Questing for Atlantis

Jeff Werner is one of the particularly loud voices agitating for greater action against illegal immigrants. And, unsurprisingly, a lot of the statements he makes reflect a fundamental lack of understanding of the issue.

Take this one for example;

Remember, Illegal Aliens have no rights, they are breaking the Laws.  If they don’t like it, they can leave on their own terms without being arrested.  We feel no shame or pity for the families being broken up, they have brought this on themselves. By the way, what due process do Illegal Immigrants have?  What rights do they have?

Hate to break it to you Jeff, but they actually do have rights. Let me refer you to the words of President Madison;

Again, it is said, that aliens not being parties to the Constitution, the rights and privileges which it secures cannot be at all claimed by them.

To this reasoning, also, it might be answered, that although aliens are not parties to the Constitution, it does not follow that the Constitution has vested in Congress an absolute power over them. The parties to the Constitution may have granted, or retained, or modified the power over aliens, without regard to that particular consideration.

But a more direct reply is, that it does not follow, because aliens are not parties to the Constitution, as citizens are parties to it, that whilst they actually conform to it, they have no right to its protection. Aliens are not more parties to the laws, than they are parties to the Constitution; yet, it will not be disputed, that as they owe, on one hand, a temporary obedience, they are entitled in return to their protection and advantage.

If aliens had no rights under the Constitution, they might not only be banished, but even capitally punished, without a jury or the other incidents to a fair trial. But so far has a contrary principle been carried, in every part of the United States, that except on charges of treason, an alien has, besides all the common privileges, the special one of being tried by a jury, of which one-half may be also aliens.

And to add to that, courtesy of Eugene Volokh (also the source of the Madison quotation):

The Supreme Court has endorsed Madison’s view at least since Wong Wing v. U.S. (1896) as to the criminal procedure provisions, and in Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886) (also unanimously) as to the Equal Protection Clause racial equality principle. Aliens might be deportable for their speech (see here for more on that question), but they can’t be otherwise punished for it, nor can they be criminally prosecuted in the civil justice system without the normal constitutional protections.

So yeah, immigrants, even illegal ones do have rights. And those rights include Due Process. Sorry to break it to you.

In all seriousness though, people like Jeff Werner are an embarrassment and an albatross hanging on the neck of the Right. I really hope conservatives figure out soon that they need to give up on the immigrant hate, stop trying for enforcement of current law (a logistical impossibility), and embrace reforms of our Byzantine immigration law that make it easier to come legally.

Over at monoblogue Michael posted a press release from Delegate McDonough citing a study from the Federation for American Immigration Reform that purports to show just how much illegal immigration is costing Marylanders.

Now a new study by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (F.A.I.R.) has exposed the fact that illegals are costing Maryland citizens more than 1.4 billion dollars annually.

I’ve gone and read over the study and the fact is its claim is nowhere near as sound as one would believe.

The primary flaw of the study a heavily slanted accounting of the costs of illegal immigration. Any honest accounting of the costs of immigration must necessarily be balanced against the benefits of immigration, both legal and illegal.

FAIR’s study doesn’t do this. While they at least took the time to acknowledge there is a receipt of taxes from illegal immigrants, they gloss over the point, suggesting that any contributions made by illegal workers would be balanced out by new contributions by legal workers.

This point is demonstrably false. As a Cato Institute study released this summer notes, increasing security to limit illegal immigration would in fact have a deleterious net impact on the economy:

Our simulations show that the difference between the long-run welfare effects for U.S. households of the worst and best policies that we considered is about $260 billion a year in current dollars. This is the welfare gap between the tighter-border-enforcement policy in Simulation 1 (a welfare loss of 0.55 percent) and the liberalized policy with an optimal visa charge in Simulation 7 (a welfare gain of 1.27 percent).

These economic impacts come in part through tax receipts, but also manifest in the form of increased wages to remaining illegal immigrants, reductions to average wages as a result of changing occupation-mix of employment of U.S. workers, tightening capital, decreased employment, all of which outpace the relatively meager reductions in public expenditure on illegal immigrants.

The effect of this problem becomes bigger when one considers the relative inputs and outputs of illegal immigrant economic activity. The only welfare programs they have access to are emergency medical care and K-12 education (with some additional public expenditure coming in the form of law enforcement and incarceration costs). When you consider that the first two will logically have an inverse correlation to the third, any cost savings from reducing illegal immigration will likely be lower than what FAIR sells them as.

With economic impacts like these it is careless at best, and downright deceptive at worst to willfully leave out the economic benefits of immigration when doing an accounting of its costs, particularly when Cato has already done such a thorough study on the topic.

Understanding just who FAIR is makes me lean towards downright deceptive. Looking at the About page on their website, it is quite clear that the organization’s interest isn’t public expenditures, nor is it remittances to families in immigrants’ native countries, concern for rule of law, or any of the other items noted in the study.

The motivation for the Federation for American Immigration Reform is simple. It is crass xenophobia. They’re honest about it. In their stated purpose they advocate for a moratorium on all immigration and in their principles they state that immigration should be:

at the lowest feasible levels consistent with the national security, economic, demographic, environmental and socio-cultural interests of the present and future.

When a group is this open about their bigotry there’s little reason to wonder about the worthlessness of its study. FAIR is a perfect example of what Shikha Dalmia was talking about when she noted “The cost of undocumented aliens is an issue that immigrant bashers have created to whip up indignation against people they don’t want here in the first place.”

Delegate McDonough and Michael are both good people. They’re both honestly concerned about the amount of taxpayer money the state is spending. But they, and others in the GOP, need to think carefully about their stances on immigration. Republicans need to reject the bigotry espoused by the likes of FAIR, acknowledge how broken our immigration system is, and embrace substantive reform that makes the path to legal residency simple, quick, and inexpensive.

UPDATE: Frequent monoblogue commenter Marc posted several more links taking issue with FAIR’s study. I’m re-posting them here as well,

As far as the study, here’s a partial rebuttal: http://immigrationimpact.com/2009/12/04/fair-blames-immigrants-and-children-for-maryland%E2%80%99s-budget-deficit/.

The problem with many of these studies is that they are ideologically-driven. FAIR isn’t going to put out anything that is in any way fair to illegal immigrants. If it produces a study, it’s going to show illegal immigrants hurt the US. Finding good, unbiased data on this subject is difficult. Here’s something from 1994: http://migration.ucdavis.edu/MN/more.php?id=298_0_2_0.

A CBO report from 2007 looked at the impact of illegal immigrants on state and local expenditures and finds that they do cost state local governments money and that their taxes don’t offset their costs, but that they only impose a small burden: http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/87xx/doc8711/12-6-Immigration.pdf. This study doesn’t include taxes paid to the federal government.