Thread: Immigration Costs Divide Lawmakers

http://www.chieftain.com/metro/1156485798/4

Immigration costs divide lawmakers
Salazars in favor of a guest-worker program, amnesty; Allard more for enforcement.
By PETER ROPER
THE PUEBLO CHIEFTAIN
Colorado lawmakers on Thursday took differing views of a new Congressional Budget Office study that says it would cost taxpayers up to $126 billion over the next 10 years to implement the Senate's immigration reform plan, which would tighten U.S. border enforcement but also allow many illegal workers to legalize their residency.

Sen. Wayne Allard, R-Colo., said that figure was higher than expected, although he intends to emphasize the cost of allowing the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants to stay in the U.S. at a Senate committee field hearing in Aurora next Wednesday.

"Cost is a big issue in giving (illegal immigrants) amnesty, which is why I voted against the Senate bill," Allard said Thursday before addressing the Action 22 coalition meeting in Pueblo. "The money we could save from not providing amnesty could help pay for border enforcement."

The CBO is a nonpartisan research agency for Congress and it analyzed the 10-year costs of the Senate bill, which was approved earlier this summer. That bill would tighten border enforcement, but also would allow illegal residents without criminal records to legalize their status by paying fines and back taxes over a period of six years.

The House Republican leadership, and some senators such as Allard, said they would not endorse any legislation that allowed illegals to stay in the U.S.

The CBO study estimates that $78 billion of the projected cost would come from tougher law enforcement measures in the Senate bill, including more border patrol agents, more detention facilities and even fencing for the U.S.-Mexico border.

Roughly $50 billion in costs would come from federal and state services provided to the illegal workers who would stay in the country through legalizing their status or participating in a guest worker program, which the Senate bill also authorizes.

Sen. Ken Salazar, D-Colo., pointed to the $78 billion that would come from tougher law enforcement measures, which the House Republican leadership insists must be the first step in immigration reform before any guest workers are allowed into the U.S.

"No one has looked at the big picture until now and the CBO study says this is what it's going to cost us to enforce our borders, which both Democrats and Republicans want," he said.

As for allowing illegal workers to legalize their status through paying fines and creating a guest worker program, Salazar said U.S. businesses are lobbying Congress to keep those workers available in agriculture and other industries.

"One of the reasons that sanctions against employers have never been strongly enforced is businesses need them," Salazar said. "Real immigration reform will include a humane way to deal with the people who are already in this country, but that's not going to happen until after the November election because House Republicans want to campaign on the issue."

Rep. John Salazar, D-Colo., echoed his brother in saying agriculture and other industries need those workers.

"Enforcing the border is crucial, but every agriculture group I've talked to says they need guest workers," John Salazar said, noting that he recently attended a potato farming conference in Boise. "I know Idaho potato farmers say they can't find workers."

John Salazar, who voted for the House immigration bill, said he was skeptical of the long-term social costs described by the CBO report when balanced against the economic contribution of those workers.

"I did a survey of my district and while immigration was ranked as the second most important issue to voters, 80 percent - Democrats and Republicans alike - said they support a guest worker program," Salazar said. "That's how important those workers are to our rural economy."

There are competing and conflicting studies over the cost of illegal immigration.

The Bush administration, which supported the Senate bill, has estimated in its 2005 Economic Report to the President that the economic impact of legalizing illegal workers is small, given their long term contributions in taxes.

For his part, Allard also supports a guest worker program, but only for those illegal workers who are willing to return to their home country and get in line for either legal residency or a guest worker visa.

"But I can't support amnesty for people who came into the country illegally," he said.

"One of the reasons that sanctions against employers have never been strongly enforced is businesses need them," Salazar said. "Real immigration reform will include a humane way to deal with the people who are already in this country, but that's not going to happen until after the November election because House Republicans want to campaign on the issue."

This is a very important statement. He is admitting that the lack of enforcement has been intentional, due to their ties to big business. He is also telling us that after the November elections, they will go ahead and pass "comprehensive reform".

We need to make sure that our elected representatives understand that they are going to lose their jobs, if illegal immigration is not stopped and our labor laws enforced.

I heard some discussion of this earlier this week. While this $126 billion is an extraordinary figure, there are a lot of additional costs that have not been taken into account, such as costs to localities and hospitals who will still absorb many costs. And, this figure is only over the first 10 years. After that, when people become citizens and can bring family and elderly parents here, who won't be working but who will need medical care, the costs will further skyrocket.

I think the costs of this need to be viewed within the broader context of the present financial state of this country. I have heard a number of experts state in this past week alone that we are verging on bankruptcy. The interest alone on our national debt is >$300 billion. How is the US going to shoulder this burden, especially with a shrinking middle class? It is utterly ridiculous to even contemplate doing this.