RALEIGH – Close readers of the John Locke Foundation’s articles and research reports may have spotted a common theme of some of our latest work: illegal immigration. In recent weeks, JLF policy analysts have taken a close look at several aspects of this hotly debated topic, including the underlying statistics about the illegal-alien population, North Carolina’s relatively lax policy on state-endorsed IDs for illegals, and the flaws in our current approach to teaching public-school students whose native language is not English.
Going a little further back in time, readers will have noticed reporting and commentary from Carolina Journal that sought to put the immigration debate in context, tease out particular flashpoints of controversy, and explore the politics and principles behind current and proposed policy.
No accidents here. We decided some time ago to devote substantial time and resources to the immigration issue. Indisputably, it is one of the central issues in North Carolina and national politics right now. It has important implications for virtually everything state and local government does, ranging from law enforcement and traffic management to public education and human services. And, perhaps most critical to our decision to elevate the immigration topic to the upper tier of our research agenda, it is an issue that divides the conservative movement in ways that are both challenging and telling.
There is a range of views about the immigration issue within JLF itself, so in some ways we are a microcosm of the larger divide. Some argue for virtually an open-borders policy (as do contributors to a new Reason magazine spread on the issue that’s well worth a read, though it has not yet come online). Others advocate strict employer sanctions, border enforcement, and a no-tolerance policy, as articulated by the editors of National Review among others, that is intended to attrit the ranks of illegal immigrants over the coming years (virtually no one argues for mass deportation, thank goodness).
My own view lies somewhere in between, though closer to the pro-immigration than anti-immigration pole. I do think that a country with passionate and deadly enemies has the right and responsibility to police its borders, and so I’d like to see stronger efforts to ensure that visitors and immigrants alike do not bring disease, criminality, terrorist intent, or dependence. But I do believe that an international market for labor is part and parcel of free trade – and that America has historically been stronger, not weaker, for its waves of immigrants seeking a better life and fleeting tyranny. Much of the economics behind recent restrictionist rhetoric is simplistic in the extreme, or more usually associated with labor unions, though I repeat myself.
I would submit that there is a great deal more to learn about this issue, on all sides. One fascinating fact in JLF education analyst Terry Stoops’ new paper on limited-English-proficiency programs in North Carolina is that according to the best available estimates illegal immigrants make up about 3.4 percent of the state’s public-school population, costing roughly $210 million annually. On the one hand, that’s a pretty small number, and those blaming rising school costs on illegal immigration need to get some perspective. On the other hand, since immigrants come in clumps, not evenly distributed across the entire state, it is likely that in some systems the enrollment share approaches double-digits – not a trivial number as counties seek to shave 5 percent, 10 percent, or more off of school-construction plans in an attempt to sell bonds to skeptical voters.
As we continue our efforts to facilitate the debate about immigration policy – including the debate within our own hallways – all of us at the John Locke Foundation would welcome your comments and suggestions. Do so directly if you like, and also look for threads devoted to these topics on our regional blogs (soon to include Triad and Triangle offerings, stay tuned).
Hood is president of the John Locke Foundation.