Mexican Diplomat Wants Legal Status for "All its Citizens" in the U.S.

Mexico's top diplomat said here Thursday that his nation wants to see Washington undertake an immigration reform extending legal status to "all the Mexicans in the U.S."

The time has come to debate that reform, "without passion, but with reason, because it mutually suits us," Foreign Secretary Luis Ernesto Derbez said in Chicago, home to a burgeoning Mexican community.

Mexico will continue pointing out to U.S. authorities the need for such an accord, he told business and civic leaders at a breakfast organized by the Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce.

He reminded his audience that since taking office in December 2000, Mexican President Vicente Fox has pressed Washington for legalization of all Mexicans living north of the border, immigration policies favoring family reunification and a pact on guest workers.

Up to 5 million Mexicans are estimated to be living and working in the United States without a visa or Green Card.

Derbez, who arrived in Chicago late Wednesday, had earlier raised the immigration question with city Mayor Richard M. Daley and Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich, both Democrats.

The governor said after an hour-long meeting with the Mexican official that Illinois does not discriminate against undocumented immigrants, and hailed "the great contribution" made to the state's economy by its 1.5 million Mexican residents.

Derbez acknowledged the U.S. need for a "secure border" in the wake of the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, noting that Mexico could itself be a target of terrorism because of its proximity to the United States.

He said Mexican authorities do not regard cooperation with Washington on security concerns as an "imposition," but rather as a function "of being partners."

The diplomat told Chicago businessmen that an immigration accord would make Mexico "more competitive internationally."

"It will give us the chance to create more social benefits for our people. Without an accord, immigration will continue as it has until now, without order," Derbez said.

One of those present, Republican gubernatorial hopeful Jim Oberweis, suggested in a question-and-answer period following Derbez's speech that creating jobs would be a better solution.

Oberweis made battling illegal immigration the centerpiece of his failed 2004 campaign for the Republican nomination for one of Illinois' two seats in the U.S. Senate, gaining in the process the enmity of immigrants' rights groups in the state.

Mexico's ambassador to the United States, Carlos de Icaza, said his government supports a bill proposed by Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) that would open the doors to legalization for many, if not most, Mexican immigrants.

The key difference between the McCain-Kennedy measure and the guest-worker program put forward by Republican President George W. Bush is that the Senate bill includes workable provisions for immigrants to obtain citizenship or permanent legal residence, while the administration plan does not.

While Icaza was careful to also describe the Bush proposal in positive terms, he insisted a more comprehensive solution is needed.

"The U.S. economy needs the Mexican workforce to be able to prosper," the envoy said. "A just law should recognize the contribution of Mexican immigrants to the economy of the U.S." EFE

"The U.S. economy needs the Mexican workforce to be able to prosper," the envoy said.

100% correct. A mexican workforce prospering in mexico.

"A just law should recognize the contribution of Mexican immigrants to the economy of the U.S."

Report the "contributions" eh? Ok, we can do that.

The Costs of Illegal Immigration
Illegals Cost Feds $10 Billion a Year; Amnesty Would Nearly Triple Cost

Read the Report

WASHINGTON (August 25, 2004) � A new study from the Center for Immigration Studies is one of the first to estimate the impact of illegal immigration on the federal budget. Based on Census Bureau data, the study estimates that households headed by illegal aliens used $10 billion more in government services than they paid in taxes in 2002. These figures are only for the federal government; costs at the state and local level are also likely to be significant. The study also finds that if illegals were given amnesty, the fiscal deficit at the federal level would grow to nearly $29 billion.

Among the findings:

* Illegal alien households are estimated to use $2,700 a year more in services than they pay in taxes, creating a total fiscal burden of nearly $10.4 billion on the federal budget in 2002.

* Among the largest federal costs: Medicaid ($2.5 billion); treatment for the uninsured ($2.2 billion); food assistance programs ($1.9 billion); the federal prison and court systems ($1.6 billion); and federal aid to schools ($1.4 billion).

* If illegal aliens were legalized and began to pay taxes and use services like legal immigrants with the same education levels, the estimated annual fiscal deficit at the federal level would increase from $2,700 per household to nearly $7,700, for a total federal deficit of $29 billion.

* With nearly two-third of illegals lacking a high school diploma, the primary reason they create a fiscal deficit is their low education levels and resulting low incomes and tax payments � not their legal status or their unwillingness to work.

* Amnesty increases costs because illegals would still be largely unskilled, and thus their tax payments would continue to be very modest, but once legalized they would be able to access many more government services.

* The fact that legal immigrants with little schooling are a fiscal drain on federal coffers does not mean that legal immigrants overall are a drain. Many legal immigrants are highly skilled.

* Because many of the costs are due to their U.S.-born children, who are awarded U.S. citizenship at birth, barring illegals themselves from federal programs will not significantly reduce costs.

* Although they create a net drain on the federal government, the average illegal household pays more than $4,200 a year in federal taxes, for a total of nearly $16 billion.

* However, they impose annual costs of more than $26.3 billion, or about $6,950 per illegal household.

* About 43 percent, or $7 billion, of the federal taxes illegals pay go to Social Security and Medicare.

* Employers do not see the costs associated with less-educated immigrant workers because the costs are spread out among all taxpayers.

Why Legalization Is So Costly. Costs rise unavoidably because amnesty will not change the low education levels of illegal aliens or the fact that the American economy offers such workers very limited opportunities, regardless of legal status. The vast majority of illegal aliens will continue to have very low incomes, and make very modest tax payments. However, legal status would allow them to use many more programs. We know that costs would rise dramatically because legal immigrants with the same levels of education make extensive use of public services. Thus, even though we estimate that average tax payments would rise by 77 percent, we also find that costs would rise 117 percent. To understand why this happens, it is helpful to consider a program like the Earned Income Tax Credit, which pays cash to low-income workers. Illegals currently account for only 1.5 percent of the program�s total costs, but if they were legalized their use of the program would grow tenfold because with legal status they would no longer need stolen or bogus Social Security numbers to get the credit. This dramatic rise in costs is not due to laziness on the part of immigrants. In fact, only those who work receive the EITC. The dramatic rise in costs simply reflects the low educational attainment of illegals and their resulting low incomes.

If Illegals Stay, So Will the Costs. To the extent that policy makers have considered the fiscal costs of illegal immigration, they have generally tried to reduce the costs while allowing illegals to remain. But this strategy has not been effective because the average illegal already receives less than half as much in services from the federal government as do other households. Moreover, many of the costs are due to their U.S.-born children, who are awarded American citizenship at birth under current law. Other programs are simply too politically sensitive to cut, such as the Women, Infants and Children nutrition program. And others costs are unavoidable, such as incarcerating illegals who have been convicted of crimes. Conversely, enforcing immigration laws is both popular with voters and administratively more feasible. There are really only two options: either we begin to enforce the law, significantly reducing the number of illegals in the country, or we accept the costs created by the presence of a large pool of unskilled workers.

Results Similar to Other Studies. A 1997 report by the National Research Council (NRC) on the fiscal impact of immigrants concluded that education levels and resulting income are the primary determinants of tax payments and service use, which is also a central finding of this report. The results of this study closely match the findings of a 1998 Urban Institute study. Our estimated average tax payment for illegal households in New York State is almost identical to that of the Urban Institute, when adjusted for inflation. The results of this study are also buttressed by an analysis of illegal alien tax returns done by the Inspector General�s Office of the Department of Treasury in 2004, which found that about half had no federal income tax liability, very similar to our findings of 45 percent.

The panel discussion is open to the public. For more information, contact Steven Camarota at (202) 466-8185 or sac@cis.org.

Ok skippy, any questions on those illegal alien "contributions"?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.