On the other hand, Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation and others who point out the heavy demands immigrants place on the social welfare system are very persuasive. They argue that with the Earned Income Tax Credit, food stamps, education, health costs and other programs, each legal immigrant is actually a net drain on the public purse (and though few say so out loud, the obvious corollary is that illegals are actually a fiscal bargain, though this is hardly an argument for permitting widespread flouting of the law).
Honest advocates of the failed immigration law, like economist Diana Furchtgott-Roth of the Hudson Institute, acknowledge this and respond that we have a "welfare problem not an immigration problem."
I agree. But let's be realistic. What are the chances of passing welfare reform when the Republican Party is ailing? And what are the chances of passing an immigration reform that would deny to new immigrants access to welfare when the Democrats' criticism of the existing bill was that it was insufficiently generous?
What then of Jefferson? The greatest benefit of immigration by far is not what it does for the immigrant (though that is huge) but what it does for America
-- assuring a steady stream of newcomers who do not take the blessings of liberty for granted but cherish them. Many opponents of immigration are worried about diluting our culture. I'm far more worried about the hollowing out from within. We scarcely teach our own children to love America, far less inculcate patriotism in immigrants.
If I were writing the law all by myself, I'd increase the legal immigration levels, beef up border enforcement, establish a national ID card so that we could really know who is here, and reform welfare so that only those who truly want to work would be tempted to immigrate. I'd also reform education to convey the greatness of this nation (warts and all). So here I am, in the awkward middle.