Less than a year after House Bill 56 shocked the national consciousness (and drew a federal lawsuit) with its stringent and unprecedented anti-illegal immigration measures, lawmakers in the state of Alabama again boldly targeted immigration reform a few weeks ago with the passage of House Bill 658. Alabama governor Robert Bentley called for a special legislative session to revise and “clarify” HB 658 and signed it into law on May 19. New provisions include a requirement that the names of illegal immigrants be published if they appear in court on charges involving violations of state law (regardless of conviction) and a stipulation that school systems account for the status of students unable to provide valid proof of residency.
In addition to the political and judicial challenges HB 658 is likely to face, it has already added fuel to the fiery culture wars in this country that have centered for years on illegal immigration – especially in the South and Southwest. There’s not much that activists on either side of the immigration divide can readily agree upon, and the debate about what to do with illegal aliens has become perhaps the most salient issue in American social politics. But why is this issue so complicated and emotionally charged?
From a moral standpoint, it’s hard to say with certainty what the role of the U.S. should be in dealing with illegal aliens. Supporters of tougher immigration laws will appeal to a nationalistic view of “defending” our borders and “protecting” our citizens. As they see it, illegals have no right to enjoy the benefits of American life and take jobs from American citizens. Since illegal immigrants have, by definition, broken the law, they are therefore not entitled to the same moral considerations we afford our legal countrymen.
The major flaw with this argument is that on an ethical level, we cannot condemn illegals simply because they are breaking the law. Our history is scarred with shameful examples of immoral, racist and hateful laws. Although most of the time our laws point us in the right direction ethically, they are subject to the same imperfections and flaws that characterize the humans who draft them. Civil disobedience was not only a key instrument in Martin Luther King Jr.’s fight for racial equality, but it largely led to the creation of this nation by rebellious (and criminal) colonists.
Even if we were to disregard the abstract moral discussions about immigration (which admittedly extend far beyond the scope of this article), what else would proponents of strict anti-illegal immigration laws argue in defense? They might say that the economy cannot support illegal aliens – many of whom are living in poverty, don’t speak English proficiently and possess few real vocational skills. Worse still, most of these illegals don’t pay taxes but reap many of the benefits (like education and healthcare) funded by taxpayer dollars.
Yet in truth, illegal immigrants do pay some taxes: The sales tax on your groceries doesn’t much care what citizenship status you claim. Many illegals are also subjected to the payroll tax, which funds entitlement programs for legal Americans.
Upon closer examination, however, the logic of excluding people from national life based on tax contributions might not be such an attractive idea. Two out of every five citizens essentially pay no personal income taxes to the federal government. Should we kick these folks out, too? Are these people any more or less “American” based on their tax reports? After all, they get sick in hospitals and their children attend schools that are financed by the richest 60 percent of Americans.
How can we distinguish between one group of alleged free riders from the other? The logic of exclusionary tax-based immigration would not only bar many immigrants from gaining legal citizenship, but would require the eviction of nearly half of the national population (and the majority of Alabamians). These facts might make one think more carefully about the standards we use to connote citizenship and what it means to be “American.”
The full impact that illegal immigrants have on the economy is not entirely clear. While some say they drain our fiscal resources, others cite evidence that they actually promote economic growth. In any event, it seems true that most illegals don’t take jobs from hardworking Americans; rather, they are often happy to work jobs that legal citizens won’t. In addition, University of Alabama economist Samuel Addy has estimated that HB 56 could cause state GDP to drop by as much as $10.8 billion, and the state stood to lose up to $264 million in tax revenues (this is on top of whatever costs are incurred from the actual enforcement and implementation of the new law).
Although the jury may still be out regarding the economics of illegal immigration, the one apparent constant in the discussion is the maddening inefficiency of the system. People who want to enter this country through the legal naturalization process are put through a bureaucratic ringer for months and years – it’s no wonder illegals take the fast lane to American life. If the process were made simpler, the government could better account for who was entering the country because immigrants would have less incentive to circumvent the system.
So what should be done about illegal immigration? For starters, we need to begin having intelligent discussions about the moral and economic facts surrounding immigration instead of emotionally heated (and often racist) partisan arguments. We should simplify the naturalization process, which will not only facilitate government oversight of lawful immigration, but will save millions of dollars in enforcement costs. Some of these savings could be invested in the poor economies of Latin America where the majority of U.S. illegal immigrants hail from. Politically and economically stabilizing our southern neighbors will reduce incentives for people to sneak into the States, which will allow the U.S. to bear the burden of its own population more effectively. Finally, we should stop demonizing illegal aliens in political rhetoric and the news media. Americans ought to ask themselves – if I were in the shoes of these human beings, would I have made the same decision?
Henry Downes is a sophomore majoring in economics.
