The cost of illegal immigration to North Carolina

Whether the roughly 350,000 illegal immigrants in North Carolina are a benefit or burden to our state is a complicated question. I'm asked that quite a bit and there is no straight answer. There is a lot of conflicting information out there. And that's not surprising when assessing a community that does its best to remain under the radar.

One of the latest studies, by the Federation for American Immigration Reform, says illegal immigrants costs the state $1.3 billion annually. Meanwhile, a 2006 study by the UNC Chapel Hill's Kenan Institute says N.C. Latinos – of which half are undocumented -- contribute $9.2 billion to the N.C. economy.

So which one is right? I’m not going to pretend to know. They draw totally different conclusions, but both raise points worth a closer look. I'd recommend checking out the studies yourself, but here are some of the highlights. Since the FAIR study is more recent, I’ll start with it.

FAIR's study

-- $975 million annually spent on educating the children of illegal immigrants, based on an estimate of 49,800 school-age, illegal immigrants and 69,800 U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants. Researchers estimated per pupil costs of $8,150 per year for public K-12 schooling.
-- $209 million-plus in health care costs. FAIR says North Carolinians who have medical insurance also pay higher medical insurance bills to help cover the costs of those without insurance.
-- $49 million a year for incarcerating deportable illegal immigrants at state and local prisons. FAIR says the figure does not include short-term detention costs, related law enforcement and judicial expenditures.

FAIR, which advocates for stricter immigration enforcement, says its findings demonstrate the extent to which illegal immigration has become a nationwide phenomenon and a burden on American taxpayers in every region of the country.

Read the full FAIR report here.

UNC Chapel Hill Kenan Institute study.
-- $61 million spent by taxpayers to pay for schools, health care and prisons to accommodate the rapidly growing Latino population.
-- $1 billion saved in labor costs had Latinos not been around to build an estimated 27,000 houses in the state in 2004. UNC researches said as much as $10 billion in construction wouldn't have been completed.
-- $9 billion contributed to the state's economy by the Latino community via its purchases, taxes and labor.
UNC researchers, which conducted the study on behalf of the N.C. Bankers Association, concluded that Latinos “contribute immensely” more to the state's economy than they cost taxpayers. Researchers concluded North Carolina needed the low-wage labor Latinos provide to compete in a global economy.

Read the full Kenan Institute study here.

Photo: stopnlook

Advocacy groups respond to Latino KKK allegations

Carolina advocate Andrea Bazán says she was stunned to hear conservatives compare the largest Hispanic advocacy group to the Ku Klux Klan.

Our colleagues at the (Raleigh) News & Observer report that the nomination of a Hispanic woman to the Supreme Court has brought allegations few thought possible. Some conservatives say Sonia Sotomayor's former membership with the National Council of La Raza should disqualify her for the high court.

La Raza is a Washington-based private non-profit. Its mission is to reduce poverty and discrimination and improve the opportunities for Hispanic Americans. It also aggressively supports immigration reform that includes a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants and advocated for illegal immigrants to pay in-state college tuition fees.

Former Congressman Tom Tancredo called La Raza "a Latino KKK without the hoods and nooses." And conservative political commentator Rush Limbaugh compared Sotomayor to David Duke, who is a member of the Ku Klux Klan.

“It’s outrageous,” Bazán, who chair La Raza’s board, told the paper.

Much of the focus has been on the group’s name: La Raza, which can mean “the race”
Ron Woodard, who leads enforcement advocacy group N.C. Listen, said "They seem to play the race game and to be focused on their race because of their name."

State Sen. Phil Berger, an Eden Republican, who is sponsoring a bill that would bar illegal immigrants from community colleges, said he’s troubled by La Raza’s advocacy work for illegal immigrants.

"If she's a member of the group and she agrees with their policy positions, that would argue against her being on the Supreme Court," he said.

But others say these allegations against La Raza and Sotomayor are a subversive political strategy, much like was used against African American organizations during the civil rights movement.

Said Bazán: "I think we should be looking at the Sotomayor nomination and discussing her qualifications as a judge."

Advocates: Watch out, judges 'will block' enforcement

Compromise is key to passing immigration reform, but some advocates believe promises by the pro-legalization movement to accept enforcement measures ring hollow.

They say the "dirty little secret" is immigrant rights groups know such promises won't actually happen because judges will block any agreed upon enforcement.

The Center for Immigration Studies presented a report earlier this month on what they characterized as an attack on plenary power, a 19th century doctrine that gives the legislative and executive branches of government power over immigration regulation.

The center says there is a movement by immigration attorneys and others to erode this power in favor of a judicially administered immigration system.

Mark Krikorian, executive director of the center, said this will allow judges to block enforcement measures such as mandatory use of the E-Verify system, which checks the Social Security numbers of job applicants, or more cooperation between local police and federal immigration authorities.

“If there’s no guarantee of enforcement measures actually making it through court, then the whole concept of a deal is completely undermined,” Krikorian said.

Krikorian, citing the 1986 amnesty, says history shows that promises of legal status for tougher enforcement may not be held up.

Photo: steakpinbal, CIS

New tactic: suing the President

More than 100 kids have sued President Obama over the deportation of their parents.

The children, all born in United States, charge the deportations will cause "extreme, grave and irreparable hardship" and therefore amount to civil rights violations against them as U.S. citizens.

They're are asking the court to suspend the deportations of their parents until Congress overhauls U.S. immigration laws. The case is set to go to trial in August.

Click here to read the 51-page complaint.

Nora Sandigo, chief executive officer of Miami-based advocacy group American Fraternity, filed the suit in on behalf of the children in U.S. District Court in Miami. At a rally yesterday, Sandigo said she is frustrated that the Obama administration hasn't done more to address immigration reform, according to the Associated Press.

"Today these children's voices are not heard, but tomorrow these U.S. citizens will be voting," she said.

Acting U.S. attorney Jeffrey H. Soman asked the court to dismiss the case on grounds that Sandigo didn’t properly file her case.

The suit was originally brought against the Bush administration, but was dismissed.
Alfonso Olviedo, the children's attorney, told our colleagues at the Miami Herald that the case would most likely be dismissed again, with the court citing that it is an inappropriate forum.

Even if dismissed, Sandigo said her group will continue to fight. Children at the Miami rally said their families risked losing their homes and some children are suffering psychological and physical hardship.

"My grades went from A's to C's when my mom had to leave," Ronald Soza, who is named in the suit, told the Associated Press. Ronald’s mother was deported to Nicaragua last year.

Photos: (Top) Obama File AP Photo/Haraz N. Ghanbari, (Above) Ronald Soza, 10, left, and his sister Cecia, 12, right, at protest for the deportation of their mother. LYNNE SLADKY/AP / STF

Is worker ID answer to passing immigration reform?

The worker ID may be the best way to ensure workers are authorized and convince Americans the government can actually stop the flow of illegal immigrants, says a N.Y. Senator.

U.S. Sen. Charles E. Schumer, a Democrat who will lead the effort to write the Senate’s comprehensive reform bill, has called the worker ID card the best way to ensure U.S. workers are in the country legally and therefore stop the flow of illegal immigration.

"The ID will make it easy for employers to avoid undocumented workers, which will allow for tough sanctions against employers who break the law, which will lead to no jobs being available for illegal immigrants, which will stop illegal immigration," Schumer wrote in his 2007 book, "Positively American."

The Los Angeles Times reports that Schumer will present the worker ID card idea at a hearing this summer on employee verification systems.

Schumer writes that the ID card will make it easy for employers to avoid undocumented workers and allow tough sanctions against employers who break the law.

While some support his idea, it has raised concerns of “big brother” intrusion among some activists like the American Civil Liberties Union.

"The bottom line is that this would be really expensive, really invasive and people will hate it," Chris Calabrese, counsel for the ACLU's technology and liberty project, told the newspaper.

Others say it would be impossible to ensure millions of employers remain in compliance.

"At the end of the day, if we're going to achieve legalization of a major share of the undocumented, we realize there will have to be some give and take over worker verification," Mike Garcia, president of the Service Employees International Union Local 1877 in Los Angeles said. "We're not against it necessarily if all of the other pieces of immigration reform fall into place."

Photo by Robert Giroux/Getty Images

Is Obama holding up E-Verify?

Legislators and advocates are questioning President Obama's commitment to enforcing immigration laws after, again, delaying when federal contractors need to adhere to an order to use an employment-verification system designed to identify illegal immigrants.

Originally scheduled to go into effect last January, the Obama administration rescheduled for June 1. The order to use E-Verify has now been pushed back until Sept. 15.

The administration says it gives the president more time to review the program.

E-Verify is a free program that allows employers to verify applicants’ Social Security numbers with federal databases. We reported last month that more and more N.C. employers are signing up for the program amidst warnings from the government that it is going after unscrupulous employers.

Obama’s own Homeland Security Secretary, Janet Napolitano, has been on Capitol Hill for months advocating for the program.

“I've seen it work,” Napolitano told a congressional hearing in May. “I used it as a governor. We intend to make it, like I said, an integral part of our ongoing workplace enforcement.”
But with no requirements in place for federal contractors, critics are questioning whether the strong rhetoric is more bark than bite.

"The same administration that rushed through the most massive spending bill in history before anyone had a chance to read it claims to need months of delay to review regulations for a program that state and local governments are already using successfully," said Dan Stein, president of Federation for American Immigration Reform, which supports greater immigration enforcement. "The fact that we are facing yet another delay demonstrates that gaining amnesty for people who broke our immigration laws remains a higher priority for President Obama than the plight of millions of unemployed Americans."

Some U.S. representatives like Republicans Ken Calvert of California and Ginny Brown-Waite of Florida are calling on the president to implement E-Verify immediately.

“Frankly, I cannot understand what there is to review,” Brown-Waite said in a statement. “E-Verify… has been in operation since 1997. Furthermore, President Obama was a United States Senator for four years and has had ample time to learn about the E-Verify program.”

Opponents say the program ensnares American job-seekers in database errors, adds to employers' costs and does not actually prevent undocumented immigrants from getting jobs.

The Congressional Budget Office estimated that expanding E-Verify could cost $17 billion over the next 10 years.

Tyler Moran of the National Immigration Law Center said the system "simply isn't ready for prime time." He points to a 2007 study commissioned by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security that states improvements are needed and the program's "still not sufficiently up to date."

But U.S. officials say many of E-Verify’s earlier problems have been fixed and that the program now has a 96 percent accuracy rate.

Said Rep. Calvert: “When Americans are losing jobs, we should be doing everything we can to ensure that federal funds are going to employ American citizens and legal workers – not illegal immigrants.”

Photo: Mandi Bickes of ResourceMFG interviews a client. The company has enrolled in E-Verify. T.ORTEGA GAINES-ogaines@charlotteobserver.com

Judge: Immigrants' rights violated in Conn. raids

Immigration agents violated the constitutional rights of four illegal immigrants in raids that critics say were retaliation for a city program that provided ID cards to foreigners in the country illegally, a federal judge ruled.

The New Haven raid on June 6, 2007 occurred two days after the city approved issuing identification cards to all city residents, regardless of immigration status, the Associated Press reported. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials deny the early morning raids were retaliatory, saying planning began the year before.

Immigration Judge Michael Straus said the ICE agents went into the immigrants' homes without warrants, probable cause, or consent. He stopped deportation proceedings against the four defendants.

Immigration officials denied the arrests were improper. They said in court documents that they were allowed into the homes during the raids.

ICE spokeswoman Paula Grenier told the AP the agency was reviewing the ruling and would decide later whether to appeal. Monday.

Straus wrote that the rights of at least one immigrant were “flagrantly violated."

"The touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is 'reasonableness' and, by natural extension, one's reasonable expectation of privacy," the judge wrote. "Nowhere is that expectation of privacy more sacrosanct than in the confines of one's home."