The immigration debate is hot topic all over the country, and it has only heated up since Gov. Jan Brewer signed Arizona Senate Bill 1070 into law on April 23. The law is designed to reduce illegal immigration in the state with what writers of the bill call “attrition through enforcement.” Expectedly, both sides of the partisan divide are continually weighing in on this conversation. Even before the law was signed President Barack Obama offered his opinion on the issue calling the bill “misguided” and saying that it would “undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans.” He added further on the need for immigration reform at the federal level, “Our failure to act responsibly at the federal level will only open the door to irresponsibility by others”[1]. This stance and further examination of the law led the White House to file a Motion for Preliminary Injunction against the State of Arizona, arguing that immigration regulation is a federal power and S.B. 1070 is therefore preempted by federal law.
Judge Susan Bolton was assigned the case, and on July 28 she struck down many of the law’s most controversial provisions. Of those is a provision requiring police officers to attempt to determine the immigration status of a person when there is “reasonable suspicion” that person is in the U.S. illegally, and requires that a person’s immigration status be verified by the federal government for every arrest made by local law enforcement. Another provision allows local police to make warrant-less arrests for offences that would make the person removable from the U.S. Among the various explanations for enjoining the controversial law, Judge Bolton cited cost to the federal government, arrest or harassment of lawfully present aliens, and the difficulty of local law enforcement to determine whether an individual is removable from the U.S.[2]
Despite Judge Bolton’s decision, many proponents of stricter immigration controls are still at work in efforts to limit illegal immigration through “attrition by enforcement.” One major argument for this stance is the financial burden that illegal immigration places on the tax payers. In 2002 the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) produced a study finding that illegal aliens create a net $10.4 billion burden on the federal government due to welfare programs, prison and court costs and public education, with border states such as Arizona taking the brunt of those education costs. Although illegal aliens themselves are not eligible to participate in welfare programs, many have citizen children who were born in the United States making the households eligible for welfare programs, such as Medicaid and food assistance programs[3].
Many economists, however, argue that the tax burden is only part of the equation when discussing the impact of illegal immigration. According to economist Gordon Hanson, annual immigration surplus is the other side of the fiscal equation[4]. In a nutshell immigration surplus is the net effect on the economy as a whole. For example, illegal aliens often work for a much lower wage than a similarly skilled native worker. That lower wage lowers the overall wages in that industry, but also reduces the costs and prices of the goods and services produced in that industry, thereby increasing the real income in the majority of U.S. households. Hanson cites the 2002 estimates by the CIS (0.1% of GDP), and combines that with the economic surplus (0.07% of GDP) and argues that the net effect of illegal immigration is essentially nil, after the statistical prediction error is considered. Hanson also recognizes that this is only the economic side of the debate and does not consider other externalities such as the social effects, national security issues, or political results.
All things considered, SB 1070 is certainly a complex and intriguing part of the immigration debate. The legal, economic, social and political fallout will undoubtedly be heard and felt all over the country.
[1]Meckler, Laura, and Miriam Jordan. “Obama Blasts Arizona Law.” Business News & Financial News – The Wall Street Journal – WSJ.com. 24 Apr. 2010. Web. 30 Aug. 2010 <http://online.wsj.com/article/NA_WSJ_PUB:SB10001424052748703709804575202110136576160.html>
2United States of America v. State of Arizona. District of Arizona. 28 July 2010. Web. 30 Aug. 2010.<http://www.azcentral.com/ic/pdf/0729sb1070-bolton-ruling.pdf>
3Camarota, Steven A. “The High Cost of Cheap Labor: Illegal Immigration and the Federal Budget.” Backgrounders and Reports (2004): 2. Web. 10 Aug. 2010.<http://www.cis.org/node/54>
4Gordon, Hanson H. The Economic Logic of Illegal Immigration. New York: Council on Foreign Relations, 2007. Google Books. <http://books.google.com/books?id=FJoXbhBivAwC&dq=the+economic+logic+of+illegal+immigration+hanson&printsec=frontcover&source=bn&hl=en&ei=A6ByTNjULsG78gbquZjmCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q&f=false>