Immigration: States Will Now Take the Reins
In the Education Committee yesterday, I suggested that we ask the federal government to reimburse Utah for the cost of educating children who are here illegally. (D News, Trib and Neil Cavuto – if anyone wants to grab that clip and email me it to me, steveu@infowest.com, I’d like to post it).
The Legislative Auditor estimates that Utah pays between 55- and 85-million dollars to educate children who are here illegally. That’s a lot of money for Utah (about 2 to 3 percent of the State’s expenditures for public education). According to federal law, Utah must educate these children no questions asked. If that’s the case, and if the federal government isn’t going to do anything about immigration, why shouldn’t the feds foot the education bill?
Now, I’m not holding my breath waiting for the check to show up, but I hope the conversation helps send the message that the states are going to move forward on immigration.
I have been one to encourage patience on immigration, reminding colleagues that the federal government has sole constitutional authority to deal with immigration. Like many state legislators, though, I have run out of patience with the ineptitude of our federal government on this issue. If they can’t deal with it, the States will.
States, after all, deal with most complex issues – education, crime, social services, transportation, etc. And, remember, every year (by what must appear to be powerful sorcery to our federal counterparts) states balance their budgets. Waiting on leadership from a group that can’t even balance its own checkbook is a tough thing for state legislators who year-in and year-out make the difficult decisions necessary to govern.
Given Congress’ recent failure to pass meaningful legislation – and fully realizing that Congress lacks the spine and/or ability to get back in the trenches and get the job done – I predict that most states will move forward on legislation to deal with impacts caused by illegal immigration. As Cavuto pointed out, it would be messy, if 50 states started doing their own thing on immigration. But, in my opinion, it’s probably better than doing nothing.
Suggestions?
The Legislative Auditor estimates that Utah pays between 55- and 85-million dollars to educate children who are here illegally. That’s a lot of money for Utah (about 2 to 3 percent of the State’s expenditures for public education). According to federal law, Utah must educate these children no questions asked. If that’s the case, and if the federal government isn’t going to do anything about immigration, why shouldn’t the feds foot the education bill?
Now, I’m not holding my breath waiting for the check to show up, but I hope the conversation helps send the message that the states are going to move forward on immigration.
I have been one to encourage patience on immigration, reminding colleagues that the federal government has sole constitutional authority to deal with immigration. Like many state legislators, though, I have run out of patience with the ineptitude of our federal government on this issue. If they can’t deal with it, the States will.
States, after all, deal with most complex issues – education, crime, social services, transportation, etc. And, remember, every year (by what must appear to be powerful sorcery to our federal counterparts) states balance their budgets. Waiting on leadership from a group that can’t even balance its own checkbook is a tough thing for state legislators who year-in and year-out make the difficult decisions necessary to govern.
Given Congress’ recent failure to pass meaningful legislation – and fully realizing that Congress lacks the spine and/or ability to get back in the trenches and get the job done – I predict that most states will move forward on legislation to deal with impacts caused by illegal immigration. As Cavuto pointed out, it would be messy, if 50 states started doing their own thing on immigration. But, in my opinion, it’s probably better than doing nothing.
Suggestions?
posted by steve u. at 7/19/2007
Subscribe
10 Comments:
OK, so it might be messy. Big deal. The Founders intended the states to be laboratories of democracy. Ideas were to bubble from the states up to the feds rather than being dictated by the feds to the states. On too many issues, we have gone the wrong direction for too long. Let us, by all means, start going back the other direction -- the way it was meant to be.
Yes, immigration is a national issue that demands federal action. Once the states experiment with solutions, we will get more of an idea of what works and what doesn't. Pressure will also mount for the feds to properly handle the matter.
It might seem like a funky way of doing things, given that we are so used to being given our marching orders from Washington, but let's get started.
When will the Legislature request an audit of the benefits the State recieves from its illegal residents? What is their true value to the economy and to tax revenue? Are they a net profit or a net loss?
Sounds like a good idea to me. Everything that we can do to focus attention and responsibility on this issue should be done. Our economy can't support all of the people who want to come here, there has to be limits. And if the economy collapses then no one will be helped.
Andrew,
Correct. Sorry if my presentation was too one-sided.
As I said on Cavuto, we clearly do receive benefits from low-cost labor. However, it is a false perspective to recognize that simple economic fact and, then, jump to the conclusion that we should do nothing about illegal immigration. (I'm not saying that you are doing that, btw).
Personally, I am very in favor of generous immigration policy. But, we need to control who comes in and how they come in. We want to maximize the benefit and reduce the burden.
The only problem is what cost will be placed on society, and ultimately the tax payers as those children begin turning to crime and gang related activity. As the saying goes, "an idle mind is the devil's playground."
There's also a legitimate debate to be held as to whether it is morally right to punish the children fo the sins of the parents.
The more money you get from the feds, the more control they exact. Lest we forget the lessons of NCLB, maybe there is a better way to send the message without gambling with our children's futures.
Nathan,
I'd bet there is zero chance the feds will foot the bill or that states will stop educating the children. The point of the letter is to encourage the feds to get back in the ring and figure something out. States likely will lead out on non-education issues, like employment verification and welfare.
Has any research been done to check into how much the state gets back from the illegal immigrants? Some of them own houses, most pay taxes on their checks, all pay taxes on local purchases, etc.
I agree - get the feds talking again, but this seems like a weak bluff.
Steve,
Of course this is a good idea. Any time the feds push an unfunded mandate onto us we should rebel.
I am concerned, however, that you have FOCUSED on the unfunded mandate of educating the children of illegal immigrants. This is actually one of the smallest unfunded mandates.
Special Education (regulated under IDEA) is only funded at about 40 percent of the cost each year. That adds up to a much larger unf. man. than the one you have mentioned.
Why have you chosen this one as your jumping off point?
Rep. Urquhart,
For many years, I was under the impression that proof of citizenship or legal residence was required in order to receive Welfare and Medicaid assistance. I was a bit shocked to learn that the question is not asked. If true, is that mandated by the courts or is it an administrative decision?
Has the Mexican government been approached to set up health and welfare programs for their citizens here in the U.S.?
Have you looked at the 287(g) program, through which DHS trains local law enforcement to handle immigration violations, and also pitches in some money. That would be a good start for Utah.
Post a Comment
<< Home