Why illegal immigration is one of the hot topics of 2006

[Brian503a]

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0825/p10s01-ussc.html

from the August 25, 2006 edition -
Why illegal immigration is one of the hot topics of 2006
At hearings, including one in Houston, concerns over budget costs and national security have given the issue prominence.
By Kris Axtman | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

HOUSTON
When the US House of Representatives announced its latest round of hearings on illegal immigration, taking place across the country this month, many critics saw them as simply political theater - a way to appeal to the GOP's conservative base in an election year.

But the fact that so many citizens, on both sides of the issue, have shown up in large numbers is proof that the issue is no longer confined to Texas' Rio Grande Valley or California's San Joaquin Valley.

Illegal immigration has become a suburban debate, a Northern debate, and a rural debate. And while it has long been a matter of concern to US citizens, it has recently boiled over with an intensity not seen in decades, if ever.

Why is that happening now? One reason is the rise in the number of illegal immigrants. In the mid-1980s, there were about 3 million; today, an estimated 12 million. The number is increasing by about a half million per year.

That rise, in turn, is straining the resources of many local governments. Even communities that have traditionally hosted large numbers of illegal immigrants have felt the impact. Houston, where one of the 21 House hearings was held, has 400,000 illegal immigrants, by some estimates.

The number of children enrolled in English as a Second Language classes here gives some indication of the rise in illegal immigration and the resulting demands on funds. In 1994, 12.3 percent of students and 7.8 percent of teachers were involved in ESL in the Houston area. Today, 17 percent of students and 9.5 percent of teachers are involved in it.

In addition, the Harris County Hospital District saw a 52.8 percent increase of undocumented outpatients between 2002 and 2005, representing a 96 percent increase in cost for services rendered.

"Local communities spend tens of millions of dollars a year on illegal immigrants," says Robert Eckels, the Harris County chief executive who was one of the witnesses at the hearing. "The public is growing frustrated with it."

That frustration is passed on to local officials, who in turn look to their state lawmakers for help. As of the end of July, 69 bills dealing with illegal immigration have been enacted by states this year - a pace that exceeds that of 2005. Most of the legislation deals with issues such as education, employment, and public benefits.

"The impact on healthcare, public schools, and criminal justice is only going to increase. Those concerns stem directly from the numbers," says Steven Camarota, director of research at the Center for Immigration Studies in Washington. "It doesn't matter if there are 10 uninsured illegal aliens in your town. It matters if there are 10,000."

Other experts say too much is being made of the costs. "There is no question that there are significant costs. But these newcomers are also spending money in the community, creating demand for new jobs, establishing new businesses, and paying taxes locally," says Andrew Schoenholtz, deputy director of Georgetown University's Institute for the Study of International Migration in Washington.

Ultimately, he says the real question should be: Does the country need these workers? "If the answer is yes, we should simply make the decision that the costs associated with that are acceptable."

National security is another factor putting illegal immigration back in the spotlight, experts say. But since the 9/11 terrorist attacks, much of the immigration debate has focused on securing the borders - even though all 19 hijackers involved in the attacks flew into the country on legal visas.

Of course, politics is a factor behind the recent focus on immigration, many experts say.

"It's mainly because of a strategic choice made by the Republican Congressional leadership to make immigration their party's wedge issue du jour for this election year," writes Wayne Cornelius, director of the Center for Comparative Immigration Studies at the University of California at San Diego, in an e-mail interview. "Exploiting anti-immigration hostility is ... an effective and efficient way to mobilize their base."

Some experts are taking a longer view. "It's clear that our current approach to the problem has failed, and we need to change it. But do we ramp up and do more of what we've been doing, or do we change direction in a fundamental way?" says Daniel Griswold, director of the Center for Trade Policy Studies at the Cato Institute in Washington. "We argue, as Bush has, that the country needs to change direction in a fundamental way and create a temporary-worker program."

The Senate bill, backed by President Bush, calls for tightened border security, a temporary-worker program, and a path to citizenship for some of the illegal immigrants already in the country. It is being opposed by House Republicans who are trying to push their own version of a bill that would focus almost exclusively on tougher border enforcement.

In the end, however, other voices beyond politicians may make a difference.

"For the first time, we are seeing undocumented immigrants participating in the debate. That's a big political change," says Dr. Schoenholtz. "We may be at a new juncture in terms of the politics of this issue, but it's too early to tell."

[sippy]

Ultimately, he says the real question should be: Does the country need these workers? "If the answer is yes, we should simply make the decision that the costs associated with that are acceptable."

How about we offer these jobs to Americans and legal citizens first!!!

[moosetracks]

The Republicans did not make this a wedge issue......we, the public, made this issue as we are so fed up with both Dems and Reps.

No Party should take credit, no reporter should say a Party is taking credit, for bringing this to light....it's the American citizens that are bringing it to light!

[loservillelabor]

says Andrew Schoenholtz, deputy director of Georgetown University's Institute for the Study of International Migration in Washington.

Ultimately, he says the real question should be: Does the country need these workers? "If the answer is yes, we should simply make the decision that the costs associated with that are acceptable."

How about we finance this out of his wallet? He can opt in, we can opt out. How about a line on the 1040. I support illegal aliens and agree to 20% increase in tax I owe to support them. It would stop quick.

[Jean]

The Republicans did not make this a wedge issue......we, the public, made this issue as we are so fed up with both Dems and Reps.

No Party should take credit, no reporter should say a Party is taking credit, for bringing this to light....it's the American citizens that are bringing it to light!

I agree. And I think the Minutemen are largely responsible for bring this to everyone's attention. There are groups, such as this one too, but the Minutemen began building their own freakin wall, watching the border - they're out there actually physically and visibly doing something which is hard to ignore.
The Dems like to criticize the Reps for being in control and not getting anything done. The Reps are split on this, the dead Senate bill showed us that. But what would the Dems do if they were in control? They'd sell out the entire country for more votes, I see them as disastrous. They are all delaying, afraid to do anything, afraid they will upset some group. Country is run (mostly) by a bunch of cowards.

[reptile09]

National security is another factor putting illegal immigration back in the spotlight, experts say. But since the 9/11 terrorist attacks, much of the immigration debate has focused on securing the borders - even though all 19 hijackers involved in the attacks flew into the country on legal visas.

Sure, but many of the 19 hijackers were also stopped by local law enforcement authorities and because of traitorous sanctuary and lame community policing ordinances, almost every one of them that were stopped for traffic violations or whatever, were never reported to federal authorities or checked for legal status. If local law enforcement were required by law to check legal status of those thought to be here illegally and if so, were then reported to ICE, how many potential terrorists, criminals and predators would be deported or jailed?

I'm not saying everyone who looks or speaks differently should be reported, but when a person whips out seventeen different ID's and can't remember their age or birthdate, maybe they should be checked out by the feds. But nooooo, we can't possibly offend anyone, we can't possibly deny employers their steady stream of low wage workers, regardless of terror attacks, rapes, robberies, murders and drunk driving deaths. If employers need the workers that should be the ultimate sole determining factor, American lives, safety, sovereignty and solvency be damned, right Mr. Schoenholtz?

[nntrixie]

If the workers are needed - why should there be a cost to bear?

If workers are needed, let the workers come, sans family and extended family - then go home when no longer needed. Any cost to be borne should be borne by the employer who is making the money off them.

These are not relief workers in some disaster area for goodness sakes.

[nntrixie]

You know, reptile, I don't understand about the 9/11 hijackers that were stopped and others as well.

Here in Texas, when you are stopped, they run a check on your DL and your license plate. What exactly does that show? Does it show if you are male or female, age, or what?

I do know in Okla it shows addresses. We have a home in Central TExas, but have been staying at a small place we own in NE Texas. It came time to register the vehicles and my husband did it here in NE Texas. His DL address is the one in Central TExas. Recently, he was stopped in OKLa while visiting family up there and they were really checking him out - doing a lot of back and forth. Finally, they told my husband, 'Something doesn't check out here'. He realized what the problem was and explained. That seemed to put it to rest.

My point, it would seem a routine check would give enough information to ascertain if the DL is bogus or not - at least in a lot of the cases. That would not be profiling - to not check it out would be profiling.