Almost a year ago, the AILA released "Guide for State and Local Policymakers", attempting to dissuade those political leaders from pushing laws designed to reduce illegal immigration. A look at the first few content pages shows a few misleading statements. Finding the no doubt many more misleading statements is left as an exercise. If you've received this guide, let me suggest reading it very carefully and having a search engine handy in order to do your own research on what they aren't telling you.

However, in most localities, it cannot legitimately be claimed that the influx of immigrants has created a true crisis. Casein point: A small, declining Maryland farm town profiled in the Washington Post recently debated restrictive immigration legislation even though there are less than two dozen foreign-born residents living there.

The article in question is "Bill on Migrants Splits a Town With Few" by Pamela Constable (link). The Washington Post strongly supports illegal immigration, and a close reading will show the article as an example of that. Note, for instance, how supporters of the resolution are portrayed as bigots and how the WaPo ignores the very real impact that illegal immigration has had on Maryland.

Federal law already prohibits undocumented immigrants from accessing “federal public benefits,” a term which encompasses a range of federally-funded services. Undocumented immigrants are ineligible for all of the major “federal public benefits” programs such as: full-scope Medicaid, CHIP,Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Social Security, Medicare, Food Stamps, and TA NF (cash assistance). Despite inflammatory rhetoric from anti-immigrant groups, these programs have never provided benefits to the undocumented.

At least SCHIP and perhaps some of the other programs can be abused by illegal aliens; if the Democrats had wanted to exclude SCHIP from use by illegal aliens they wouldn't have fought to loosen the identification requirements. And, the AILA doesn't mention that the U.S. citizen children of illegal aliens will be eligible for a wide range of services.

Yet the idea that these restrictions will somehow help resolve the issue of undocumented immigration is foolhardy. Undocumented immigrants are here to work, not take welfare, and passing laws that further limit their access to public benefits will not lead these workers to leave the country. Instead, these laws will harm legally-present individuals - including U.S. citizens - who cannot produce sufficient documentation under the new rules.

Note that the AILA is not calling for modifications to the laws that would make it easier for U.S. citizens to prove their status. And, there are probably very few legal immigrants who do not have ready access to their documentation.

It is simply not good public policy to prevent or impede a portion of the population from seeking health care, whether through publicly-funded health insurance programs for children or emergency medical assistance for victims of accidents or crimes.

The best public policy is to reduce illegal immigration, in which case that would be much less of an issue. Instead, the AILA is promoting policies that will make the situation even worse.

MYTH: Undocumented immigrants come to the United States to get welfare... FACT: Undocumented immigrants come to the United States to work and reunite with family member

Illegal aliens would find it difficult to live in the U.S. without having access to a wide range of public services, including schooling and welfare for their children. Most of them may not come here to live off of welfare, but if no welfare (broadly defined) were available many fewer of them would try to come here. And, not all come here to work; some come here to commit crimes or for other reasons.

MYTH: Undocumented immigrants are a costly drain on the system... FACT: Immigrants are a net fiscal benefit to the U.S. economy. According to a 1997 study by the National Academy of Sciences...

That's a reference to 'The New Americans: Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration'. See the contemporaneous discussion here, and for a more updated treatment, see this. Both of those raise issues with the NAS report. Note also that the AILA has conflated all forms of immigrants into one; the "myth" referred to illegal aliens but their "fact" broadened that to include all forms of immigrants.

Note also that the NAS study and the two responses above don't mention non-financial costs, such as the huge cost of giving a foreign government political power inside the U.S. (see the third question here).

If you get any materials from the AILA, read them very, very carefully.

[1] "AILA InfoNet Doc. No. 08021975 (posted Feb. 19, 2008)", aila.org/stateguide