If the conservative think tank's intent was to derail
immigration reform, that's a losing battle.
The Heritage
Foundation’s recently unveiled and long-awaited report on the Senate
immigration proposal certainly brought the ultra-conservative think tank lots
of attention. But it’s not the kind that’s likely to prove influential.
Republican leaders,
including Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) and Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) denounced it. “This
study was designed for a headline,” said former Mississippi Governor Hayley
Barbour, terming it a “political document.” The Libertarian Cato Institute
called it “fatally flawed.”
What went wrong? In short, this new study exaggerates the costs of immigration reform, and underestimates its benefits. It relies on unrealistic assumptions and junk data. Because the Heritage Foundation tried to fool its audience, the right-wing think tank was stuck with a flop.
It quickly became
clear that this widely publicized report was backfiring. One of its co-authors
was exposed as a
racist who asserted in his dissertation that Latinos have
below-normal IQs. He resigned in the public relations nightmare that
followed. Meanwhile, the report’s lead author — another controversial
conservative — has admitted that he hasn’t even read the full Senate proposal.
The good news is that
this boondoggle illustrates how hard the anti-immigrant crowd is scrambling to
block constructive reform measures.
Heritage’s report
claims that legalizing the status of undocumented people in the U.S. would cost
taxpayers $6.3 trillion over the next few decades. That’s a scary number,
right? But it’s not accurate in the least. The researchers who produced that
phony statistic distorted their “findings” by conducting a cost/benefit
analysis that left out all the benefits.
A more accurate study
by the Center for American Progress estimates that legalizing the undocumented
would actually expand our economy by at least $1.5 trillion to
our economy over the next decade. That estimate takes into account
the new jobs, higher wages, and increased tax revenue that reform would spark.
Heritage’s study
calculates that all of the estimated 11 million undocumented people in the U.S.
would apply to adjust their status if that were an option, that all of them
will apply for every possible government benefit available after obtaining
legal residency, and that all of them would then collect all those benefits.
In fact, the Senate
immigration proposal would bar citizenship candidates from receiving public
benefits. Heritage also says that undocumented immigrants, who tend to have low
levels of income and education, will stay that way forever. No upward mobility,
no better future, no American Dream. No Latinos in this parallel universe will
attain the status of Sen. Rubio, actress Salma Hayek, or athletes like Pablo
Sandoval.
Really? Hispanics are
currently the largest minority in American colleges, according to the Pew
Center, and have reached record levels of college enrollment. In 2012, Latino
high school grads s actually enrolled in college at a higher rate than
their white classmates. To suggest that immigrants and their
children lack the potential to out-earn their parents is bunk.
What do the authors of
this report think would work better? It’s hard to say as they didn’t bother to
offer any alternatives to the Senate plan.
And why would the
Heritage Foundation put out this dud? If its intent was to derail immigration
reform, that’s a losing battle. A New York Times/CBS News poll found that 83 percent of
Americans favor a path to citizenship for the undocumented as
long as they meet certain conditions. It’s hard to make an arch-conservative
case against immigration reform when even FOX Host Sean Hannity and Speaker of
the House John Boehner support it.
Yes, many Americans
have concerns about illegal immigration. That’s why the bipartisan Senate “Gang
of 8″ labored so hard to achieve a compromise that balances our national
security, economic, and humanitarian interests. Their bill is supported by
business leaders, the faith community, labor unions, and immigrant advocates.
If the Heritage
Foundation opposes the Senate proposal, it should at least come up with good
reasons to oppose it. If it can find any legitimate ones.
Raul A. Reyes is an attorney and columnist in New York City. Distributed via OtherWords
(OtherWords.org)
