Saturday, May 14, 2011

Arizona's Immigration Problem Is Other States' Gain

Arizona has decided to seek a Supreme Court hearing on it's flawed SB 1070 law, which saddens me as a resident of the state. Utah took a much better position on immigration, accounting for its potential regional advantage by countering the vitriol in Arizona with a friendlier voice. Texas, too, has mostly played this one well. But Arizona has decided to double down on a flawed strategy instead of seeking better solutions and paving a way to prosperity for itself.


People on both sides of the immigration debate remain too partisan in general, and in a crazy tribalist or provincial sense of the word. Remember, we still haven't done much in the way of addressing the root problems and assigning costs versus benefits of the status quo versus any prospective solutions -- but there's already a lot of good info out there that could help guide policy decisions.

In 2007, the Congressional Budget Office completed a report that explains quite clearly why we've been lagging in coming up with a comprehensive modern solution for immigration. In its report, the CBO corroborated other evidence that immigration, both documented and undocumented, tends to create positive growth for the U.S. economy. Furthermore, undocumented immigration has not cost the federal government nearly as much as it has created in revenues through economic growth. But the report did indeed state that immigration creates a strain on state and local governments' budgets.

So if we're wondering why the Feds have failed to address concerns of states like ours, it boils down to economics and national priorities. The fact that our federal government has been dragging its feet doesn't invalidate Arizona's claim that immigration is costing the state more than its fair share, but I also can't understand why our state has been so sensational in its approach to the problem. We want something done to help AZ, right? Then let's make a deal.

My proposal is one more like what New York achieved in the 19th century by implementing a massive immigration processing center called Ellis Island (we all know Ellis Island, but many didn't realize that it was borne out of a vicious immigration debate like today's). There were certainly calls to limit immigration or institute a strong quota system (which came later) -- one could argue that immigration was even more burdensome on New York's local economy at the time than it is on border states now -- but the federal government also knew that our country needed the economic growth from immigration at the time. So they reached a compromise that brought many federal jobs to New York and New Jersey as well as easing the burden previously shouldered by New York City and the state of New York. Not only that, but the Ellis Island move also took away some of this new immigration activity from other states that were serving as major ports of entry at the time. Big win for New York in the 1800s, and I think something similar would be a major win for Arizona in the 21st century.

Why must we continue to bicker and give credence to deep seeds of hatred, when we can instead ask what's in this for us? Further restricting immigration or sticking with the status quo does nothing to help Arizona. Creating a meaningful reform policy and embracing our geographical advantage as a major port for immigration could very well fix our current problems and provide much needed economic diversification and growth going forward. Where is this kind of solution in the mainstream debate?

No comments:

Post a Comment