| |
 |
|
California Rep. Mike Honda serves on the
Appropriations and the Budget Committees and is the Democratic senior whip. |
|
|
The Economic Justification for
Immigration Reform
WASHINGTON
& SANTA FE, NM (By Rep. Mike Honda)
February 4, 2011
—
House Speaker John Boehner’s recent
selection of Rep. Elton Gallegly of
California over Rep. Steve King of Iowa
to head the Judiciary Committee’s
immigration subcommittee is one step
closer to the kind of reform for which
past administrations, including those of
former Presidents George W. Bush, Bill
Clinton and Ronald Reagan, had long
called.
Both Republican congressmen may be
opposed to the kind of reform that House
Democrats call for. But Gallegly seems
inclined to take a more reasoned
approach. Especially if Democrats can
explain the economic advantages to
reform. And there are many.
Immigration brings formidable fiscal
implications. Keeping immigrants here or
sending them home can save or cost
taxpayers dearly. Just count the ways
that reform, which puts undocumented
immigrants on the path to legalization,
could foot our country’s finances.
First, any deportation plan for
undocumented immigrants would cost our
country’s gross domestic product a
whopping $2.6 trillion over the next 10
years, according to a study by Raul
Hinojosa-Ojeda, a professor at the
University of California, Los Angeles.
Conversely, if we embrace comprehensive
immigration reform, we could add $1.5
trillion to the U.S. GDP over the next
10 years. The economy could also benefit
from a temporary worker program,
Hinojosa-Ojeda projected, by raising GDP
by $792 billion.
Second, immigrants who become U.S.
citizens consistently pursue
higher-paying jobs and higher education,
spend more and provide higher tax
revenue. Just imagine what 12 million
newly documented Americans could do for
the economy.
The legalization process also brings
economic benefits — like the retention
of remittances. Workers send substantial
portions of their salary to family
members abroad, but reform could reunite
families separated by our immigration
system and keep monies in the U.S.
For example, total U.S. remittances to
Latin America was almost $46 billion in
2008. Of that, Mexico received almost
$24 billion. Reducing remittances offers
obvious cash infusion for our economy,
since billions of dollars now sent
overseas would be spent instead on U.S.
businesses — creating jobs and helping
to revive our economy.
Third, by giving 2.1 million American
students the opportunity to pursue
higher education or military service,
our government could collect $3.6
trillion over the next 40 years. The
DREAM Act, which failed in the Senate in
December but remains a bipartisan
effort, offers a conditional six-year
path to permanent, legal U.S. residence
for immigrant youth who demonstrate good
moral character and complete at least
two years of higher education or U.S.
military service.
Without the DREAM Act, about 65,000
students a year — honor-roll scholars,
star athletes, talented artists and
aspiring teachers — will graduate high
school and then hit a roadblock. Instead
of upward mobility and higher education,
they will be forced to live in the
shadows and work low-paying jobs.
Fourth, the Reuniting Families Act,
which I plan to reintroduce this
Congress, would allow all Americans to
be reunited with their families —
including gay, lesbian, bisexual and
transgender “permanent partners.”
The economic benefits of this policy
cannot be overstated. American workers,
with their families by their side, are
happier, healthier and more able to
succeed than those living apart from
loved ones for years on end. By pooling
resources, families can do together what
they can’t do alone — start small
businesses, provide care for the young
and old, create U.S. jobs and contribute
more to this country’s welfare.
Healthier communities have more
expendable income and place a lower
burden on government social services.
This correlation is well substantiated —
but it is up to us to make it a reality.
We understand that during tough economic
times, the natural reaction is to close
borders and look inward. Yet the irony
of an anti-immigration sentiment, which
fears job losses for Americans if more
workers enter the U.S., is that it is
fiscally prudent to legalize, insure,
employ, reunite and educate our
immigrants than to keep families apart.
This is a time when we must use every
available resource to stimulate our
economy and control government spending.
To my fiscally conservative Republican
colleagues, the onus is on you. Left to
future Congresses, the number of
undocumented immigrants will only
increase and the visa waits will only
get longer. Meanwhile, we will lose an
opportunity to do what’s economically
right.
The fiscal case is clear: reform now.