http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/editorial/16453744.htm

This won't help
Star-Telegram
Posted on Mon, Jan. 15, 2007

The federal government maintains, as it should, primary responsibility for developing and enforcing immigration law.

But state and local officials -- sometimes motivated by frustration with federal foot-dragging, sometimes by baser instincts -- increasingly are proposing restrictions designed to drive off illegal immigrants by making their lives more difficult.

Ostensibly, these changes in the law might save taxpayer money. However, many of these measures are impractical and shortsighted and carry immediate and long-term costs.

One example is the proposal (HB 39) by Rep. Ken Paxton, R-McKinney, to bar Texas high school graduates from receiving in-state college tuition rates if they're illegal immigrants -- even if they otherwise meet the requirements for the lower charges.

The main arguments for such restrictions are that law-breakers shouldn't be rewarded and that taxpayers shouldn't invest in students who can't work legally in this country. The reality is that many of the young people who would be affected didn't choose to come to the United States -- they were brought by parents. And most who fall within the confines of the 2001 Texas law that Paxton would change (they've lived in the state for at least three years and earned a diploma or its equivalent) consider this country their home and would correct their legal status if there were a mechanism for doing so.

The fact that they are diligently pursuing their education indicates a desire to be productive members of society. Erecting barriers for them wouldn't curb illegal immigration in any meaningful way -- or serve Texas' future well.

Here are some other problematic proposals:

HB 28 by Rep. Leo Berman, R-Tyler would (as originally filed) deny any state or local government benefits -- including loans, professional licenses, jobs, healthcare, disability assistance, public schooling, college instruction or food stamps -- to anyone born in the state whose parents are illegal immigrants.

Berman plans to remove healthcare and education from the list, but it's still poorly drafted in terms of who is covered. Under the U.S. Constitution, anyone born in Texas is a U.S. citizen. Denying some citizens benefits available to others, without a compelling reason, could run into equal-protection problems.

HB 29, also by Berman, would require businesses that transmit money abroad for customers to levy a special 8 percent fee on funds sent to Mexico or Central and South America. The fees would be deposited with the controller and credited to an account supporting indigent healthcare. Legal residents could apply for refunds.

Finding a source to help with the costs of indigent healthcare is a noble concern. But why should this fee not also be charged to illegal immigrants sending money to Canada, Ireland, China, Japan, Vietnam, Russia and other locations? There's more than a tinge of racism in requiring a select group of legal residents making legal transactions to be burdened with paying and then going through the refund process.

HB 38 by Burt Solomons, R-Carrollton, would require anyone applying for a business, occupational or professional license or renewing such as license to prove employment eligibility by showing one or more documents from a long list that includes passports, birth certificates, naturalization certificates, legal resident cards, photo driver's licenses, government-issued photo IDs and Social Security cards.

It makes sense that those applying for government-issued professional licenses should be able to prove identity. However, if applicants fail to show documentation, will they merely be turned away, or will state workers then be expected to become immigration enforcers?

State lawmakers could expend great amounts of time and energy on divisive debate that accomplishes little beyond playing to vocal constituencies. But individual measures designed to make it undesirable, if not onerous, to stay in Texas are unlikely to address the problems of illegal immigration.

Progress will require comprehensive federal legislation that takes into account work-force needs but curbs employer abuses of the system and deals with families in a humane, realistic and fiscally responsible way.
What planet is this writer on?????
"sometimes by baser instincts -- increasingly are proposing restrictions designed to drive off illegal immigrants by making their lives more difficult.

Ostensibly, these changes in the law might save taxpayer money. However, many of these measures are impractical and shortsighted and carry immediate and long-term costs.'
And I love the fact that there is no name attached to the editorial! This was published in the print edition as well. So it is my "BASER INSTINCTS" that drive me to not want these invaders??? I don't want to "make their lives more difficult", I WANT THEM OUT OF MY COUNTRY!!!!!!