John Fritze and Luke Broadwater's article "Baltimore weighs in on immigration lawsuit" ("Jan. 24) does an excellent job of identifying some of the potential economic pros and cons of undocumented immigrants living in our communities. It discusses "a federal lawsuit that has divided state and local leaders over the economic impact of having people in the country without legal documentation."
I base the following comments on over 30 years' experience working for Maryland State government in the areas of strategic planning, research, policy development and analysis, as well as on my dissertation research which focused on rational policy decision making.
Our immigration policy decisions should be influenced by the results of a comprehensive, non-partisan analysis of the pros and cons of undocumented immigration, as opposed to continuing or changing our policies based on platitudes, name calling and unsubstantiated claims. The analysis should be conducted by an impartial organization (such as a university) that can objectively conduct a well-designed study.
On such an important issue as immigration reform, responsible governmental policy makers should want to get the facts and have open dialogue prior to making policy decisions. Our policy makers should not be motivated primarily by political concerns. Any cost benefit analysis should include both economic and social issues. Social concerns should include, among other factors, balancing humanitarian concerns for current undocumented immigrants with the reality that if we do not change our sanctuary status policies, undocumented immigrants will continue to flow into jurisdictions, forever.
The Sunpapers article notes that "Texas and 24 other states are arguing in court that [President Barack] Obama's plan to delay deportation for millions of immigrants will force them to spend more on schools, public safety and health care." But, where is the evidence to back up this claim? We need objective statistics on the nature and extent of these costs, assuming that the available public information that is collected can identify undocumented residents. If public records (school, heath care, crime statistics, etc.) do not allow identifying undocumented residents, we are left with making rough estimates of the costs.
The article also states: "A dozen states, including Maryland, have countered that bringing immigrants out of the shadows will help increase wages and expand tax bases." Again, where is the evidence to back up these claims? Also, if the wages of undocumented workers increase, will employers of undocumented workers no longer retain them, but instead rely on a surge of new undocumented workers willing to work for less? Regarding the claim that the tax base will increase, it would be useful to collect information on what portion of the undocumented workers are low-paid unskilled workers, who might earn less than the cost public agencies spend providing them health, education and other services.
Our policy makers need to step up and take responsibility for documenting the pros and cons on undocumented immigrants, basing their decision on a careful assessment of the data and robust public comments.
Martin S. Schugam, Owings Mills