Weighing in on the Immigration debate

I often hesitate to comment here on national political issues. I am a total lightweight compared to other bloggers first of all, since I frankly don’t always follow the news because I find it too depressing along with all the other depressing things I have to follow. When the issue of the port management deal with the Arab firm came up, for example, it seemed like such a simple ‘NO’ that I couldn’t imagine anyone saying ‘yes’ to it, but the more I learned (particularly that such contracts are given to foreign companies all the time – hell, if the Chinese have one, why not the Arabs?) the more I realized that it wasn’t quite that simple. I’m not sure I’d be in favor of it now either, but I sure do know that what information I have about the deal isn’t enough to make a decision on. What I know about economics isn’t much! So what do I know about immigration?

What I see in the immigration debate is a big gap in information – a ‘we’re talking apples while you’re talking oranges’ confusion in the whole thing. There is lots of information about how many people are here illegally, for example, but then that same number gets confused with how many people are here illegally and actually working. I see it reported as the same number. And I’m just guessing here, by how many little Mexican kids are in schools and how many Mexican grannies are in grocery stores, that those two numbers are vastly different. Then there is big discussion about the fiscal benefit – taxes they are paying, jobs that would supposedly go unfilled if they weren’t here, the savings in consumer goods realized from low farm and construction labor costs etc. But the costs to schools, hospitals, health care and welfare budgets aren’t discussed in those same reports – and those costs are huge. The costs to individual Americans in higher health insurance, higher automobile insurance, higher taxes to pay for incredibly higher welfare costs, aren’t used in the figures either. Every time another hospital closes down its Emergency Room because it can’t recover its costs, Americans get hurt. Americans whose ‘identity’ has been stolen in terms of credit card numbers, Social Security numbers etc. aren’t listed in the cost analysis. Doesn’t it look like individual businesses gain but ‘individuals’ – all the rest of us – lose? That’s how it looks to me, but what do I know? You can’t get to the bottom line without a benefit/cost analysis. Where can I find a fair one?

(Note: I wrote this posting yesterday and this morning MSN's headline article was about the identity theft problem.)

And then why is Vincente Fox so set on having Mexicans becoming Americans in the first place? Why do we as a nation really care about his position on this debate at all? When was the last time he supported an American position on something? (Possibly the last time I supported an American position on something – but again, I don’t really know.) I’d be interested in knowing how much trade with Mexico benefits the US – or any other piece of information that would help me understand why our conversation with Mexico should be anything other than “We’re building a fence.” But I don’t find that information in the news. Maybe there is good reason here, but what is it?

The rationale about immigrants being the backbone of our economy and becoming strong contributing members of our society is years out of date. What information do we have now to support that assumption? When we have millions of people coming in who are not learning our language, not getting an education, not assimilating into our culture, are they still filling the role that immigrants of past centuries filled? Are we studying this?

On what basis would we think that giving driver’s licenses to people would suddenly mean that they’d all purchase expensive-but-required auto insurance when they'd been driving already without it? They haven’t met any of our other requirements, have they? Why would they suddenly meet this one? I don’t get it, and have never seen a legitimate argument to support this, but it is in the news all the time.

We are told we have a moral obligation to these people who have immorally crossed our borders. But no one is carrying on about the moral obligation to legitimate Americans who are struggling under enormous tax burdens and making it on their own nevertheless.

This is a complex, hot-button debate. We deserve a credible, balanced analysis of the issues. And at this point it shouldn’t take too much digging to find it. Where is the undeniable evidence that we should deal with this issue some other way than through a strong, fair and enforced immigration policy that favors individuals not groups or groups-coming-from-certain-nations-but-not-others? Am I missing something?

And yes, I am very obviously biased in my opinion already. But so are all the 'news' reports.