost $50
million in public school budgets appearing
Kris W. Kobach. Tulsa Journal of Comparative and International Law, “Attrition through Enforcement: A
Rational Approach to Illegal Immigration”. Volume 15, Issue 2, Article 3. 2007.
The overburdened Arizona public school system saw its costs drop dramatically
with the departure of illegal alien households; a $48.6 million surplus
suddenly appeared in FY 2008.
The number of illegal immigrant Pakistanis who self-deported is 10x greater
than the amount the US deported
Kris W. Kobach. Tulsa Journal of Comparative and International Law, “Attrition through Enforcement: A
Rational Approach to Illegal Immigration”. Volume 15, Issue 2, Article 3. 2007.
As the process moved forward, some 1500 Pakistanis who had been
unlawfully present in the United States were deported by the federal
government. However, the more salient figure is the number of self-deportations
that occurred. According to the government of Pakistan, approximately 15,000
illegal aliens from Pakistan left the United States on their own.
Approximately 183,000 illegal aliens self-deport every year
Kris W. Kobach. Tulsa Journal of Comparative and International Law, “Attrition through Enforcement: A
Rational Approach to Illegal Immigration”. Volume 15, Issue 2, Article 3. 2007.
According to federal government figures from the year 2000, approximately
183,000 illegal aliens self-deport every year. 16 However, some 900,000 to
1,000,000 illegal aliens enter the country or overstay their visas annually. 17 If
Congress were to take the necessary steps to make attrition through enforcement a
reality, it would become extremely difficult for aliens to obtain unauthorized
employment, and the probability of facing enforcement for the typical illegal
alien would increase substantially.
Employment
A pathway to citizenship will help naturalize “children” up to the age of 30 and
will force them to compete with unemployed Americans for scarce jobs
Lamar Smith, Texas Congressman and chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. “Obama’s Amnesty
Hurts American Taxpayers”. July 6, 2012.
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2012/07/06/lamar-smith-obamas-amnesty-hurtsamerican-taxpayers
The president is misleading the American people when he says children will benefit
from this amnesty. Under this major policy change, illegal immigrants who
were brought to the United States as children up to the age of 30 will be
allowed to remain—not exactly children. These illegal immigrants will likely
receive work authorization and compete with unemployed Americans for
scarce jobs.
Amnesty will hurt the unemployment rate of Hispanics
Lamar Smith, Texas Congressman and chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. “Obama’s Amnesty
Hurts American Taxpayers”. July 6, 2012.
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2012/07/06/lamar-smith-obamas-amnesty-hurtsamerican-taxpayers
The truth is that President Obama's record of job-killing policies has hurt Hispanics.
One million fewer Americans are working today than when the president took
office. The unemployment rate for Hispanics is above 11 percent, about 3
points higher than the national unemployment rate. And President Obama's
amnesty will further diminish job opportunities for Hispanics struggling to find a job
and make ends meet
Amnesty will create competition in the job market that will only harm citizens
and legal residents
Jack Martin and Eric A. Ruark, Directors of Specials Projects and Research. The Federation for American
Immigration Reform. “The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on United States Taxpayers.” February
2011. http://www.fairus.org/DocServer/USCostStudy_2010.pdf
The argument is that an amnesty would help illegal aliens compete for better jobs,
thereby raising the income and the taxes they pay. That argument would appear
to make sense until it is understood in terms of against whom they would
compete for those better jobs, i.e., U.S. citizens and legal residents. While that
competition might benefit employers, it would harm job seekers.
Illegal immigrants are more likely to commit crimes
In 2005, 6.7% of all prisoners were non-citizens, increasing to 9% by 2008
Jack Martin and Eric A. Ruark, Directors of Specials Projects and Research. The Federation for American
Immigration Reform. “The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on United States Taxpayers.” February
2011. http://www.fairus.org/DocServer/USCostStudy_2010.pdf
According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), at midyear 2005, state and
federal correctional authorities held 91,117 non-U.S. citizens (6.7% of all
prisoners). 27 That number increased to 96,703 in 2007. 28 More recently,
based on detention facilities that reported data, non-U.S. citizens made up 9.0
percent of their total local jail population in 2008.
In 2004 the illegal alien population in prisons was about 56,280 with an
annual cost of 24,500 per prisoner. In 2010 that cost reached 27,700 per
prisoner alongside an increase of the amount of prisoners
Jack Martin and Eric A. Ruark, Directors of Specials Projects and Research. The Federation for American
Immigration Reform. “The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on United States Taxpayers.” February
2011. http://www.fairus.org/DocServer/USCostStudy_2010.pdf
If the same share of the federal prison population in 2004 still applies, this implies
a deportable illegal alien population of about 56,280 inmates. The annual
expenditure per prisoner in 2004 was about $24,500. The effect of inflation is
likely to have increased that annual level of expenditure today to at least
$27,700 per prisoner.
Illegal immigrants who have been incarcerated cost the US $1.8-3.5 billion
annually
Michael T. Eskey, Park University. “Crimes of Illeal Immigrants”. Professional Issues in Criminal Justice
Vol 3(3), 2008. http://www.picj.org/docs/issue7/PICJ%20V3N3Eskey%2043-62.2.pdf
Hagan and Palloni (1998) address the concern of illegal immigrant incarceration
with estimates that 4 to 7 percent of the 1.5 million persons held in American
jails and prisons are non-citizens, draining the system of $1.8 to 3.5 billion
annually
States spend hundreds of millions to incarcerate illegal aliens
Michael T. Eskey, Park University. “Crimes of Illeal Immigrants”. Professional Issues in Criminal Justice
Vol 3(3), 2008. http://www.picj.org/docs/issue7/PICJ%20V3N3Eskey%2043-62.2.pdf
Further, a number of individual states incur costs in the tens and hundreds of
millions of dollars to incarcerate illegal aliens in state prisons, reformatories,
and local holding facilities.
Even a 1% crime rate of the illegal immigrant population (12 million) would
be huge (120,000 crimes per year)
Michael T. Eskey, Park University. “Crimes of Illeal Immigrants”. Professional Issues in Criminal Justice
Vol 3(3), 2008. http://www.picj.org/docs/issue7/PICJ%20V3N3Eskey%2043-62.2.pdf
With an estimated 12 million illegal aliens living in the United States, even a 1
percent crime rate would be 120,000 crimes per year. And the number is much
higher in cities and states with heavy concentrations of illegal immigrants (Pew
Hispanic Center, 2006).
Illegal immigrants murder 12 Americans every day, which amounts to more
than 22,000 US deaths at the hands of illegal immigrants than military deaths
since 9/11
Michael T. Eskey, Park University. “Crimes of Illeal Immigrants”. Professional Issues in Criminal Justice
Vol 3(3), 2008. http://www.picj.org/docs/issue7/PICJ%20V3N3Eskey%2043-62.2.pdf
Joseph Farah (2006) reports that illegal aliens murder 12 Americans every day.
Based on a number of sources, this estimate represents 4,380 Americans
murdered annually by illegal aliens, or 25,550 since September 11, 2001
compared with 3,668 members of the U.S. military killed between September
11, 2001 and August 4, 2007. Representative Steve King (R-Iowa) reports that an
additional 13 Americans are killed daily by drunk illegal alien drivers, for another
annual death toll of 4,745 (Farah, 2006, p. 2), or 27,679 since September 11, 2001.
A study conducted in Pennsylvania found 73 illegal immigrants charged over
400 times
Michael T. Eskey, Park University. “Crimes of Illeal Immigrants”. Professional Issues in Criminal Justice
Vol 3(3), 2008. http://www.picj.org/docs/issue7/PICJ%20V3N3Eskey%2043-62.2.pdf
A study conducted in Hazelton, Pennsylvania, of 100 illegal immigrants arrested by
local and state authorities in 2004 found that 73 of the 100 illegal immigrants
were charged 429 times for violations ranging from traffic tickets to weapon
possession (Driscoll & Langlois, 2007).
A study conducted in Los Angeles found that 95% of all warrants for homicide
were directed at illegal aliens
Michael T. Eskey, Park University. “Crimes of Illeal Immigrants”. Professional Issues in Criminal Justice
Vol 3(3), 2008. http://www.picj.org/docs/issue7/PICJ%20V3N3Eskey%2043-62.2.pdf
In Los Angeles, McDonald (2004) found that 95 percent of all outstanding
warrants for homicide target illegal aliens.
There is a disproportionate relationship between the amount of illegal
immigrants in the United States and the amount of illegal immigrants in
prisons (7.2% vs 12.9%)
Michael T. Eskey, Park University. “Crimes of Illeal Immigrants”. Professional Issues in Criminal Justice
Vol 3(3), 2008. http://www.picj.org/docs/issue7/PICJ%20V3N3Eskey%2043-62.2.pdf
A GAO briefing (2005) reports that according to a 2003 U.S. Census survey, although
non-citizens account for 7.2 percent of the total U.S. population, their share of
the incarcerated population that year was 12.9 percent. A finding by the
Federation for American Immigration (FAIR, 2006) concluded that while adult
illegal aliens represented 2.94 percent of the total adult population of the
country in 2003, the illegal alien prison population represented a bit more
than 4.54 percent of the overall prison population. Therefore, deportable
criminal aliens were nearly twice as likely to be incarcerated as their share of
the population.
A 2006 study found that every day 93 sex offenders and 12 serial sexual
offenders enter the US illegally every day, averaging 4 victims each for a total
of 960,000 victims total
Michael T. Eskey, Park University. “Crimes of Illeal Immigrants”. Professional Issues in Criminal Justice
Vol 3(3), 2008. http://www.picj.org/docs/issue7/PICJ%20V3N3Eskey%2043-62.2.pdf
Dr. Deborah Schurman-Kauflin (2006) found rather conflicting results concerning
illegal alien involvement in crime and the dangerous threat from illegal alien sex
predators. The 1,500 cases she analyzed occurred over seven years (1999 to 2006)
and included serial rapes, serial homicides, and child molestations committed by
illegal aliens in California, Texas, Arizona, New Jersey, New York, and Florida.
Schurman-Kauflin interpolated the data from 1,500 to the estimated 12,000,000
population of illegal immigrants, composed mainly of young males. The ICE reports
and public records she reviewed revealed a consistent finding of sex offenders of
2 percent of illegal immigrants apprehended. “Based on this 2% figure, which
is conservative, there are approximately 240,000 illegal immigrant sex
offenders in the United States” (p. 1). According to Schurman-Kauflin, This
translates to 93 sex offenders and 12 serial sexual offenders coming across
U.S. borders illegally per day. The 1500 offenders in this study had a total of
5,999 victims. Each sex offender averaged 4 victims. This placed the estimate
for victimization numbers around 960,000 for the 88 months examined in this
study (p. 1).
Some of the most violent criminals in the country are illegal immigrants
Michael T. Eskey, Park University. “Crimes of Illeal Immigrants”. Professional Issues in Criminal Justice
Vol 3(3), 2008. http://www.picj.org/docs/issue7/PICJ%20V3N3Eskey%2043-62.2.pdf
In a similar finding, MacDonald (2004) found that “[s]ome of the most violent
criminals at large today are illegal aliens. Yet in cities where the crime
committed by aliens is highest, the police cannot use the most obvious tool to
apprehend them: their immigration status” (p. 1). MacDonald's article focuses on
Los Angeles, California, which represents the largest concentration of a foreign-born
population at 9.4 million (27 percent); 2.2 million of the population are illegal
residents. Gang life for many illegal aliens in cities such as Los Angeles leads to
crime as the individual’s major occupation.
A pathway to citizenship would be practically infeasible
Less than half of Hispanic immigrants are eligible to naturalize
Leslie Berestein Rojas, Southern California Public Radio. “If Senate path to citizenship becomes law, how
many immigrants will take advantage?”. June 27, 2013.
http://www.scpr.org/blogs/multiamerican/2013/06/27/14118/if-senate-path-to-citizenship-becomeslaw-how-many/
Only 46% of Hispanic immigrants eligible to naturalize (become citizens)
have, compared with 71% percent of all immigrants who are not Hispanic and
are eligible to naturalize. The naturalization rate is particularly low among the
largest group of Hispanic immigrants – Mexicans – among whom just 36% have
naturalized
History shows that many illegal immigrants won’t accept a pathway to
citizenship; in the past, more than half of the roughly 3 million illegal
immigrants given legal residency chose not to naturalize
Rebecca Kaplan, National Journal. “Walking the Path to Citizenship”. September 2, 2013.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/daily/walking-the-path-to-citizenship-20130902
That won't be the case for everyone. Even if a law is passed that offers illegal
immigrants the chance to gain legal status and citizenship, history shows that
many will not take advantage of the opportunity. A study conducted by the
Homeland Security Department found that of the 2.7 million people who were given
legal permanent resident status under the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control
Act, only 41 percent chose to naturalize by 2009.
45% of illegal immigrants are unable to naturalize because of either
insufficient English or insufficient funds
Rebecca Kaplan, National Journal. “Walking the Path to Citizenship”. September 2, 2013.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/daily/walking-the-path-to-citizenship-20130902
More than nine in 10 Latino legal permanent residents express a desire to
naturalize, but 45 percent have cited personal or administrative barriers to
applying, such as insufficient English (26 percent). Nearly all of those who cite
administrative barriers (18 percent) say the $680 cost of a citizenship
application is prohibitive—and undocumented immigrants being offered
provisional status would have to pay additional fines before even getting the chance
to naturalize.
We should increase the amount of visa holders instead
Immigration reform will help regulate the flow of temporary visa holders,
leading to an approximate annual gain of $260 billion for American
households
Stuart Anderson, the Cato Institute. “Answering the Critics of Comprehensive Immigration Reform”. May
9, 2011. http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/tbp-032.pdf
Replacing the current flow of illegal immigrants with legal temporary visa holders
would also be a gain for taxpayers. A 2009 study for the Cato Institute by Peter
Dixon and Maureen Rimmer, both with the Centre of Policy Studies at Monash
University in Australia, compared various scenarios and concluded that U.S.
households would gain approximately $260 billion a year with a new law that
permitted widespread use of legal temporary visas as compared to increased
border enforcement.10
Immigration reform that reduces the supply of illegal immigrants will end up
costing the US billions
Stuart Anderson, the Cato Institute. “Answering the Critics of Comprehensive Immigration Reform”. May
9, 2011. http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/tbp-032.pdf
Using an economic model developed for the U.S. International Trade Commission,
Dixon and Rimmer compared an increase in border enforcement—basically a
continuation of current U.S. policies—to a new policy of significant use of temporary
visas. A scenario of increased border enforcement that reduces the supply of
illegal immigrants by 28.6 percent would lead to a cost of $80 billion a year for
U.S. households, according to Dixon and Rimmer. U.S. household welfare would
be similarly reduced if stricter interior enforcement reduced illegal
immigration and shifted employer costs to paying for unproductive activities
related to legal compliance.
Immigration reform that increases the amount of temporary visas would lead
to welfare gains for US households around $170 billion
Stuart Anderson, the Cato Institute. “Answering the Critics of Comprehensive Immigration Reform”. May
9, 2011. http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/tbp-032.pdf
In contrast, a policy that relied on increases in temporary visas would achieve
a “welfare gain for U.S. households . . . equivalent to 1.19 percent of the gross
national product, or $170 billion.” U.S. households would gain even more, the
researchers note, from implementing a visa tax. Dixon and Rimmer write, “This
[policy] would eliminate smugglers’ fees and other costs faced by illegal immigrants.
It would also allow immigrants (now guest workers rather than illegals) to have
higher productivity. Both effects create a surplus gain for the economy by raising
the value of immigrant labor relative to the wage necessary to attract it. This surplus
can then be extracted for the benefit of U.S. households.”11
Immigration reform will include a better designed temporary worker visa
system than the one currently in place
Stuart Anderson, the Cato Institute. “Answering the Critics of Comprehensive Immigration Reform”. May
9, 2011. http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/tbp-032.pdf
“Another ‘amnesty’ will beget more amnesties.” Response: Legalization is not
necessarily an “amnesty”; it can include fines and other conditions for
legalization. The 1986 law failed because it did not include a well-designed
temporary worker visa system.
More immigrants = more disease
Many TB cases sprout from illegal immigrants
Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, Madeleine Cosman, “Illegal Aliens and American Medicine”, Spring 2005,
http://www.jpands.org/vol10no1/cosman.pdf
TB was virtually absent in Virginia until in 2002, when it spikeda 17 percent increase, but
Prince William County, just south ofWashington, D.C., had a much larger rise of 188 percent.
Publichealth officials blamed immigrants. In 2001 the Indiana School ofMedicine studied an
outbreak of MDR-TB, and traced it toMexican illegal aliens. The Queens, New York, health
departmentattributed 81 percent of new TB cases in 2001 to immigrants. TheCenters for
Disease Control and Prevention ascribed 42 percent of
all new TB cases to “foreign born” people who have up to eight times higher incidence.
Apparently, 66 percent of all TB cases coming to America originate in Mexico, the
Philippines, andVietnam. Virulent TB outbreaks afflicted schoolteachers andchildren in
Michigan, adults and children in Texas, and
policemen in Minnesota. Recently TB erupted in Portland, Maine, and Del Rey Beach, Florida
Illegal immigration has resulted in the proliferation of drug resistant tb, which
costs more than a hundred times more to treat than normal tb
Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, Madeleine Cosman, “Illegal Aliens and American Medicine”, Spring 2005,
http://www.jpands.org/vol10no1/cosman.pdf
Many illegals who cross our borders have tuberculosis. That dis-ease had largely
disappeared from America, thanks to excellent hy-giene and powerful modern drugs such as
isoniazid and rifampin.
TB’s swift, deadly return now is lethal for about 60 percent of thoseinfected because of new
Multi-Drug Resistant Tuberculosis (MDR-TB). Until recently MDR-TB was endemic to
Mexico. This M is resistant to at least two major antitubercular drugs. Ordinary TB
usually is cured in six months with four drugs that cost about $2,000. MDR-TB takes
24 months with many expensive drugs that cost around $250,000,with toxic side
effects. Each illegal with MDR-TB coughs and infects 10 to 30 people, who will not
show symptoms immediately.
Al Qaeda could exploit a pathway to citizenship
Al Qaeda could take advantage of birthright citizenship to create the perfect
terrorist
Center for Immigration Studies, “Birthright Citizenship for the Children of Visitors: A National Security Problem in the Making”,
March 2011, http://cis.org/birthright-citizenship-for-visitors
But it is easy to envision an entirely different and chilling scenario. Imagine a young
man born in the United States of non-immigrant parents and taken away at a very
early age, reared in Waziristan, educated in Islamist madrassas and trained in the
fundamentals of terror at one of the many camps in Southwestern Asia; someone
who has flown under the radar of U.S. and foreign intelligence agencies and is
therefore unknown to them. He would be entitled to walk into any American
embassy or consulate worldwide, bearing a certified copy of his birth certificate and
apply for — indeed, demand — a U.S. passport. That passport would entitle him to
enter and reside in the United States whenever and wherever he chose, secretly
harboring his hatred, an unknown sleeper agent of al Qaeda or any of the other
multitude of terrorist organizations with an anti-Western bias and a violent antiAmerican agenda, waiting for the call to arms. Nor is the potential damage limited
only to the American homeland. A U.S. passport is the gold standard for would-be
international terrorists, giving them ready access to virtually any country on earth
where they may elect to set up operations — say against American diplomats,
corporate interests, or even tourists. What is more, it is entirely likely that such
individuals would be dual nationals and thus carry with them two legitimate
passports (in addition to any they may have acquired of a false or fraudulent
nature). Selective use of those passports in passing through different countries
makes it exceedingly difficult for U.S. and allied intelligence, military, or border
security agencies to track such persons’ global travels and thus put them on the
radar, because they will go out of their way to keep the U.S. passport clean of visas
or entry and exit stamps from countries which would act as a red flag and cause
further examination of the person’s travels, background or views.
Granting amnesty and citizenship to the illegal immigrants within the U.S.
would cost half a trillion dollars—to all immigrants, 2 trillion dollars
Heritage Foundation, Robert Rector, “Importing Poverty: Immigration and Poverty in the U.S.: A Book of Charts”, October 25 2006,
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2006/10/importing-povertyimmigration-and-poverty-in-the-united-states-a-book-of-charts
In this way, the roughly six million legal immigrants without a high school diploma will impose a
net cost of around a half-trillion dollars on U.S. taxpayers over their lifetimes. The roughly five
million illegal immigrants without a high school diploma will cost taxpayers somewhat less
because illegal immigrants are eligible for fewer government benefits. However, if these illegal
immigrants were granted amnesty and citizenship, as proposed by the Bush Administration and
legislated in a recent Senate-passed immigration bill (S. 2611), they could cost taxpayers an
additional half-trillion dollars. In total, all immigrants without a high school education could impose
a net cost on U.S. taxpayers of around one trillion dollars or more. If the cost of educating
the immigrants' children is included, that figure could reach two trillion dollars.[4]
Amnesty enables fraud
All amnesties are subject to massive fraud, includes the risk of fraud by
terrorists
Mark Krikorian. The National Review. “Dream On” December 1, 2010.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/254180/dream-mark-krikorian
2. Next, all amnesties have at least three harmful consequences, and the DREAM Act
ignores all three. The first of these is massive fraud. Perhaps one-fourth of those
legalized under the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act received amnesty
fraudulently, including Mahmud Abouhalima, a leader of the first World Trade Center
attack. The fraud in that first big amnesty program was so pervasive as to be almost
comical, with people claiming work histories here that included picking watermelons
from trees and digging cherries out of the ground.
One-fourth of those receiving Amnesty in the 1986 IRCA received amnesty
fraudulently
Mark Krikorian. The National Review. “Dream On” December 1, 2010.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/254180/dream-mark-krikorian
2. Next, all amnesties have at least three harmful consequences, and the DREAM Act
ignores all three. The first of these is massive fraud. Perhaps one-fourth of those
legalized under the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act received amnesty
fraudulently, including Mahmud Abouhalima, a leader of the first World Trade Center
attack. The fraud in that first big amnesty program was so pervasive as to be almost
comical, with people claiming work histories here that included picking watermelons
from trees and digging cherries out of the ground.
The original World Trade Center bomber received amnesty in 1986
Mark Krikorian. The National Review. “Dream On” December 1, 2010.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/254180/dream-mark-krikorian
2. Next, all amnesties have at least three harmful consequences, and the DREAM Act
ignores all three. The first of these is massive fraud. Perhaps one-fourth of those
legalized under the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act received amnesty
fraudulently, including Mahmud Abouhalima, a leader of the first World Trade
Center attack. The fraud in that first big amnesty program was so pervasive as to be
almost comical, with people claiming work histories here that included picking
watermelons from trees and digging cherries out of the ground.
Rebuttal/Summary Responses
A2: Dream act style legislation
Dream-act style legislation unfairly rewards illegal immigrants and validates
their reason for illegally migrating to the US (getting their children citizenship
Ira Mehlman. Town Hall. “Five Moral Arguments Against the DREAM Act.” Jul
01, 2011
http://townhall.com/columnists/iramehlman/2011/07/01/five_moral_argumen
ts_against_the_dream_act/page/full
The DREAM Act fulfills the parents’ principle reason for breaking the law in the
first place. Ask the typical illegal alien why he or she came to United States
illegally, and invariably the answer is, “I wanted to do better for my family.” This
is a perfectly rational and understandable response, but not a justification for
violating the law. In essence, what the DREAM Act does is provide the
parents precisely what they sought when they brought their kids
illegally to the United States: a green card and all of the benefits that
America has to offer. Even if the bill were to include a provision that
DREAM Act beneficiaries could never sponsor the parents who
brought them to the country illegally, it would still fulfill the parents’
primary objective for bringing them here.
Each illegal immigrant who enrolls in a public institution under the DREAM
Act will cost taxpayers $6,000 for each year he or she attends, for a total cost
of 6.2 billion
Steven A Camarota (Director of Research at the Center for Immigration Studies). Center
for Immigration Studies. Estimating the Impact of the DREAM Act. November 2010.
http://cis.org/dream-act-cost

On average, each illegal immigrant who attends a public
institution will receive a tuition subsidy from taxpayers of
nearly $6,000 for each year he or she attends, for total cost of
$6.2 billion a year, not including other forms of financial
assistance they may also receive.
The Dream Act prohibits investigation and prosecution of fraudulent
applications, making it even harder for us to prevent abuses (including
terrorism)
Mark Krikorian. The National Review. “Dream On” December 1, 2010.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/254180/dream-mark-krikorian
And yet what does the DREAM Act say about fraud? As Sen. Jeff Sessions (R., Ala.)
points out in “Ten Things You Need To Know about S-3827, the DREAM Act,” the
measure “prohibits using any of the information contained in the amnesty
application (name, address, length of illegal presence that the alien admits to, etc.) to
initiate a removal proceeding or investigate or prosecute fraud in the application
process.” This is like playing a slot machine without having to put any money in — any
illegal alien can apply, and if he wins, great, but if he loses, he can’t be prosecuted even if
he lied through his teeth about everything. No amnesty proposal can be taken seriously
unless applicants are made to understand, right up front, that any lies, no matter how
trivial, will result in arrest and imprisonment.
The DREAM Act only requires two years of college, not a degree; it’s effects on
income would be limited
Steven A Camarota (Director of Research at the Center for Immigration Studies). Center
for Immigration Studies. Estimating the Impact of the DREAM Act. November 2010.
http://cis.org/dream-act-cost

Advocates of the DREAM Act argue that it will significantly increase
tax revenue, because with a college education, recipients will earn
more and pay more in taxes over their lifetime. However, several
factors need to be considered when evaluating this argument:
o Any hoped-for tax benefit is in the long-term, and will
not help public institutions deal with the large influx of
new students the act creates in the short-term.
o Given limited spaces at public institutions, there will
almost certainly be some crowding out of U.S.
citizens ─ reducing their lifetime earnings and tax
payments.
o The DREAM Act only requires two years of
college; no degree is necessary. The income
gains for having some college, but no degree, are
modest.
o Because college dropout rates are high, many illegal
immigrants who enroll at public institutions will not
complete the two years the act requires, so
taxpayers will bear the expense without a long-term
benefit.
A2: DREAM Act’s increased tax revenue will pay for itself in the long term; this
is fine but does not change the harms in the short term
Steven A Camarota (Director of Research at the Center for Immigration Studies). Center
for Immigration Studies. Estimating the Impact of the DREAM Act. November 2010.
http://cis.org/dream-act-cost

Advocates of the DREAM Act argue that it will significantly increase
tax revenue, because with a college education, recipients will earn
more and pay more in taxes over their lifetime. However, several
factors need to be considered when evaluating this argument:
o Any hoped-for tax benefit is in the long-term, and
will not help public institutions deal with the
large influx of new students the act creates in the
short-term.
o Given limited spaces at public institutions, there will
almost certainly be some crowding out of U.S.
citizens ─ reducing their lifetime earnings and tax
payments.
o The DREAM Act only requires two years of college;
no degree is necessary. The income gains for having
some college, but no degree, are modest.
o Because college dropout rates are high, many illegal
immigrants who enroll at public institutions will not
complete the two years the act requires, so
taxpayers will bear the expense without a long-term
benefit.
Legal Immigrants against DREAM Act because it is unfair
NumbersUSA. Legal Immigrants Speak Out Against the Dream Act. November
29, 2011. https://www.numbersusa.com/content/news/november-292011/legal-immigrants-speak-out-against-dream-act.html
Legal Immigrants in Maryland are speaking out against the state's new law
that will offer in-state tuition benefits to illegal aliens. According to a report
by the Washington Post, many legal immigrants in the state have joined forces
with a group leading the effort to repeal the law through a ballot initiative.
"I did the full legal process," Anuchit Washirapunya told theWashington
Post. "The illegal students have no right to work or stay here."
Advocacy group Help Save Maryland, along with Republican lawmakers in the
state, collected more than 100,000 signatures for a petition to hold a public
referendum on the issue. Groups that support the bill, including Casa de
Maryland, are challenging the petition effort in court since most signatures were
collected electronically. Until the courts rule on the challenge, the law's
enactment has been suspended.
Shakil Hamid, a legal immigrant from Bangladesh is also helping with the effort to
repeal the law.
"These people are taking seats in college away from our kids," Hamid told
the Post. "Why should we reward their dishonest behavior?"
In Montgomery County, where Casa de Maryland has several office locations,
any student who graduates from a county high school, regardless of immigration
status, receives a reduced rate at the county's community college. But legal
immigrants have mixed feelings about that policy as well.
"Everyone wants to get an education, but you can’t just come to this
country illegally and think everything is free. You have to be patient and
legalize yourself," said Josephine Beyam who studies nursing at the college
and came to the U.S. legally after waiting for four years. "We have been
through thick and thin. This country is a blessing, and the government is very
generous. If you are not born here, you have to start from the beginning, but I
accept that, because you can still pursue your dreams."
A dream act style deal would inspire even greater waves of illegal immigration
Ira Mehlman. Town Hall. “Five Moral Arguments Against the DREAM Act.” Jul
01, 2011
http://townhall.com/columnists/iramehlman/2011/07/01/five_moral_argumen
ts_against_the_dream_act/page/full
The DREAM Act would touch-off an even greater wave of illegal
immigration. Because the DREAM Act is being marketed as a moral
imperative – as opposed to a more general amnesty, which is sold as bowing to
reality – it comes with an absolute assurance that it will be repeated. If
we have a moral imperative to provide amnesty to the current
population of people who were brought here as kids, won’t we have
the same moral imperative for the next generation of people who
arrive under similar circumstances? The unmistakable message to
people all around the world is: Get over here and bring your kids.
America will feel morally obligated to give them green cards too.
The Dream Act would set a precedent that endorses and aids bad parenting,
which is not the right message to send
Ira Mehlman. Town Hall. “Five Moral Arguments Against the DREAM Act.” Jul
01, 2011
http://townhall.com/columnists/iramehlman/2011/07/01/five_moral_argumen
ts_against_the_dream_act/page/full
The DREAM Act absolves illegal aliens of their fundamental
responsibilities as parents. There is a fundamental principle that parents
are responsible for the consequences that their actions and choices have on
their kids. Unfortunately, children inevitably pay a price when parents
make bad decisions or break laws. The DREAM Act carves out a single
exception to this universal tenet of the social contract. The message it
sends is that if you violate U.S. immigration law, American society is
responsible for fixing the mess you created for your kids.
Because many (one-third) of college students drop out, the Dream Act will
force taxpayers to pay for many students without any long-term benefit or
return on our investment
Steven A Camarota (Director of Research at the Center for Immigration Studies). Center
for Immigration Studies. Estimating the Impact of the DREAM Act. November 2010.
http://cis.org/dream-act-cost

Advocates of the DREAM Act argue that it will significantly increase
tax revenue, because with a college education, recipients will earn
more and pay more in taxes over their lifetime. However, several
factors need to be considered when evaluating this argument:
o Any hoped-for tax benefit is in the long-term, and will
not help public institutions deal with the large influx of
new students the act creates in the short-term.
o Given limited spaces at public institutions, there will
almost certainly be some crowding out of U.S.
citizens ─ reducing their lifetime earnings and tax
payments.
o The DREAM Act only requires two years of college;
no degree is necessary. The income gains for having
some college, but no degree, are modest.
o Because college dropout rates are high, many
illegal immigrants who enroll at public
institutions will not complete the two years the
act requires, so taxpayers will bear the expense
without a long-term benefit.
In less than a decade, petitions for family members of DREAM recipients
would double or tripple the number of green cards given out by the original
act
Mark Krikorian. National Review. And the DREAM Shall Never Die. November 18,
2010.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/253506/and-dream-shall-never-diemark-krikorian
In addition to immediately putting an estimated 2.1 million illegal aliens
(including certain criminal aliens) on a path to citizenship, the DREAM Act will
give them access to in-state tuition rates at public universities, federal student
loans, and federal work-study programs.
Aliens granted amnesty by the DREAM Act will have the legal
right to petition for entry of their family members, including their
adult brothers and sisters and the parents who illegally brought or
sent them to the United States, once they become naturalized U.S.
citizens. In less than a decade, this reality could easily double or triple
the more than 2.1 million green cards that will be immediately
distributed as a result of the DREAM Act.
DREAM Act’s prohibition on deporting anyone with an application would
create a legal loophole for criminals to file fraudulent applications in order to
attain a safe harbor in the US
2. The DREAM Act PROVIDES SAFE HARBOR FOR ANY ALIEN,
Including Criminals, From Being Removed or Deported If They
Simply Submit An Application
Although DREAM Act proponents claim it will benefit only those who
meet certain age, presence, and educational requirements, amazingly the
Act protects ANY alien who simply submits an application for status no
matter how frivolous. The bill forbids the Secretary of Homeland
Security from removing “any alien who has a pending application for
conditional status” under the DREAM Act—regardless of age or
criminal record—providing a safe harbor for all illegal aliens. This
loophole will open the floodgates for applications that could stay
pending for many years or be litigated as a delay tactic to prevent the
illegal aliens’ removal from the United States. The provision will
further erode any chances of ending the rampant illegality and fraud
in the existing system.
Amnesty will invariably lead to a glut of lawsuits and fraudulent applications
that choke the system and inevitably lead to rubber stamp approvals of almost
every application
Coalition for the Future American Worker. An amnesty by any other name is still
an amnesty. No Date. Accessed 11/13/13.
http://www.americanworker.org/amnesty_handout2.htm
The various amnesty proposals would be the immigration bar association's
dream. Amnesty is almost guaranteed produce a glut of law suits that
would choke the system and inevitably lead to rubber stamp approvals of
almost every application. The sponsors of the 1986 amnesty freely admit
that countless people fraudulently obtained legalization because the
system simply could not be adequately policed.
Amnesty fails
We have twice as many illegal immigrants as we did prior to our first major
amnesty program, and new amnesty will only attract further immigration
Mark Krikorian. The National Review. “Dream On” December 1, 2010.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/254180/dream-mark-krikorian
3. Another problem with DREAM, which all amnesties share, is that it will attract
new illegal immigration. Prospective illegal immigrants, considering their options,
are more likely to opt to come if they see that their predecessors eventually hit the
jackpot. In 1986, we had an estimated 5 million illegals, 3 million of whom were
legalized. We now have more than twice as many as before the last amnesty, and
they’ve been promised repeatedly that if they hold out a little longer they’ll be able
to stay legally. Any new amnesty, even if only for those brought here as children,
will attract further illegal immigration.
Amnesty would depress the wages of low-paid native-born workers
New York Times. Hasty Call for Amnesty. February 22, 2000.
http://www.nytimes.com/2000/02/22/opinion/hasty-call-for-amnesty.html
But the A.F.L.-C.I.O.'s proposal should be rejected. Amnesty would undermine the
integrity of the country's immigration laws and would depress the wages of its
lowest-paid native-born workers.
Back in 1986, Congress granted amnesty to an estimated three million illegal
immigrants as part of a law that also promised to crack down on further illegal
immigration by imposing sanctions on employers who knowingly violated the law. At
that time, this page endorsed amnesty because it was tied to measures that promised
to keep further rounds of illegal immigration in check. But 14 years later there are
twice as many illegal workers, and employer sanctions are widely deemed a joke.
Workers pretend to show employers proof of citizenship or work visas and employers
pretend they do not know the proof is fake.
The primary problem with amnesties is that they beget more illegal immigration.
Demographers trace the doubling of the number of Mexican immigrants since 1990
in part to the amnesty of the 1980's. Amnesties signal foreign workers that American
citizenship can be had by sneaking across the border, or staying beyond the term of
one's visa, and hiding out until Congress passes the next amnesty. The 1980's
amnesty also attracted a large flow of illegal relatives of those workers who became
newly legal. All that is unfair to those who play by the immigration rules and wait
years to gain legal admission.
It is also unfair to unskilled workers already in the United States. Between about
1980 and 1995, the gap between the wages of high school dropouts and
all other workers widened substantially. Prof. George Borjas of Harvard
estimates that almost half of this trend can be traced to immigration of
unskilled workers. Illegal immigration of unskilled workers induced by
another amnesty would make matters worse. The better course of action is to
honor America's proud tradition by continuing to welcome legal immigrants and find
ways to punish employers who refuse to obey the law.
Amnesty will not improve illegal immigrants’ socioeconomic status: their
economic condition is attributed to their youth, low education and skill levels,
and their short stints with employers, not to their legal status
Peter Skerry. Brookings Institution. Why Amnesty is the Wrong Way to Go. August
12, 2001. http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2001/08/12immigration-skerry
Amnesty may seem, on the surface, to be a reasonable measure, but what specific
problems facing illegals does it redress? Research has shown that
undocumented immigrants get paid less than other workers. But the research
also attributes this fact not to the immigrants' legal status, but to their youth,
their low education and skill levels, their limited English proficiency and their
short stints with specific employers. In fact, there is a considerable body of
research indicating that the well-being of immigrants is less a function of their
legal status than of the length of time they have been in the United States. The
problems that beset undocumented immigrants diminish as they cease to
become transients (whether moving around in the U.S. or back and forth to
Mexico), settle down in more stable jobs and neighborhoods, pick up skills
and begin to familiarize themselves with English. And of course, the more time
illegals spend here, the more adept they become at avoiding the INS.
A2: A pathway to citizenship will reduce immigration
Double Bind: Force them to defend workplace verification and other programs
or concede illegal immigration will increase
(The Only way to prevent massive illegal immigration after creating or renewing a
path to citizenship is with stringent and “muscular” enforcement mechanisms for
illegals)
Mark Krikorian. The National Review. “Dream On” December 1, 2010.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/254180/dream-mark-krikorian
3. Another problem with DREAM, which all amnesties share, is that it will attract new
illegal immigration. Prospective illegal immigrants, considering their options, are
more likely to opt to come if they see that their predecessors eventually hit the
jackpot. In 1986, we had an estimated 5 million illegals, 3 million of whom were
legalized. We now have more than twice as many as before the last amnesty, and they’ve
been promised repeatedly that if they hold out a little longer they’ll be able to stay
legally. Any new amnesty, even if only for those brought here as children, will attract
further illegal immigration.
There’s really no way to prevent this, but to minimize it, you need stringent
enforcement measures. This was the logic of the 1986 law and the recent
“comprehensive immigration reform” proposals. The critique of such “grand bargains”
has been that the illegals get their amnesty but the promised enforcement never
materializes — and that critique remains valid. But if the sponsors of DREAM were
serious about addressing the plight of people brought here as infants and toddlers, they
would include muscular enforcement measures as proof of their bona fides. These
would include mandatory use of E-Verify for all new hires, explicit authorization of
state and local governments to enforce civil immigration law, and full
implementation of an exit-tracking system for all foreign visitors, for starters. And
the legal status of all the amnesty beneficiaries would remain provisional until the
enforcement measures were up and running and passed judicial muster. Even these might
not be sufficient to turn back a new wave of illegal immigration sparked by the amnesty,
but the lack of such measures speaks volumes about the real intentions of the DREAM
Act’s sponsors.
A2: Pathway to citizenship is necessary to attract/retain high
skilled workers
Immigrants have low education.
Heritage Foundation, Robert Rector 2007, 6/6/2007, “Amnesty Will Cost U.S.
Taxpayers at Least $2.6 Trillion”,
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2007/06/amnesty-will-cost-ustaxpayers-at-least-26-trillion
Illegal immigrants generally have very low education levels. As Chart 3 shows, 61
percent of illegal immigrant adults lack a high school diploma, 25 percent have only
a high school diploma, 5 percent have attended some college, and 9 percent are
college graduates, according to the Center for immigration Studies' estimates.[4]
The Pew Hispanic Center estimates slightly higher education levels: 49 percent
without a high school diploma, 25 percent with a high school diploma only, 10
percent with some college, and 15 percent with college degrees.[5] Overall, 49 to 61
percent of adult illegal immigrants lack a high school diploma, compared to 9
percent of native-born adults. Illegal Immigrants and poverty. Because of their low
education levels, illegal immigrants have a poverty rate that is roughly twice that of
native-born Americans. As Chart 4 shows, the poverty rate of children in illegal
immigrant families is 37 percent, compared to 17 percent among children in nonimmigrant families. The poverty rate among adult illegal immigrants is 27 percent,
compared to 13 percent among non-immigrant adults.
A2: We are punishing children for their parents’ actions
we are not punishing them, we are just not rewarding them for illegal actions,
it’s not a punishment to be told “no”
Ira Mehlman. Town Hall. “Five Moral Arguments Against the DREAM Act.” Jul
01, 2011
http://townhall.com/columnists/iramehlman/2011/07/01/five_moral_argumen
ts_against_the_dream_act/page/full
The absence of a reward or benefit is not the same as a
punishment.DREAM Act proponents repeatedly argue that by not
granting legal status to targeted beneficiaries we are, essentially, punishing
children for the sins of their parents. This is an absolutely specious claim.
By no stretch of the imagination are the children of illegal aliens
being punished. Not rewarding them with legal residence and
expensive college tuition subsidies is simply withholding
benefits to which they never had any entitlement in the first
place.
Analysis: We aren’t punishing the children of illegal immigrants
- the fact that you are not allowed to stay in our country unless
you have some form of legal residency is not a punishment, it is
a rule, and all we’re doing is enforcing it. When a teacher says
no toys during class and makes kids put their toys away, it’s not
a punishment, it’s an enforcement of a rule. Or, to mend more
with illegal immigration, when someone sneaks into Disneyland
and all Disneyland does is throw them out, they’re not being
punished, they’re simply being denied access to a place they
never were supposed to be. Surely, Disney isn’t “stealing” from
children whose family sneaks in whenever said family is told to
leave the park.
A2: Wages increased after immigration reform in 86
After the amnesty granted in 1986 wages only increased because of inflation
Jack Martin and Eric A. Ruark, Directors of Specials Projects and Research. The Federation for American
Immigration Reform. “The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on United States Taxpayers.” February
2011. http://www.fairus.org/DocServer/USCostStudy_2010.pdf
Wages for immigrants did rise after the 1986 amnesty. But so did wages in
general. It was an inflationary period. 2
While some illegal immigrants who were granted amnesty saw wage growth,
relative to other workers the gain was null
Jack Martin and Eric A. Ruark, Directors of Specials Projects and Research. The Federation for American
Immigration Reform. “The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on United States Taxpayers.” February
2011. http://www.fairus.org/DocServer/USCostStudy_2010.pdf
According to the Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS),
beneficiaries of the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) amnesty saw
inflation adjusted wages rise by a meager 15 percent between 1986 and 1991.
Relative to the wage gains of other workers, the legalized workers did not
make any gains. 3 Most of the workers — more than three-fifths — remained
in the same work that they had before the amnesty. 4
Rebuttal overview that answers lollipops and sunshine view of
illegal immigrants
Proponents of amnesty falsely paint the illegal immigrant population of the
United States as voluntarily paying taxes, otherwise law-abiding, and making a
valuable contribution to the country’s economy
Jack Martin and Eric A. Ruark, Directors of Specials Projects and Research. The Federation for American
Immigration Reform. “The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on United States Taxpayers.” February
2011. http://www.fairus.org/DocServer/USCostStudy_2010.pdf
Amnesty proponents have tried to paint a picture of an illegal alien population
that is already voluntarily paying taxes, is otherwise law-abiding, and making
a valuable economic contribution to the country. This is a complete distortion
of reality. The tax collection from illegal alien workers is seldom voluntary, and we
estimate that tax credit claims more than offset any income taxes collected from
illegal aliens. Furthermore, the taxes collected from illegal aliens are vastly
exceeded by the costs to the US taxpayer of the services they are able to access.
A2: The children of immigrants won’t be as reliant on welfare
Poverty persists across generations
Future of Children, George J. Borjas, “Poverty and Program Participation Among Immigrant Children”, Spring 2011,
http://futureofchildren.org/futureofchildren/publications/docs/21_01_11.pdf
The horizontal axis of the scatter diagram gives the poverty rates of immigrant
children (aged five to fifteen) by national origin group in 1994–96, and the vertical
axis gives the poverty rates thirteen years later for young immigrant adults aged
eighteen to twentyeight, the age range the immigrant children would now be. The
data show a positive correlation: The national origin groups with children
with the highest poverty rates become the groups with young adults with the
highest poverty rates.
Future of Children, George J. Borjas, “Poverty and Program Participation Among Immigrant Children”, Spring 2011,
http://futureofchildren.org/futureofchildren/publications/docs/21_01_11.pdf
Finally, the literature shows that the impact of childhood poverty persists into
adulthood.6 A poverty spell during childhood increases the probability that
the adult will have lower earnings and greatly increases the probability that
the adult will also experience a poverty spell. In other words, childhood poverty
breeds adult poverty.
The average income for adult Mexican immigrants is less than half that of
natives, and even after a decade their average income is only 70% of the
average native
Center for Immigration Studies, “Poverty and Income”, 2001,
http://www.cis.org/articles/2001/mexico/poverty.html
The average income for adult Mexican immigrants of $18,952 a year is less
than half that of natives. Not surprisingly, the figure also shows that average
income for Mexican immigrants rises significantly the longer they reside in
the United States. Although there is significant progress, Figure 10 indicates
that they never come close to matching the income level of natives. Even
Mexican immigrants who have lived in the country for more than three
decades still have an average income that is only 70 percent that of the
average native. As is the case for poverty and near poverty, the much lower income
of long-time Mexican immigrants is striking because these immigrants have had
ample time to become familiar with life in their new home country and are much
older than is the average native. Since income usually rises with workforce
experience, these long-time residents should have higher incomes than natives, but
in fact their incomes are much lower.
Even after 30 years, Mexican immigrants have significantly higher rates of
poverty than natives
Center for Immigration Studies, “Poverty and Income”, 2001,
http://www.cis.org/articles/2001/mexico/poverty.html
Poverty and Near-Poverty Over Time. Figure 8 reports the percentage of Mexican
immigrants and their U.S.-born children (under age 18) who live in or near poverty
based on how long they have lived in the United States.24 The figure shows strong
evidence that the income of Mexican immigrants increases significantly over time. Of
Mexicans who have lived in the country 10 years or less and their U.S.-born children,
35.4 percent are in poverty and 71.7 percent live in or near poverty. For those who have
lived in the country for 11 to 20 years, 28.9 percent are in poverty and 69.5 percent live
in or near poverty. Poverty and near poverty drops still further for those who have lived
in the United States between 21 and 30 years, with 20.1 percent living in poverty and
55.9 percent living in or near poverty. While Figure 8 indicates that Mexican
immigrants clearly make progress over time, poverty remains a significant
problem even after they have lived in the country for many years. Mexican
immigrants who have been in the country for 21 to 30 years still have rates of
poverty and near poverty that are significantly higher than those of natives, as do
those who have lived in the country for more than 30 years.
Center for Immigration Studies, “Poverty and Income”, 2001,
http://www.cis.org/articles/2001/mexico/poverty.html
While poverty among Mexican immigrants is certainly high, the figures cited
above actually understate the difference between Mexicans and U.S. natives
because the U.S.-born children of immigrants (under 18), who are by definition
natives, are not counted with their immigrant parents, but instead are included
in the figures for natives. Because a child�s standard of living reflects his
parents� income, however, it may be more reasonable to view poverty among
the native-born children of immigrants as attributable to their immigrant
parents. Figure 7 includes the U.S.-born children of immigrant mothers with
their parents. The figure shows that poverty among natives drops from 11.2
percent to 10.8 percent when the American-born children of immigrants
are excluded from the counts for natives. In contrast, poverty among Mexican
immigrants rises from 25.8 percent to 28.7 percent when their U.S.-born are
counted with them. Thus the poverty rates for Mexican immigrants and
their children is two and one-half times the rate for natives and their
children.
A2: Immigrants pay their fair share of taxes
Illegal immigrants are estimated to pay about $6 billion per year in taxes,
which has been largely overestimated
Jack Martin and Eric A. Ruark, Directors of Specials Projects and Research. The Federation for American
Immigration Reform. “The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on United States Taxpayers.” February
2011. http://www.fairus.org/DocServer/USCostStudy_2010.pdf
A 2004 study by the CIS put the estimated tax payments collected by the federal
government from illegal aliens at about $15.9 billion in 2002. 65 The IRS estimated
in 2006 that between 1996 and 2003 illegal aliens paid almost $50 billion in taxes.
66 That suggests an annual average of around $6.25 billion per year. Our
analysis suggests that both the CIS estimate and the IRS estimate significantly
overstate tax collections from illegal alien workers.
The net cost of each new immigrant on American society is $89,000 over the
course of his or her lifetime
Heritage Foundation, Robert Rector, “Importing Poverty: Immigration and Poverty in the U.S.: A Book of Charts”, October 25 2006,
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2006/10/importing-povertyimmigration-and-poverty-in-the-united-states-a-book-of-charts
Low-skill immigrants pay little in taxes and receive high levels of government benefits and
services. The National Academy of Sciences has estimated that each immigrant without a
high school degree will cost U.S. taxpayers, on average, $89,000 over the course of his or
her lifetime.[3] This is a net cost above the value of any taxes the immigrant will pay and does
not include the cost of educating the immigrant's children, which U.S. taxpayers would also
heavily subsidize.
For each thousand immigrants the U.S. admits without a college diploma, we
will suffer roughly 83 million in costs over their lifetime (cost attained by
dividing half a trillion by 6,000)
Heritage Foundation, Robert Rector, “Importing Poverty: Immigration and Poverty in the U.S.: A Book of Charts”, October 25 2006,
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2006/10/importing-povertyimmigration-and-poverty-in-the-united-states-a-book-of-charts
In this way, the roughly six million legal immigrants without a high school diploma will
impose a net cost of around a half-trillion dollars on U.S. taxpayers over their lifetimes.
The roughly five million illegal immigrants without a high school diploma will cost taxpayers
somewhat less because illegal immigrants are eligible for fewer government benefits.
One fifth of the poverty gap between immigrant children and natives persists
as they become adults (note that this figure includes the children of legal,
wealthier immigrants—the gap would be greater if only illegal immigrants
were included)
Future of Children, George J. Borjas, “Poverty and Program Participation Among Immigrant Children”, Spring 2011,
http://futureofchildren.org/futureofchildren/publications/docs/21_01_11.pdf
A relatively steep regression line suggests a substantial link between poverty rates
over time. In fact, the slope of the regression line in the top panel of figure 6 is 0.205
(with a standard error of 0.058).22 In other words, about a fifth of the poverty
gap between immigrant children in any two national origin groups in the
figure persists as immigrant children become young adults and set up their
own households. There is, therefore, some persistence in poverty rates in
immigrant households. Note, moreover, that the vast majority of these children
were born in the United States, so even among U.S.-born adults, ethnicity matters
quite a bit.
The poverty rate of immigrant children whose parents lack a high school
diploma is 40%, or 6 times higher than natives
Heritage Foundation, Robert Rector, “Importing Poverty: Immigration and Poverty in the U.S.: A Book of Charts”, October 25 2006,
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2006/10/importing-povertyimmigration-and-poverty-in-the-united-states-a-book-of-charts
Child poverty is to a great degree driven by the education level of the parent. The lower the level
of parental education the higher the probability of child poverty. Chart 9 shows the poverty rates
for children in first-generation immigrant and non-immigrant families based on the education level
of the head of the family.poverty rates among immigrant and non-immigrant children are similar
for children whose parents have similar levels of education. Obviously, the poverty rates among
children whose parents have low levels of education are far higher than the rates among children
of well-educated parents. For example, the poverty rate among immigrant children whose parents
lack a high school diploma (at 40.6 percent) is more than six times higher than the poverty rate
among immigrant children with college-educated parents (6.3 percent).
Children of illegal immigrants don’t graduate/complete less high school than
children of legal immigrants
Los Angeles Times. Teresa Watanabe. “Study finds gap for illegal Mexican migrant’s children.” 10/22/11.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/most-children-illegal-immigrants-l-don-t-graduate-200908918.html
The majority of children of illegal immigrants from Mexico in the Southland fail to
graduate from high school, completing an average of two fewer years of schooling than
their peers with legal immigrant parents, a new study has found.
The study found that children of illegal immigrants averaged 11 years of
education, compared with about 13 years for those whose parents were legal
residents. But once illegal immigrants found ways to legalize their status, the
study found, their children's educational levels rose substantially.
A2: Pathway to citizenship won’t solve our immigration problem
Amnesty alone doesn’t solve the problem
Linda Bosniak, Law professor at Rutgers, “Arguing for Amnesty”, 19 January
2012 Law, Culture and the Humanities .
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2038980
My conclusion is that, while amnesty for longer-term undocumented immigrants is
crucial, it is a half measure. To go back to the slavery analogy, it is akin to doing
away with the international slave trade (as the US did in 1808) without abolishing
the institution of slavery itself. The reality is that as long as there are border
controls, new undocumented immigrants will continue to be produced. And as long
as there are time bars to legalization, then we will still have people living and
working among us as legal and political outsiders. In other words, we will not have
abolished the system at all – we will just have cut down on the numbers somewhat
for a period of time.