Can we both be right?

Immigration a fact of our democracy

EDWARD LOTTERMAN St.Paul Pioneer Press

Immigration issues often are presented as distinct either/or questions: Does immigration help or hurt the economy? Do immigrants take jobs away from native-born citizens? These are what logic professors call "false dichotomies." On such complex issues, seemingly opposing views often are both right.

That complexity is apparent in news reports on how immigration is affecting Minnesota, including stories in this newspaper last Sunday and Monday and in an excellent Twin Cities Public Television story reported by Fred de Sam Lazaro that aired on PBS's NewsHour on March 22. Both the Pioneer Press and TPT stories looked at Worthington, Minn., as an example of how immigration issues play out in our state.

The 150 kindergarteners at Worthington Public Schools speak Spanish, Lao, Amharic, Vietnamese and Chinese in addition to English. One fourth of Worthington's residents are immigrants, mostly legal. Factories like the Swift meatpacking plant depend heavily on immigrants.

Worthington's police chief noted that frequently the people who are arrested have forged identity papers, making law enforcement difficult. Hospital administrators noted that patients coming in with other people's IDs caused errors in medical care. The hospital's write-offs of uncollectible bills have risen sharply, in part due to confusion about patients' true identities.

One thing is clear from Worthington's experience. Whatever the economic benefits of increased immigration for society as a whole, it does impose sharply higher administrative costs on those communities with disproportionately high immigrant populations. This is true for legal immigrants as well as illegal ones.

Gov. Tim Pawlenty is raising the issue of what immigration costs governments across the state and how forged identity documents affect law enforcement and other government functions. His estimate that Minnesota governments spend an additional $150 million as a result of illegal immigration may be in the ballpark.

But, as others point out, that figure is not a net cost to the state. Immigrants help generate taxable economic activity. They pay taxes themselves. All pay sales taxes. Most pay state income taxes. Even without owning homes, they pay real estate taxes via their rent. If all people not here legally were magically whisked back home, state and local tax revenue would fall substantially

Still, most citizens would deem Pawlenty's proposals that the state increase policing of ID crimes and human trafficking prudent measures.

His proposal to roll back "sanctuary laws," which restrict local police departments from checking on immigration status, is more controversial. St. Paul Police Chief John Harrington and others argue that enforcement by local police of immigration laws engenders distrust in immigrant communities that makes enforcing other laws much more difficult. Moreover, many police budgets are stretched thin, and taking on a federal enforcement function is not a high priority locally.

Moreover, most foreign-born Minnesotans are here completely legally. They work hard and contribute to a dynamic economy. In Worthington alone, immigrants have started 25 small businesses.

So both sides are correct. Illegal immigration does create costs for government. And immigrants benefit Minnesota's economy in many ways.

Pawlenty does raise a point that resonates with many. A nation should enforce its laws, even if some think them misguided and even if illegal activity provides economic benefits to society. Widespread toleration of lawbreaking undermines the legal fabric that holds a society together.

Opposition to immigration — legal or illegal — may be motivated by bigotry or by erroneous perceptions of the social and economic effects of immigration. But specifying how and when others may enter a nation and become citizens is a core legal function of any nation-state. If our country enacts a law through the democratic process, the motivations of its supporters should not determine whether or not we enforce it.

I support admitting many more legal immigrants than we do under current law. But I think we should change the law, not wink at its nonenforcement.

As long as there are large wage differentials between the United States and many other countries, many people will try to migrate here. This is particularly true of those in the western hemisphere who can cross a long land border that is hard to close completely.

Border fences and patrols increase the cost of getting here and dampen migration, but they cannot eliminate it. The amount we spend on limiting supply in this manner is disproportionately greater than what we spend on limiting demand.

Spending money to penalize those who employ illegal immigrants and implementing a national work identification document that is hard to forge would do much more to reduce illegal migration than building walls across deserts. These measures are much less popular politically, however.

St. Paul economist and writer Edward Lotterman can be reached at elotterman@pioneerpress.com.