News & Politics  
comments_image Comments

Romney's Anti-Immigrant Stance Could Destroy the Nation's Economy

Romney's call for harsh 'self-deportation' policies like Alabama enacted in 2010 are an economic prescription for disaster.

Continued from previous page

 
 
Share
 
 
 

“Eighty percent of the people in Alabama support that immigration bill," McClendon told the St. Clair Times, “and I think the other 20 percent work for the media.”

Another state rep, Republican Kerry Richard, told the paper the anti-immigrant law has reduced unemployment in his home district by some 3 percent since it took effect. With illegals gone, Richard told the St. Clair newspaper that Alabamians are now lining up for jobs once held by the undocumented.

But at what cost, Alabama?

The January 31  studyby University of Alabama economist Samuel Addy outlined the economic disaster the law has caused. The law caused 40,000-80,000 undocumenteds to flee the “Heart of Dixie.” That has created an ancillary effect, resulting in the evaporation of some 140,000 jobs across the state and an estimated loss of $10.8 billion in Alabama’s Gross Domestic Product. Beyond that, the Addy study estimates that state income and sales taxes will fall anywhere from $57 million to $265 million in the coming year. And these figures do not include policing and law enforcement, which will additionally drain state coffers.

The study’s author wrote that instead of improving economic growth, “the law is certain to be a drag on economic development.” And while some already dispute these findings, most agree Alabama cannot endure such a steep financial free-fall this year and for years to come.

So some Alabama Republicans have decided to face facts. They say they will make changes to their controversial bill, formally known as the Beason-Hammon Alabama Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act, to make it better and to overcome the legal challenges still pending in federal courts. Democrats and others say the law actually doesn’t help or protect Alabama. Instead it hurts the state. One Democrat lawmaker has filed legislation to repeal the immigration law but expects it will be a chilly day in August before that ever happens.

 

Economic Reality vs. the Campaign Trail

The projected pain in the Yellowhammer State may also be felt in other states, also impacting their economies negatively. That’s not good news as the nation’s economy continues to sputter. But these hardcore realities don’t register with Republican hardliners running for president. Even as this election year gets more interesting, there is virtually no chance that Congress or the president will have the courage to tackle the illegal immigration issue, let alone deal with it. That’s why several more states are debating immigration legislation and it’s why the GOP candidates feel free to talk tough on it, at the financial expense of some states.

Many find Romney’s position confusing and troubling. And it certainly puts him at odds with his own faith. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints supported legislation in Utah last year allowing for “guest worker” permits to keep illegal workers in the state. And the Mormon Church supported what’s known as the Utah Compact, which criticizes deportation policies that cause family breakups. The Compact also calls for the humane treatment of immigrants. Romney brazenly opposes any plan that creates a path to citizenship for illegal workers. Even the self-avowed conservative Newt Gingrich has shown a slightly softer side on immigration—although he too would end bilingual ballots.

Immigration could still become a compelling 2012 campaign issue, even though politicians from both parties try to avoid it. Los Angeles’ Democratic mayor, Antonio Villaraigosa, attacked Romney’s position in a speech Wednesday before the National Association of Latino Elected Officials.

Now that it has been unequivocally shown that immigration affects jobs, incomes and state treasuries, the matter may get more discussion, although no one will do anything about it. And hardline Republicans may have to choose: their views may cheer the Tea Party and the far right but they may alienate millions of other voters in the process. In a close election, their hardline may be the wrong line.