The Immigration Conundrum

A court in Iowa recently sent 270 illegal Guatemalan immigrants to federal prison. The judge who pronounced the sentences said to the group, "I don't doubt for a moment that you are good, hard-working people...unfortunately, you committed a violation of federal law."

Unfortunately, the decision in Iowa could shape the emerging debate over illegal immigration, and set a precedent that might ultimately undermine rather than help the American economy.

We live in difficult times. Debate over the U.S.-Mexico fence has bogged down in disputes over Native American land claims. Terrorism shows little sign of abating. The job market is projected to weaken across all sectors.

And there are problems on a local level. Despite their contribution to local economies, illegal immigrants don't pay taxes. And the public services they use - education, hospitals - are funded through tax revenues. With the Bush stimulus plan in full swing, and the government running a deficit due (in part) to a big defense budget, there's just no money to be given in the form of federal tax relief to underfunded school districts. Districts that lean on federal funding (typically ones that underperform, a relationship which may or may not imply causality) have to do something. But so do states where education funding comes from local revenues (Iowa falls into this category, with 42.5% of expenditure coming from local sources.)

Gone are the days when INS - now ICE - might turn the other cheek.

But what is the solution? Economic analysis shows immigrants - even illegal ones - are a net benefit to the national economy. (A consensus among numerous studies I looked at) Nonetheless, the taxpayers of California (for example) can hardly afford the emergency room operations given out by law to all comers, regardless of immigration status. (The other option, which is to let illegal immigrants and their children suffer on the street, is even more unpalatable, as well as inconsistent with our national values)

Meanwhile, what happens to industries where much of the labor force comprises illegal immigrants? 20% of illegal immigrants work in construction, but a disproportion number also work in agriculture and fast food preparation. Right now, there is no action pending against Agriprocessors, the company that employed all 270 of the illegal immigrants. Regardless of the justice of this situation, to lock up the immigrants and let the company go free is to get the leaf of the problem without even touching the root.

The fence will not keep people out. After all, Iowa's immigrants came from Guatemala.

To be more utilitarian: what is the optimal allocation of illegal immigrants in our economy such that it will function most efficiently? The politician's answer: 0. The economist's answer: not 0. The ethical American's answer: ?

Some action might have been necessary in Iowa. But the action the court took was wrong on almost every level. And the entire United States will have to make immigration decisions in the aftermath of that precedent.