Immigration is one of the principles that this country was founded on. As United States citizens, we are all descendants of immigrants (except for the few Native Americans that are left). My wife is an immigrant from another country. After spending 9 years of dealing with immigration laws and processes so that she could come here legally, she has just recently passed the naturalization interview and test and will be sworn in as a citizen this Spring.

As people well acquainted with immigration issues, we both agree that immigration laws are too lax and make it too easy for people to come live here and take advantage of us (the taxpayers), only to return to their native country years later and live like kings from the years of welfare that they have accumulated. There are also many people who come here to engage in criminal activity and return to their country to "retire" early. Immigration laws are too restrictive on people with a legitimate reason to come here and not tough enough on people who will be coming here to take advantage of our country. We are in need of a system that allows for expedited acceptance of good candidates and permanent removal of those who will not contribute positively to our society.

So just how big is the problem of illegal immigration? The Department of Immigration and Naturalization estimated in 2000 that there were over 7 million illegal immigrants residing inside the country. In 2003, there were 181,979 deportations of immigrants, most of them illegal (Department of Homeland Security). The National Academy of Sciences reports that immigration generates a net gain for U.S. natives of at most $10 billion annually, or about $120 per native household in the United States. At the same time, however, the National Academy reports that immigration imposes a $1,174 annual fiscal burden on the typical native household in California, and a $229 annual fiscal burden on the typical native household in New Jersey (Borjas 35).

Many claim that the need is for welfare reform. They day that by reforming the welfare system, we can make it more difficult for immigrants to receive welfare benefits and therefore, reduce the appeal to those who wish to come live off of the rest of us. In 1996 Congress passed the welfare-reform bill which placed many limitations on welfare benefits for immigrants. This bill has faced extreme opposition and congress has since voted to extend many of the deadlines and cutoff dates, some indefinitely (Borjas 34). The welfare reform bill of 1996 was born of good intentions but has not been able to make any noticeable difference. This shows why the need is for immigration reform and not welfare reform.

There are some politicians in this country that claim that we should legalize the illegal immigrants who are within our borders. They say this will help the country because the government will be able to collect taxes on those wages already being earned. Those taxes would help support public services and help "save" Social Security. It will also help the country avoid a potential shortage of workers, thus strengthening the economy (O'Sullivan). These claims are not well founded. The costs of these families receiving welfare will far outweigh the benefits created.

Today's immigrants are more likely to receive welfare than natives and than earlier immigrants. In 1970, the Census indicated that immigrant households were less likely to receive cash benefits (such as AFDC, SSI, or General Assistance) than native households. By 1990, the Census showed that immigrants were more likely to receive cash benefits than native households. In fact, if one adds non-cash programs (such as Medicaid, Food Stamps, and housing assistance), it turns out that 21 per cent of all immigrant households receive some type of aid, as compared to 14 per cent of native households and 10 per cent of white non-Hispanic native households. In short, the "welfare gap" between immigrants and natives has reversed direction and grown substantially in a very short time (Borjas 34).

There are three main causes for such disproportionate growth. First, today's immigrants are relatively less skilled than those who came two or three decades ago. Since the enactment of the 1965 Amendments, the United States has been granting entry visas to persons who have relatives in the United States, with no regard to their skills or economic potential. That means that immigrants who arrived in the mid to late 1960s entered the U.S. labor market with a wage disadvantage of about 17 per cent; today's immigrants enter with a wage disadvantage of about 32 per cent (Borjas 35). Today's immigrants earn an average of 32 per cent less than comparable non-immigrants.

Second, many of today's immigrants stay on welfare for longer periods of time than do citizens. In many cases, it is because of a language barrier that impedes them from gaining employment. In their study of immigrant welfare recipients in three major cities, Tumlin and Zimmerman describe the situations of many of those immigrants. Immigrants must be exiting welfare at slower rates than citizens. Indeed, our analysis indicates that immigrants on the TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) rolls are having a harder time getting off TANF because they face significant barriers to employment, and are less likely to work while on TANF (10).

The third reason is that our welfare policies have been widely publicized among potential immigrants and have caused many to come here that would otherwise not have come. Russian- and Chinese-language newspapers print detailed reports about the application process and eligibility requirements for particular programs. There are "Dear Abby" - style columns in newspapers to help readers with welfare problems. Bookstores in Taiwan, Hong Kong, and the United States sell a Chinese-language book that contains a 36-page guide to SSI and other benefits (Borjas 35). Decades of economic research into the determinants of migration decisions have demonstrated that it is potential income that is the significant factor. The welfare state in the United States provides a lot of income opportunities, especially for persons with few skills.

Immigration worsens U.S. poverty in two ways. First, immigrants add directly to the population of the poor. About 16 percent of America's poor are immigrants. But this figure rises to 36 percent when the minor children of current immigrants and the descendants of post-1965 immigrants are added to the mix. A new underclass is being created. Second, immigration adds to poverty indirectly by driving down the income and employment rates of poorer Americans through economic competition.

Immigration is also a major component of the health-care problem. For example, almost half (46 percent) of persons in immigrant households either have no insurance or have it provided to them at taxpayer expense. That is not the only cost immigration imposes on the health-care system. The New York Times, in an unguarded moment last year, wrote as follows: "The American Hospital Association estimated that in 2000 the 24 southernmost counties from Texas to California accrued $832 million in unpaid medical care, a quarter of which was directly attributable to illegal immigrants" (O'Sullivan).

Another huge problem resulting from our current immigration policies is criminal activity by illegal immigrants. In 2003, nearly half of the deportations were result of criminal activity (Department of Homeland Security). One of the biggest problems with illegal immigrant crime is that there is very little coordination or cooperation between law enforcement and immigration officials. In her study of illegal immigrant crime, Heather Mac Donald describes the situation.

In Los Angeles, 95 percent of all outstanding warrants for homicide target illegal aliens, and up to two-thirds of all fugitive felony warrants are for illegal aliens. Many of these warrants are for repeat offenders who have been in custody for earlier offenses and are thus liable to deportation. But they were released without reference to the INS. As several police chiefs told Mac Donald, they would face a "firestorm of criticism" if they either referred to the extent of crime by illegal aliens or suggested enforcing immigration laws against them. These timid calculations are, of course, the direct result of permitting the growth of culturally separate enclaves of illegal aliens.

Failing to enforce immigration law is the "broken windows" theory of crime prevention writ large; it tells people that the government is either afraid or unwilling to enforce the law in general. As a result, more and more crimes unrelated to immigration are committed. Second, the sense of ethnic separateness that mass immigration fosters itself encourages a social atmosphere in which ethnic loyalty trumps civic responsibility even among political leaders. Thus, it becomes acceptable to tolerate even serious crimes by ethnic gangs rather than to insult the community by removing them from the country. And the existence of such cultural enclaves--ones that have established a semi-independence from the rest of the U.S.--tends to attract more people from outside, some to work legally or illegally, others to live outside the law in a more general sense.

Our current immigration policies have led to a worsened economy, higher costs of health care and increased crime by groups who are able to continue with their activities virtually untouched. We are in desperate need of a better system that scrutinizes immigration applicants and asks the question, "How will this person impact American society?" The best way to keep immigrants from becoming a public burden is by only admitting the ones who can help make our country stronger. We need stronger punishments for illegal immigrants and a better system for finding them and enforcing the law. We need to take control of our countries future.



Works Cited

Borgas, George J. "Immigration and Welfare". National Review. Vol 49.11 (1997): p 34-7

Department of Homeland Security. "Monthly Statistical Report - Fiscal Year 2003". Office of Immigration Statistics. Oct 31,2003. <http://uscis.gov/graphics/shared/aboutus/statistics/msrsep03/index.htm>

Mac Donald, Heather. "The Illegal-Alien Crime Wave". City Journal. Winter 2004. <http://www.city-journal.org/html/14_1_the_illegal_alien.html>

O'Sullivan, John. "Tearing Up the Country". National Review. Vol 56.2 (2004): p33-5

Tumlin, Karen C., and Wendy Zimmerman. Immigrants and TANF a Look at Immigrant Welfare Recipients in Three Cities. Washington DC: The Urban Institute, 2003

United States. Immigration and Naturalization Service. Estimates of the Unauthorized Immigrant Population Residing in the United States: 1990 to 2000. Washington DC GPO, Jan 31 2003