Paul Krugman: Seeking Willie Horton

Paul Krugman looks at GOP efforts to revive Willie Horton and what that means for the future of the party:

Seeking Willie Horton, by Paul Krugman, Commentary, NY Times: So now Mitt Romney is trying to Willie Hortonize Rudy Giuliani. And thereby hangs a tale — the tale, in fact, of American politics past and future, and the ultimate reason Karl Rove’s vision of a permanent Republican majority was a foolish fantasy.

Willie Horton, for those who don’t remember the 1988 election, ... committed armed robbery and rape after being released from prison on a weekend furlough program. He was made famous by an attack ad ... that played into racial fears. Many believe that the ad played an important role in George H.W. Bush’s victory over Michael Dukakis.

Now some Republicans are trying to make similar use of the recent murder of three college students in Newark, a crime in which two of the suspects are Hispanic illegal immigrants. ...

Mr. Romney, who pretends to be whatever he thinks the G.O.P. base wants him to be, is running a radio ad denouncing New York as a “sanctuary city” for illegal immigrants, an implicit attack on Mr. Giuliani.

Strangely, nobody seems to be trying to make a national political issue out of other horrifying crimes, like the Connecticut home invasion in which two paroled convicts, both white, are accused of killing a mother and her two daughters. ...

To appreciate what’s going on here you need to understand the ... strategy [the G.O.P.] uses to win elections. ... [R]ight-wing economic ideology has never been a vote-winner. Instead, the party’s electoral strategy has depended largely on exploiting racial fear and animosity.

Ronald Reagan didn’t become governor of California by preaching the wonders of free enterprise; he did it by attacking the state’s fair housing law, denouncing welfare cheats and associating liberals with urban riots. Reagan ..[began] his 1980 campaign with a speech ... supporting states’ rights delivered just outside Philadelphia, Miss., where three civil rights workers were murdered in 1964.

And if you look at the political successes of the G.O.P. since it was taken over by movement conservatives, they had very little to do with public opposition to taxes, moral values, perceived strength on national security, or any of the other explanations usually offered. To an almost embarrassing extent, they all come down to just five words: southern whites starting voting Republican. ...

But Republicans have a problem: ... America is becoming less white, mainly because of immigration. Hispanic and Asian voters were only 4 percent of the electorate in 1980, but they were 11 percent of voters in 2004 — and that number will keep rising...

Those numbers are the reason Karl Rove was so eager to reach out to Hispanic voters. But the whites the G.O.P. has counted on to vote their color, not their economic interests, are having none of it. From their point of view, it’s us versus them — and everyone who looks different is one of them.

So now we have the spectacle of Republicans competing over who can be most convincingly anti-Hispanic. I know, officially they’re not hostile to Hispanics in general, only to illegal immigrants, but that’s a distinction neither the G.O.P. base nor Hispanic voters takes seriously.

Today’s G.O.P., in short, is trapped by its history of cynicism. For decades it has exploited racial animosity to win over white voters — and now, when Republican politicians need to reach out to an increasingly diverse country, the base won’t let them.

_________________________
Previous (8/20) column: Paul Krugman: It's a Miserable Life
Next (8/27) column: Paul Krugman: A Socialist Plot

Comments

[Bob Dobbs]

It's an interesting premise: that the Republican Party has risen to power largely on the support of racists (Southern and otherwise) who abandoned the Democrats in the sixties. As Krugman pointed out, such a strategy would be doomed to fairly eventually.

But in a way it has succeeded -- after all, it has procured good times and power for nearly a generation of the worst kind of political thugs and hacks. Karl Rove may have cared about some kind of permanent Republican hegemony, but all your average corrupt politician cares about is spending as much time at the special interest feeding trough as possible. They got theirs.

[Bruce Wilder]

"And if you look at the political successes of the G.O.P., . . . they all come down to just five words: southern whites starting voting Republican."

I know that this has become an article of faith in leftist political analysis, but I am not so certain that it gets to the real heart of Reagan's political formula.

It seems to me that Reagan sold southern whites in the New South, post-air-conditioning and post-desegregation, on the northern white suburban model of political and economic detachment. Reagan won California on the strength of Orange County Republicanism -- the Republicanism of the gated community, of "good schools" and "safe streets". It was to protect fortress suburbanism that Reagan attacked fair housing laws and spoke meanly about race riots and such.

Maybe it is a fine distinction, but I don't think American suburbanism is primarily about race or racism.

Segregation in the old South, like slavery before it, was about an economic system, which depended on oppressing a large class of under-paid workers, keeping them on the farm, and so on. As that economic system broke down, the possibility of breaking down segregation became more plausible to larger numbers of people.

Suburbanism is also an economic system, and it also an economic system, which appears like it might break down, under various pressures, such as economic decline, the price of gas, increasingly decrepit infrastructure and the like.

The present economic crisis, although it is being headlined as a liquidity crisis in certain sectors of urban financial markets is, in fact and at a base, a crisis of solvency in suburbia.

I would not deny that race plays a part in the political psychology of suburbanism, but I doubt that race, per se, is decisive. What looms larger is the psychology of the gated community, of fighting 'them' 'over there' so we don't have to fight them over here, and the psychology of the green lawn -- carefully watered, fertilized, weeded, protected and controlled using resources from a dangerous, messy, outside world. The Republican obsession with walling out Mexico I read as less racist, per se, than as a psychology of gated suburbia.

The general feeling that suburbia is not sustainable -- and not just the feeling, but the reality in much of the country -- is only going to intensify.

Our politics has become a politics of conflict between different kinds and concepts of suburbia, with various kinds of alliances betweeen suburban subset, and various urban and rural areas.

[Devang]

I remember seeing an interview on C-SPAN with Thomas Schaller who approached the argument from another perspective, the reason black voters shun the GOP is because the GOP has a track record of disenfranchising their civil/economic rights. His working example was a black church goer in the south who shares a lot of the same social values as a white church goer, but votes differently. Either Democratic economic policy and platform is appealing enough to only a black voter or it's a race issue. I never did figure out just how he dismissed economic issues, but I guess his comparison could work for financially equal voters.

There are other factors at work, but in the south, race seems overtly crucial. Could an urban or rural voter in the south believe either party can promise and deliver political and economic detachment? Only if the social wedge issues haven't gotten to him first. The real answer as to which choice it might be is probably only as good as the polls taken in this area.

[ilsm]

Bruce Wilder excellent view.

The Suburb System
The Plantation System
the Feudal System

All economic forms
Of pursuit of happiness
Long as masses to exploit

To tote the bails
Threat of class warfare
Loss of power to exploit

Creaking foundations.........

[Tim]

Krugman raises some interesting points here, and I think it points out that Republicans have become the Party of Fear over the past 35-40 years.

It seems they've created a mentality of always blaming the 'other' for the ills in our society. Liberals, hippies, African Americans, anyone of Arabic descent, and illegal immigrants.

Interesting.

[spencer]

bruce-- you often do a great job of analysis, but the republicans of the California gated communities is strictly a racial issue. They protect themselves from the black and latinos with their gated communities and try their best to keep their tax monies from being spent on the blacks and latinos.

This is exactly the same thing I grew up with in the rural south of the 1940s and 1950s.

[save_the_rustbelt]

Race baiting is a standard play in the left's playbook, although the right is certainly not pure on this issue.

Three youngsters were murdered by a group led by an illegal who should have already been in jail. Perhaps ironically, the illegal was here because of the nonfeasance of an alleged conservative, George W. Bush.

[John]

Speaking as someone who has lived in the South, but has now retreated to the North East, make no mistake about it, Republican electoral supremacy in the South is based on submerged racism. There are lots of code words, but over a drink or two it drifts to the surface. It's odd Krugman is making the case the Republicans have been hoist on their own petard because on the same day the WSJ ed page, an extension of the White House press office, has an opinion piece say exactly the same thing. Perhaps Paul is getting the same press releases.

says...

"I know, officially they're not hostile to Hispanics in general, only to illegal immigrants, but that's a distinction neither the G.O.P. base nor Hispanic voters takes seriously."

The tone of this article is disgusting. It simply buys into the prevailing concept put forth by overtly racist organizations like LaRaza, MALDEF, the ethnic lobby and cheap labor advocates that this is based on race or bigotry, exnephobia or nativism.

Of course those elements are there, but not even the majority of the Republican base is that sordid. The numbers of racists and bigots seem to be evenly matched on both sides.

Over 76% of all Americans, whatever the label are opposed to illegal entry and residence in our country.

The main reason is the fact that its against the law. Second its economic. We simply can't continue to afford these folks. They are clogging our legal system, our hospitals, our schools, using our benefit system at alarming rates.

Lets forget all the emotional blackmail being used in this dilemma and only concern ourselves with the economic costs. And lets be more realistic about the numbers. 12 million has been touted since 1999 or so. The real number is probably around 20 million give or take a few million.

In Texas illegals cost us over a billion dollars more than all the taxes they pay or any other benefits they generate. And this is only the up front cost. Break it down this way.....every illegal alien family needs all the taxes paid by one college educated American family to support them each year.

Perhaps if Mr. Krugman lived in the border states where this problem is reaching epidemic proportions he'd be more concerned with the truth of this problem.

"But Republicans have a problem: ... America is becoming less white, mainly because of immigration."

In the end he gives himself away by stating America is becoming less white by immigration when by any count its been illegal immigration.
"
Strangely, nobody seems to be trying to make a national political issue out of other horrifying crimes"

I would add.....why strange? Its because this could have been prevented with the enforcement of law, the civic cowardice of state and local officials.

Paul Krugman was suckered on this one.

[bakho]

Interesting thought Bruce Wilder. How does the gender gap fit the "suburban" model?

As for black voters in the Democratic Party, the first major shift was under FDR whose programs greatly improved the lives of blacks throughout the US. More recently, the percentage of blacks voting Republican in presidential elections has gone from respectable to abysmal. A major reason is jobs and making work pay. Under Clinton, unemployment among blacks dropped below 10% for the first time in decades. Coupled with EITC, higher min wage and other work incentives, millions of blacks were lifted out of poverty by Clinton policies. Bush1 and Bush2 both suffered recessions that hit black workers the hardest. It has only been after 2006 that black unemployment finally dropped below 10 %. Unemployment among black teens is still over 25%. Jobs are a great counter to boredom, crime and lack of resources.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t02.htm

The bottom line is that under Clinton, more blacks had jobs. Under Bush, unemployment increased again. One only has to look as far as economic self-interest to understand why Republicans struggle to attract black voters.

[anne]

"Race baiting is a standard play in the left's playbook...."

"Denying health care insurance for children is a standard play in the left's playbook...."

"The war in Iraq is a standard play in the left's playbook...."

"Denying global warming is a standard play in the left's playbook...."

"Limiting unions is a standard play in the left's playbook...."

"The budget deficit is a standard play in the left's playbook...."

[ken melvin]

In re Orange county: It's more Texas than Texas. More Oklahoma than Oklahoma. What's really going on is the distribution or lack of same. Reagan stumbled into a time when automation was decimating the work force. The solution was to pretend there was nothing going on and if there was something going on it was all the losers' fault. Instead of dealing with reality, these actions made things worse. Much worse. the nation is much, much worse off consequent Reagan. Bush is just more Reagan. Greenspan? Same thing. Band-aid solution to major health problems using up assets to mask the real symptoms.

[btgraff]

"Krugman raises some interesting points here, and I think it points out that Republicans have become the Party of Fear over the past 35-40 years."

Longer than that - over 50 years because they were the party of anticommunism - Nixon, McCarthy et al. (though Eisenhower didn't stoop that low) - and ironically, Kennedy was better at the gfame then Nixon was in 1960 when he was saddled with the Eisenhower record and the supposed "missile gap".

Anyway, re:hispanics - as a detached observer, I think that illegal immigration into the US is a legimiate politcal issue (but I get sick of Lou Dobb's endless carping about it) - but that doesn't mean that the republicans aren't misusing the issue by playing on latent racism against hispanics.

[lostnihilist]

In terms of the black/white dichotomy, I agree with what Krugman says here (and if you look at the papers modeling presidential elections, the beta values for race is enormously important for how the South (through southern whites) votes. Hell, there was even a pseudo-apology for the 'Southern Strategy' from the Republican party on this (pseudo because its not like they've abandoned that strategy): http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/13/AR2005071302342.html. However, when you start to bring Latinos into the mold, things change. The 2004 election actually saw a shift (minor, but perceptible, 5-10% if memory serves) of Latino voters from Dems to Reps. Of course, a lot of this could be explained by another kind of bigotry: the homophobia that is rampant among Latinos (probably mostly through their association with Catholocism). This is also a major issue among African Americans. One of the major blockers to Mayor Daley doing more than he did on the same-sex marriage thing a couple of years ago was significant opposition from the African American leaders (mostly associated to Baptist churches). Unfortunately, will never be an enormous voting block (at least not in the forseeable future); so, the Republican strategy of hate-mongering will have a chance of succeeding into the future, as long as they tone down the race lines (but not back off of them completely) and really press the 'family values' BS, aka anti-gay bigotry.

[Richard A.]

What Bush and Rove do on immigration are for campaign contributions from cheap labor interests -- and their cover story is that they do it for the Hispanic vote. Krugman has fallen for this explanation hook, line, and sinker.

Why are Bush and Rove such zealot supporters of H-1b -- what ethnic group are they trying to appeal to? Their support for this visa is for campaign contributions and in the process are most likely chasing high tech workers away from the GOP.

Is it difficult to understand that the "we need guest workers" Rove wing of the GOP simply want to use US immigration policy to screw over labor? Are those on the pro-labor left who oppose the guestworkerfication of the US labor supply also racists?

[Gene O'Grady]

Hate to spoil some points, but Reagan was elected in 1966, well before they had gated communities in Orange County. Hell, Irvine was still a farm.

My father at the time blamed the campus conservative movement.

[ken melvin]

Reagan ran for guv on a 'the sky is falling' campaign of no real substance the consequence of which was prop 13.

[anne]

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/18/opinion/18herbert.html?ex=1279339200&en=22332b810284bb75&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

July 18, 2005

An Empty Apology
By BOB HERBERT

One of President Bush's surrogates went before the N.A.A.C.P. last week and apologized for the Republican Party's reprehensible, decades-long Southern strategy....

The Southern strategy meant much, much more than some members of the G.O.P. simply giving up on African-American votes. Put into play by Barry Goldwater and Richard Nixon in the mid- to late 1960's, it fed like a starving beast on the resentment of whites who were scornful of blacks and furious about the demise of segregation and other civil rights advances. The idea was to snatch the white racist vote away from the Democratic Party, which had committed such unpardonable sins as enacting the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts and enforcing desegregation statutes.

The important thing to keep in mind was how deliberate and pernicious the strategy was. Last month a jury in Philadelphia, Miss., convicted an 80-year-old man, Edgar Ray Killen, of manslaughter in the slaying of three civil rights workers - Andrew Goodman, Michael Schwerner and James Chaney - in the summer of 1964. It was a crime that made much of the nation tremble, and revolted anyone with a true sense of justice.

So what did Ronald Reagan do in his first run for the presidency, 16 years after the murder, in the summer of 1980? He chose the site of the murders, Philadelphia, Miss., as the perfect place to send an important symbolic message. Mr. Reagan kicked off his general election campaign at the Neshoba County Fair in Philadelphia, an annual gathering that was famous for its diatribes by segregationist politicians. His message: "I believe in states' rights."

Mr. Reagan's running mate was George H. W. Bush, who, in his own run for president in 1988, thought it was a good idea to exploit racial fears with the notorious Willie Horton ads about a black prisoner who raped a white woman. Mr. Bush's campaign manager, Lee Atwater, said at the time that the Horton case was a "values issue, particularly in the South - and if we hammer at these over and over, we are going to win." ...

[Richard A.]

"and now, when Republican politicians need to reach out to an increasingly diverse country, the base won’t let them."

What is important to the growing underclass is increasing the minimum wage. And yes the GOP base -- the US Camber of Commerce and allies -- won't let Republican politicians reach out to them despite how much this cheap labor base is responsible for expanding the underclass by sabotaging immigration reform for decades.

[Richard A.]

To be fair the official Bush 41 commercials about the crimes of Willie Horton made no mention that he was black. Most people found out he was black by liberals in the news media. If there was racism here -- it came from the MSM.

[Jazgar]

Wont the right's anti-abortion stance, in fact, contribute to the browning of America?
Abortion rates by race per 1000 women aged 15-44 for each group (*LA excluded for black and other):
-white 12
-black 31
-other 25

[anne]

"Most people found out he was black by liberals in the news media."

To be fair, since we always need to be fair, the fair Willie Horton ad fairly pictured Willie Horton, and to be fair I assume most people watching the ad could see. Am I being fair?

[Plymouth R.]

The Republicans are race-baiting? What does this have to do with economics?

You have irresponsible spending, a Fed that has been out of control with liquidity, economic policies that are damaging to the infrastructure, EPA policies that are destructive to our natural resources, tax policies that are destructive to labor, health care policies that eviscerate the general welfare, energy policies that have sacrificed the national defense, Defense policies that played a large part in the destruction of New Orleans (a major port city, and the gateway to America's bread basket), Republican political operatives (Rove) who have turned the Justice Department into a Kangaroo court, an administration that sacrifices CIA agents for petty reasons, a string of indicted Republican Congressmen who have betrayed the public trust.

Truly, there is no end of issues directly related to economics and the Republican party's malfeasance in leading the country for the last 7 years. Krugman belittles himself with his pointless attacks on Republican infighting techniques. It's like criticizing Charles Manson for poor dental hygiene.

[anne]

"Most people found out he was black by liberals in the news media."

Being completely fair, this is meant to deceive and distort and defame and is rubbish.

http://www.insidepolitics.org/ps111/independentads.html

Ad Text

Bush and Dukakis on crime [picture of Bush and Dukakis with text of Bush & Dukakis on Crime]. Bush supports the death penalty for first-degree murderers [picture of Bush with text of Supports Death Penalty]. Dukakis not only opposes the death penalty, he allowed first-degree murderers to have weekend passes from prison [Dukakis picture with text of opposes Death Penalty, Allowed Murderers to Have Weekend Passes]. One was Willie Horton, who murdered a boy in a robbery, stabbing him 19 times [picture of Willie Horton, with text of Willie Horton on screen]. Despite a life sentence, Horton received 10 weekend passes from prison [picture of Horton under arrest by police with text of Horton Received 10 Weekend Passes from Prison]. Horton fled, kidnapped a young couple, stabbing the man and repeatedly raping his girlfriend [picture of Horton under arrest by police with text of Kidnapping, Stabbing, Raping]. Weekend prison passes. Dukakis on Crime [picture of Dukakis with text of Weekend Prison Passes; Dukakis on Crime]. Political message paid by National Security Political Action Committee.

[megan adams]

I grew up in the South Side of Chicago in the 60's, 70's during an intense period of white flight. At that time, in that place, suburbanization was a phenomena of racial avoidance: whites running from blacks. This was generally true in Northern, older cities. Historically, you can't separate the issues of race and suburbanization. As blacks moved north for factory jobs, whites moved outside the cities to which blacks moved.

My area plunged economically as it was seen as unworthy of investment. Sometimes I wonder if that is being repeated for the American economy as a whole.

[Jazgar]

at Huffingtonpost.com:
Giuliani Hires Media Team Criticized For 'Racial Overtones' In Ads

Call me, Harold!

[Richard A.]

"To be fair, since we always need to be fair, the fair Willie Horton ad fairly pictured Willie Horton, and to be fair I assume most people watching the ad could see. Am I being fair?"

The paid Willie Horton ads sponsored by the Bush campaign showed no such picture of Willie Horton and these are the paid ads that most saw. There was one ad done by an outfit independent of the Bush campaign that did a Horton commercial that showed his picture but they had very little money to run this and as a result very few saw this as a paid commercial. Nevertheless the network news picked up this commercial -- plastered it all over their newscasts and in so doing were the ones who revealed to the American public that Willy Horton was black.

[MoreMoxie]

The Krugman piece has a startling clarity. The Republican Party has been a damaging force in this country for at least 50 years, when it hit on race baiting and culture wars to try to reverse the gains of the middle class from the New Deal. It worked. It may get worse.

And, by the way, I'm shocked to learn that Willie Horton was black. I thought the pictures of the scary looking black guy run by the Bush campaign were pictures of one of the victims of a Wall Street banker/rapist. I thought Bush was trying to say, "Don't assume race has anything to do with crime. Even a scary looking black man can be victimized by a violent investment banker. It's not a race thing and the Bush administration will never do racial profiling." Is that not what the ad meant? Can someone explain?

[Richard A.]

The following Willy Horton ad was put out by an INDEPENDENT PAC that few people saw as a paid commercial. Most who saw this at the time saw it on TV news and of course became aware that Willy Horton was black.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EC9j6Wfdq3o

[Vincent]

Krugman misses the point -- most voters believe in law and order, and the Horton ad was a "Law and Order"/ fear of crime ad to perfection. So in this Newark case, there is a conjunction of illegal immigration and crime, so it brings together two issues - law and order and immigration- very effectively. I'd be surprised only if this were not used for ads and talking points.

As for Connecticut, where I live, the GOP is indeed using the home invasion case to -you guessed it -- blame Dems for being too easy on parolees - another Law and Order argument. So race is not an issue on how the GOP uses Law and Order cases, at least in this day and age.

[Jasper]

The tone of this article is disgusting. It simply buys into the prevailing concept put forth by overtly racist organizations like LaRaza, MALDEF, the ethnic lobby and cheap labor advocates that this is based on race or bigotry, exnephobia or nativism...

Krugman's right and you're wrong. I've engaged in more internet debates than I care to think of on this subject. It's obvious that the most feasible solution to the illegal immigration challenge is to create a legal means for Latinos to immigrate to the US. This ain't brain surgery: take away the need to sneak in the country by providing a legitimate way to come here and you're obviously going to co-opt many folks who otherwise would join the ranks of the illegals. Nearly every one of the restrictionists I've encountered is bitterly opposed to this idea. When I ask why, the truth comes out: they simply don't want the percentage of the country's population that is Latino to increase. We then hear about the dark menance brewing on our southern border, and about the plans to take back Arizona, and about the high school drop out rate among Latin American immigrants, and about gangs, etc., etc., etc.

So, no, it isn't about "illegal" immigration. It's about "Latino" immigration period, of whatever variety.

[anne]

"Most people found out he was black by liberals in the news media."

Simply notice the wording, and notice the nonsense

[anne]

MALDEF is the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, as there is the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund.

says...

Jasper

"I've engaged in more Internet debates than I care to think of on this subject. It's obvious that the most feasible solution to the illegal immigration challenge is to create a legal means for Latinos to immigrate to the US."

This isn't an Internet debate, its dollars out of pocket. In case you missed it, Latino's and any other race are perfectly welcome to immigrate here. You apply and wait your turn. Its called immigrating.

In fact the number of Latinos allowed to immigrate here legally is far out of proportion if you use race as a selector.

The truth is we don't want to pay for any more illegals. Obviously you don't live in a border state and don't feel the pinch yet. Restrictionist? Nope, in fact I personally favor more legal immigration......but illegal, the cost is staggering. I just don't understand anyone that encourages the exploitation of these poor people (no, I don't mean you Jasper) If they spent a week around the border and saw what they encourage, I think they'd change their mind.

"So, no, it isn't about "illegal" immigration."

Sorry, thats exactly what its about. No anti-immigrant, no immigration, no racism, just illegal immigration. Our immigration system isn't broken ( unless you know something I don't and can tell me whats wrong with it?) the only problem is illegal immigration.

Yes Anne, thats what MALDEF is.....but not like the NAACP. The NAACP was involved in fighting for racial justice in a time of unjust laws.

MALDEF now advocates, protects and enables illegal immigration. Example, their involvement with the criminal alien just deported from Chicago. A woman that broke the law twice coming here and was then convicted of document fraud. Where do you see racial injustice here? She is a victim?

[Vijay]

Bruce Wilder is right on -- it is more about suburbanization and enclavization than it is about race. While there are linkages--and these may have been greater in the past than today--he has correctly hit on what I consider the best fault line with which to view today's (and tomorrow's) politics.

Many suburbs (but not exurbs) are becoming increasingly democratic, because they are 1) not the enclave they used to be, and 2) because their appeal and sustainability are on the decline.

Again--very good analysis. It will do well for political thinkers to increasingly recognize that development and settlement issues are the prime mover in American politics-- this impacts /everything/.

[TigerPaw]

Standing on the outside and looking in at the US illegal immigration debate, it seems fairly obvious that commercial interests want a continued supply of illegal immigrants. It gives them a pool of labour willing to work for below minimum wage, that will not complain about poor conditions, and are essentially quiet and compliant for fear of deportation. This is because many employers at the very bottom do not want to have to pay the legal minimums, observe labour laws, and obey all the rules/regulations.

It's a two-part equation. Yes, the immigrants legal or otherwise are looking for a better opportunity for themselves, but the low-end employers like it the way it is too. And it's not even just what might be termed "real" business interests. Anyone that wants a housemaid, gardener, temporary construction help, or whatever and doesn't want to pay full rates, is part of the problem.

To totally lay the problem on the backs of those coming across the border is to conviently ignore the incentives that encourage the illegal immigrants. They know that if they can get to the US they will have paid work to do. The fact that it's below official rates, or dangerous, or whatever, is beside the point. For them, it's a choice between starve (so to speak) or take the lousy job others won't touch. For them the choice is easy.

[Jim Balter]

Wilder's commentary is ignorant just-so-story nonsense -- only a small fraction of the GOP base lives in gated communities. As Krugman ACCURATELY wrote, "[R]ight-wing economic ideology has never been a vote-winner. Instead, the party’s electoral strategy has depended largely on exploiting racial fear and animosity."

says...

Krugman misses the point -- most voters believe in law and order, and the Horton ad was a "Law and Order"/ fear of crime ad to perfection.

Nonsense. It was a fear of BLACK crime.

[Jim Harrison]

Southerners sometimes get mad at the national Republicans when the realize that the racial prejudice they exhibit is not always sincere. It isn't a given that an oligarchical party will be anti-black in a democracy, but it is a given that they will find some way of changing the subject since they can hardly run on their true platform. Lying is common to all politicians, but it is a structural necessity for the Republican party.

[evagrius]

"In fact the number of Latinos allowed to immigrate here legally is far out of proportion if you use race as a selector."

Latinos aren't a "race". They're a cultural group.

( I should know. I'm of French-English-Dutch ancestry adopted by a Mexican-American father. You should have seen the reaction of potential employers when I showed up for interviews. At my work, there were a number of Latinos who bore Irish or German last names.)

[Teka]

Mr. Klugman does not report the fact that one of the victim's had her face sliced off. Her uncle, quoted in the NY Post, stated it took the undertaker three days to sew her face and head back on. Machete hacking of victims is a MS-13 'signing'. It is becoming more common in the D.C. suburbs. If you are young and black, look out for yourself because no one else is going to do it. It is politically incorrect (and quite financially bad for Free Trader Klugman and the other NY Times Free Traders) to protest any brown skinned person in the USA.

And Darfur? Brown skinned Muslims killing over a million black skinned Muslims? Seen Mr. Klugman and his ilk stopping that? Giving a good rat's behind about it?

How dare he call anyone a racist. I say he should look in a mirror and see a real one.

[Peter Schaeffer]

Krugman should be praising the GOP for standing up for the economic interests of ordinary Americans, rather than the Wall Street special nterests who profit from cheap labor.

But no, he can't admit that in this case, the Republicans (Bush notwithstanding) are backing the American people and the Democrats are selling out the working class. Anyone remember the contempt and disdain Barney Frank showed with his "bad for blue-collars" comment about the impact of immigration on American workers?

Krugman should open his eyes and have the decency and honesty to state the obvious. In this case, the Rs are doing the right thing and the Ds aren't.

I guess I shouldn't mention that the pro-immigration Migration Policy Institute found that crime rises 8 fold from first to second generation Hispanic immigrants and ends up 3-4 times the white rate (and ten times the Asian rate). Of course, they must be vile racists as well.

[Peter Schaeffer]

Here is a simple test of whether anyone should take Krugman seriously. Does he send his children to public schools overwhelmed by illegals and the children of illegals? Of course, the answer is NO and his shrieks of “racism” are just a cover for his own hypocrisy and that of the Democratic party.

[anne]

"Does he send his children to public schools overwhelmed by illegals and the children of illegals? Of course, the answer is NO and his shrieks of 'racism' are just a cover for his own hypocrisy and that of the Democratic party."

The ravings of a hate-mongering lunatic.

[bakho]

Suburban and ex-urban GOP base live in gated communities. Many rural GOP base live in sundown towns. The black residents were forcibly displaced years ago and the current residents give black Americans few reasons to move to those towns. While rural GOP base do not technically live in gated communities, they live in segregated communities which is pretty much the same thing.

"Illegal Immigrants" are seen as a threat because "those people" don't know the unwritten rules that resulted from the unmentionable history. It is worse for the GOP than just losing the Hispanic vote. Areas that are urbanizing are trending Democratic. These are the areas that are expanding at the expense of the rural GOP base.

[Peter Schaeffer]

Anne,

Please tell what school overwhelmed by illegals you send your children to... Inquiring minds want to know... Otherwise your opinion is just more elitist cant.

[BJ Feng]

There is no excuse for illegal immigration. As an immigrant, I had to wait my turn to come into this country. My uncle and aunt also immigrated here recently after waiting 12 YEARS! Twelve years is a long time for anyone to wait, unsure of their future and of the future of their children. It is simply unfair for illegal aliens to come into this country and then demand rights that legal immigrants had to wait for.

This is not a racial issue and has never been one. The United States can raise the quotas for legal immigration, but there is absolutely no reason why it should accept illegal immigration as a matter of course.

Nor is there a reason why such preference should be given to Mexican immigrants when so many others around the world want the same opportunity. What happened to diversity? What happened to the cherished mantra of the left?

There is simply no logical argument that can be made for illegal immigration. That's why its proponents have to resort to race baiting to obscure the issue. If more immigrants are needed, the legal quota can be raised.

That being said, I'm not wholly opposed to amnesty under the right conditions. Most Americans are kind and generous, and don't want a permanent underclass alienated from the American Dream. But amnesty cannot be given if all it does is encourage more illegal immigrants to come over for another amnesty. The border has to be respected and enforced once and for all. Illegals must also not be given benefits during their illegal stay, such as tax credits or social security benefits. La Raza and the other pro-illegal groups must also acknowledge that the United States has the right to enforce its border, just as Mexico does with its southern border. Only then can amnesty be considered. I'm willing to bet that Americans would grant amnesty with those conditions, but the holdup is not with "racist" Americans. Rather it is with the pro-illegal groups that will not compromise one bit, and want an open border which is unacceptable to the vast majority of Americans.

[sk]

Peter S,

"Does he send his children to public schools overwhelmed by illegals and the children of illegals? Of course, the answer is NO and his shrieks of 'racism' are just a cover for his own hypocrisy and that of the Democratic party."

Any parents would want to send their kids to a better school. If not, they need to be more responsible parents.
That said, what you said is a pure political attack. Paul K lives in Princeton, NJ area and I don't think there is any public school overwhelmed by the children of the undocumented immigrants over there.(I think you implied schools with many children of the undocumented immigrants are bad. But, considering todays American public education standards, I am not so sure if that's the case. Or, did you want to say schools with many Latinos and Blacks are bad? ) Anyway, please tell me what you mean by PK hypocricy.

[evagrius]

There's quite a bit of anger being expressed and very little reason.

[save_the_rustbelt]

When Krugman gets away from economics he writes like a sophomore.

Peter, rich liberals never send their children to public school, they don't want them associating with minorities and poor people and middle class teachers.

Anne, did your Zoloft Rx run out?

[Peter Schaeffer]

SK,

Krugman enjoys the luxury of living in area where illegals are just convenient, easily exploited labor, that his class profits from. His schools aren’t being ravaged by illegal immigration. His children aren’t at risk of being sexually assaulted, mutilated, and executed by illegal aliens. However, 10s of millions of Americans do face these problems.

According, to PK these aren’t “real” issues and any Republican politician who addresses these problems is just “exploiting white racism”. However, denying a problem doesn’t make it go away. If Krugman was personally subject to these problems, his rhetoric would make Tom Tancredo look like an pro-immigration activist.

However, like almost all good liberals, PK has organized his life so the problems of failing schools, crime, social disorder, etc. don’t affect him. Of course, they do provide a wonderful opportunity for him to demonstrate his moral superiority over those who lives are indeed compromised by Open Borders and the baleful consequences thereof.

As for the academic consequences of unskilled immigration (legal and illegal), check out the NAEP data for California. California once had public schools to be proud of. Now it ranks 49th in the nation. As they say in California, “thank god for Mississippi”. The data is broken down by race, ethnicity, etc.

[Peter Schaeffer]

STR,

"rich liberals never send their children to public school, they don't want them associating with minorities and poor people and middle class teachers."

This is half-true. David Brooks captured the other half in "Karl's New Manifesto" (http://dialogic.blogspot.com/2005/05/david-brooks-karls-new-manifesto.html)

"They congregate in exclusive communities walled in by the invisible fence of real estate prices, then congratulate themselves for sending their children to public schools."

You see, they do send thier children to the "right" public schools.

[dug]

As far as I know, PK doesn't even have children. So the earlier posters have nothing to base their reprehensible accusations of hypocrisy on.

[anne]

"Peter, rich liberals never send their children to public school, they don't want them associating with minorities and poor people and middle class teachers."

Always deceive, always defame, always peddle hatred.

[anne]

"Does he send his children to public schools overwhelmed by illegals and the children of illegals? Of course, the answer is NO and his shrieks of 'racism' are just a cover for his own hypocrisy and that of the Democratic party."

"Peter, rich liberals never send their children to public school, they don't want them associating with minorities and poor people and middle class teachers."

"You see, they do send their children to the 'right' public schools."

Notice how deceivers and defamers and haters feed on each other.

[Thomas More]

evagrius

"Latinos aren't a "race". They're a cultural group."

Good point, excuse me, please substitute Hispanic for Latino.

Mr. Feng sums it up much better than I could. Especially this...

"the holdup is not with "racist" Americans. Rather it is with the pro-illegal groups that will not compromise one bit, and want an open border which is unacceptable to the vast majority of Americans."

Let me help some of you folks out, this isn't a Republican or Democratic problem, its not a liberal or conservative problem, its an American problem.

If anyone can justify a pregnant illegal alien woman receiving pre natal care under the SCHIP's program which is funded for children, you'll go a long way to showing me why we should allow and protect illegal immigration.

"To totally lay the problem on the backs of those coming across the border is to conveniently ignore the incentives that encourage the illegal immigrants."

To clarify, I don't know a single person that blames the illegals for coming. We understand it completely, anyone would. Have any of you been to Mexico? Not the resorts...Mexico? How could you blame them?

The fault and blame lies with business that wants the cheap labor and wants us to subsidize it. With the ethnic lobby, with the racist organizations, with politicians. Each with their own selfish reason and agenda.

[anne]

"If anyone can justify a pregnant illegal alien woman receiving pre natal care under the SCHIP's program which is funded for children, you'll go a long way to showing me why we should allow and protect illegal immigration." *

Always fear-mongering rubbish. Though I would hope that any woman would have every possible pre natal and post natal care offered.

Show us the terrifying documentation, however. Where is the precise academic documentation.

* Excuse me, please substitute Latino for Hispanic.

[anne]

"If anyone can justify a pregnant illegal alien woman receiving pre natal care under the SCHIP's program which is funded for children, you'll go a long way to showing me why we should allow and protect illegal immigration." *

OMG, they're even having babies. Eek.

* Excuse me, please substitute Latino for Hispanic.

[BJ Feng]

Anne, you sure are generous with other people's money. I suppose you favor a tax increase on yourself as well? You know you don't have to agree with every single leftist stance, especially this one which can't be defended. Does the United States have a right to enforce its borders? If not, then you should also rage against Mexico which enforces its southern border and does not treat illegal immigrants with the same kindness we do. The United States already welcomes more legal immigrants than any other nation in the world. Surely you agree that there is a point where we can't absorb more people without having a severe impact on our lives and social services. Is there any point where you would restrict illegal immigration?

[Thomas More]

Anne

Always fear-mongering rubbish. Though I would hope that any woman would have every possible pre natal and post natal care offered.

Fear mongering rubbish? A woman here illegally taking money for her medical care that was intended for children? A child that goes without medical coverage because their care was stolen by an adult criminal?

Do you hate children or is just our country?

Frankly I've noticed that every time someone starts hurling charges of racism, hatred, bigotry , fear mongering.....its to cover the fallacy of their positions and arguments.

If I accept your position on medical care for non-citizens then I'd ask you how you intend to fund your largesse. Specifically how? No grand statements, no ideology, exactly how and who pays for it?

[wjd123]

So now we have the spectacle of Republicans competing over who can be most convincingly anti-Hispanic. I know, officially they’re not hostile to Hispanics in general, only to illegal immigrants, but that’s a distinction neither the G.O.P. base nor Hispanic voters takes seriously.--Paul Krugman

This coming from someone who writes for a paper which until recently could hardly bring itself to put the word "illegal" in front of immigrant. I resent the implication that if you're against illegal immigration you're anti-Hispanic, most of the people who come here illegally fly in and overstay their visas rather sneak across our southern border.

There is probably some truth in what Krugman says about Republicans being hoisted on the petard of their Southern strategy. But it pales in conjunction with a wider truth: people who use the words "illegal immigration" are against illegal activity, the disorder that comes with it, and our governments toleration of it.

A government that just enforces the laws it likes, weakens its legitimacy. People begin to feel that government has an agenda that simply isn't theirs. Immigration enforcement falls in this category of weakening government legitimacy not only because government doesn't enforce the laws on the books but also because of the perception that changes in those laws are being undertaken for crass political considerations.

Carl Rove supporting amnesty for political reasons is no different than what the democrats are doing. Krugman argues that because of past practices--courting racists--the republicans can't get away with it. Well I doubt the Democrats can pass their amnesty bill and get away with it either. It will further harm trust in government if it's seen as courting political favor. It won't make any difference if the Democrats' hearts are pure because the Republicans will paint it as political pandering. And considering the long history of see no evil, hear no evil, and speak no evil on illegal immigration by the majority of both parties the political pandering argument is ripe.

A comprehensive policy would be disastrous for our country. It would merely further our distrust in government. What is needed is confidence building policies of government enforcing the law. Does that leave illegal immigrants out in the cold. Yes. But after all, they came here illegally. That attitude, I believe, is the general stance of most Americans.

I'm a democrat. I want illegal immigration stopped. I don't want those who came here illegally rewarded. And, yes, I think the Democratic comprehensive plan to solve illegal immigration is amnesty. Therefore it won't solve anything, it will just encourage more illegals to come here. Nor do I think the Republicans have a serious plan to solve the problem. But most of all I don't think that painting people who don't favor amnesty as racist will win any voters anywhere. It will antagonize many people--as it should--who are against rewarding general illegality whether it's coming from a government with its own agenda or people who won't follow the law.

I would like to turn away from arguments about government weakening its own legitimacy to one about the economic utility of weakening barriers to labor mobility. It's made by Deni Rodrik in a article entitled "How to Save Globalization From Its Cheerleaders." Since it comes from Rodrik in the context of open policies and procedural fairness, I'm willing to entertain it as an argument for more legal immigration and guest worker programs but not open borders. If the same argument came from Krugman I wouldn't be so open to it since when it comes to how free trade should be practiced, procedural fairness hasn't been his strong suit.

I'll let the argument speak for itself. At the end there are some remarks about Paul Krugman, Larry Summers, and Alan Blinder. I don't make much of them as mea culpas but I left them in because Krugman was mentioned.

The third paradox is that globalization remains restricted in precisely those areas where
further relaxation of barriers would yield the greatest economic benefits. Barriers on labor mobility in particular are inordinately higher than they are anywhere else. It is easy to show that even minor reductions in labor-market barriers would generate gains that are vastly larger than those from the conventional areas under negotiation in the WTO and elsewhere. Consider for
example a temporary South-to-North labor mobility scheme that would expand the industrialized countries’ labor force by about 3%. (The existing share of immigrants and of foreign-born in advanced country labor markets is about 10 percent on average.) Let’s use as our estimate of the
earnings gap the figure $17,500, which is Mark Rosenzweig’s estimate (in unpublished work) of
the earning premium for a Mexican worker in the United States. Given a Northern labor force of around 0.5 billion, the net gains generated for nationals of poor countries would amount to 0.5x0.03x17,500, or $262.5 billion per annum. By contrast, current estimates of the gains to developing countries from the completion of the Doha Round do not exceed $30 billion. The
disparity between these two numbers reflects the fact that that poor countries already have fairly good access to rich country markets where goods are concerned, but are virtually shut out from Northern labor markets (with only a few exceptions).

Many tears have been shed about the recent demise of the Doha Round. Meanwhile multilateral negotiations on reducing barriers to labor mobility are not even on the agenda. A recent proposal in the United States Senate to institute a temporary guest worker program was eventually killed, alongside the proposed immigration reform.

Finally, lest one think that globalization has produced paradoxical outcomes just for developing countries, it is worth pointing out that globalization remains quite unpopular in most advanced countries. A recent Financial Times poll reports that individuals in the United States and other rich countries who believe globalization is a positive force are greatly outnumbered (by a factor of between 2 to 3) by those who think it is a negative force. The same poll reports that “[L]arge majorities of people in the US and in Europe want higher taxation for the rich and even pay caps for corporate executives to counter what they believe are unjustified rewards and the negative effects of globalization” (FT, July 22, 2007). This is only the most recent of a long series of polls that show globalization’s benefits are either not filtering down, or if they are, not being adequately appreciated.

It has become harder over the years to ascribe such views to sheer ignorance and the search for easy culprits. It is remarkable that many outspoken and prominent boosters of globalization such as Paul Krugman (2007), Lary Summers (2006), and Alan Blinder have recently acknowledged that globalization is contributing to inequality and insecurity. (See in particular Krugman 2007 for an explanation of why his views have changed.) The search is on for tax and adjustment policies that would respond to the middle-class malaise that is widely felt to endanger the sustainability of globalization.

http://ksghome.harvard.edu/~drodrik/Saving%20globalization.pdf

[anne]

"A woman here illegally taking money for her medical care that was intended for children? A child that goes without medical coverage because their care was stolen by an adult criminal?"

Rubbish, of course. Show us the documentation; where is the documentation for such fear-mongering hateful rubbish?

[anne]

"So now we have the spectacle of Republicans competing over who can be most convincingly anti-Hispanic. I know, officially they’re not hostile to Hispanics in general, only to illegal immigrants, but that’s a distinction neither the G.O.P. base nor Hispanic voters takes seriously."

Precisely.

[anne]

Me, I would hope that any woman would have every possible pre natal and post natal and natal natal care to be offered.

Now, let us have complaints from the chorus the humanists who care not a fig for spending hundreds of billions of dollars on an insane war and occupation. Let us sing; stop those babies folks.

[BJ Feng]

No one wants to be seen as racist, but here's where the Right differs from the Left. The Right says what's needed to be said. The Left agrees, from what I can tell and from opinion polls, but don't have the courage to speak up for fear of being labeled racist. Many on the right simply aren't afraid because they know they aren't racist and aren't making racist arguments. There's no validity to the claim so it goes ignored. It's shameful that the left doesn't have the courage to speak up for fear of offending someone. So they hide behind those who do have courage in order to remain popular. Perhaps it's just the elites that refuse to speak out on behalf of their constituents. Regardless, it's amazing that a viewpoint that has so much support can be silenced to the degree it has been.

As for Hispanic perception, well the media certainly shares a great deal of blame. For some reason, the logical, non-racial arguments against illegal immigration never quite make it all the way on to the pages. Somehow anti-illegal immigration is always printed as anti-immigration or anti-immigrant which is simply not the case and totally misrepresents the issue at hand. And when they print a pro-illegal immigration piece or study, legal immigrants are always grouped in to make the case. You have to wonder, but most of us can see through these games. Yet they wonder why circulation continues to drop and why the media is trusted less and less in polls of Americans. Perhaps because they refuse to engage in a legitimate debate? So the debate has to happen here, on blogs such as this one. Goodbye old media...

[Peter Schaeffer]

Anne,

What part of "illegal" don't you understand? I suppose rape is really just "undocumented sex".

Perhaps the three murdered students should have offered “documentation” to their killers after they were sexually assaulted, but before they were mutilated and executed. Then it would have been OK, right?

If a women is here illegally she should be deported. Mexico has a $1 trillion economy. The richest man in the world lives in Mexico.

Mexico can take care of its own.

[anne]

"I suppose rape is really just 'undocumented sex'."

Notice the crazed intimidating viciousness. Always prejudice, always fear-ridden, always intimidating, always viciousness. Understood, well.

Me, I say that after we are done re-invading Vietnam, we invade (shudder) Mexico.

[sk]

Peter S,

Thanks for detailed response.
I assume any immigrant children may have some problem learning new culture and language. This may be true, to a lesser extent, for children born in the US whose parents don't speak English much. This is one aspect of socio-economic influence on the academic performance of children. If students are grouped, regardless of their race or ethnic background, by their parents' income,education, or school districts, there is clearly certain pattern that shows certain group of students performs better.

Btw, I often notice people relate (illegal) immigrants to crimes. Some pundit even claimed they spread disease in the US. Apart from isolated cases such as killings of the three students, is there any RELIABLE statistics that shows higher crime rates among those people? I am really curious because i thought they are just hard working people trying to make money avoiding any troubles.

[Peter Schaeffer]

SK,

Asian immigrant children generally thrive in American schools, even if their parents don’t speak English. Other groups fare poorly. Back in the 1990s a study found that the children of Vietnamese refugees were thriving in dismal public schools even though their parents were poor and had limited English skills. See Caplan, Nathan, Marcella H. Choy and John K. Whitmore. INDOCHINESE REFUGEE FAMILIES AND ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT in the February 1992 Scientific American.

To state this directly, neither family poverty nor limited English skills explain the poor academic performance of some immigrant groups. However, a culture that doesn’t value education does. Recently, Herman Badillo wrote a book "One Nation, One Standard" criticizing the Hispanic community for not taking education seriously enough. A useful quote from “POINT OF CONTACT: Herman Badillo” (http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/points/stories/DN-pointofcontact_14edi.ART.State.Edition1.3dde518.html)

“You contrast Hispanic attitudes toward education unfavorably with Asian ones.

Asian parents get it. They give education the highest priority. Proof of that is that Asians make up only 4 percent of the U.S. population but 20 percent of the population in Ivy League colleges. That's extraordinary. The Asians have comparable problems to Hispanics. They are discriminated against. They are poor – often they come here with little money. They have language problems. But the Asians, because they give such high priority to education, perform so astonishingly. There is no excuse for Hispanics not to perform.”

Your request for reliable crime statistics is a reasonable one. However, answers are hard to come by. No one has decent statistics on illegal alien crime for the simple reason that criminals are not checked for their immigration status. It is entirely possible to repeatedly rape a 5 year old, be arrested for the crime, and never have anyone check if you are in the United States legally or not. The entire criminal justice system operates on a “don’t ask, don’t tell” basis. See “How criminals dodge deportation” (http://www.nj.com/printer/printer.ssf?/base/news-12/1187670710204400.xml&coll=1) for some details about the how the system operates (OK, doesn’t operate).

Note that the systematic failure to check for immigration status has several major consequences. First, illegal aliens are not detected and denied bail and can continue to commit crimes or flee the United States (a very common occurrence). Second, legal aliens frequently commit serious felonies, go to prison, and our then released even though Federal law requires that they be deported after serving their sentences.

In spite of all of the above, we do have some facts. The (very pro-immigration) Migration Policy Institute data shows that Hispanic crime rises 8 fold from the first to second generations and ends up 3-4 times the white rate (and roughly 10 times the Asian rate).

The GAO found that 27% of Federal prisoners were immigrants (legal and illegal). This is far in excess of their population share. The same study found that immigration were about 10% of the state prison population (including jails). This is inline with their population share. However, for the reasons mentioned above (don’t ask, don’t tell), the state and local numbers may be large underestimates.

See “CENTER FOR HEALTH STATISTICS DATA SUMMARY” (http://www.dhs.ca.gov/hisp/chs/OHIR/reports/leadingcause/homicide1998.pdf) for some California murder statistics. They are inline with the above numbers. See also “Hispanic-Black-White Differences in the Age Distribution of Homicide Offending: Methodological and Substantive Issues” by Stephen Demuth and Jennifer Van Hook.

See “The Immigrant Gang Plague” by Heather Mac Donald (http://www.city-journal.org/html/14_3_immigrant_gang.html). Read the observations of Kevin Ruiz, a Santa Ana gang investigator. See also “The Illegal-Alien Crime Wave” by Heather Mac Donald (http://www.city-journal.org/html/14_1_the_illegal_alien.html).

[anne]

"In spite of all of the above, we do have some facts."

Show us the facts facts facts, since a search of the Mogration Policy Institute shows no such facts facts facts. Where is the precise study? Where is the precise reference. Where is the data an study? Show us the facts facts facts, along with the fear-mongering and intimidation.

[anne]

http://www.nber.org/papers/w13229

July, 2007

Why are Immigrants' Incarceration Rates so Low? Evidence on Selective Immigration, Deterrence, and Deportation
By Kristin F. Butcher, Anne Morrison Piehl

---- Abstract -----

The perception that immigration adversely affects crime rates led to legislation in the 1990s that particularly increased punishment of criminal aliens. In fact, immigrants have much lower institutionalization (incarceration) rates than the native born - on the order of one-fifth the rate of natives. More recently arrived immigrants have the lowest relative incarceration rates, and this difference increased from 1980 to 2000. We examine whether the improvement in immigrants' relative incarceration rates over the last three decades is linked to increased deportation, immigrant self-selection, or deterrence. Our evidence suggests that deportation does not drive the results. Rather, the process of migration selects individuals who either have lower criminal propensities or are more responsive to deterrent effects than the average native. Immigrants who were already in the country reduced their relative institutionalization probability over the decades; and the newly arrived immigrants in the 1980s and 1990s seem to be particularly unlikely to be involved in criminal activity, consistent with increasingly positive selection along this dimension.

[DJM]

Thomas More asked; "...I'd ask you how you intend to fund your largess. Specifically how? No grand statements, no ideology, exactly how and who pays for it?" he also said; "A woman here illegally taking money for her medical care that was intended for children?... "
First I want to say when you are talking about maternity care there is a baby/child involved, or does right to life only count in abortion decisions. (rhetorical question)
I have a suggestion of where to start the funding... take the money directly out of our current or future government foreign military aid intended for the country the illegal alien came from ( I am sure there are pros and cons here too ) along with the cost to house them and return them to the country of origin. ( which might possibly encourage the foreign government to assist in securing the borders)
Also ....the government could link repayment of those costs to an illegal alien as a "must pay back, before any chance of citizenship...ever...." using finger prints etc.
Eventually I would like to see the cost of universal health care covered by reducing the amount spent on weapons especially the insane "star wars" weapon program and more, deadlier nuclear weapons.(preferably before WWIII which this administration seems intent on starting)

[anne]

Well, I'm still waiting for the documents showing how pregnant adult immigrant women are stealing health care from children. Where are the, like, studies; you know, the studies of all those pregnant women stealing health care from children.

I even thought, but I could be wrong, that Medicaid was being limited to patients who can show proof of citizenship, which I thought was actually discouraging citizens from using Medicaid which is becoming harder to use in any event, especially through the South. I could be all wrong though.

[Peter Schaeffer]

Anne,

It's the "Migration Policy Institute" not the "Mogration Policy Institute". Fix your spelling and try Google.

The "Why are Immigrants' Incarceration Rates so Low?" paper is based on erroneous statistics (they are 100% off if memory serves) about immigrant imprisonment.

See the General Accounting Office (GAO) study entitled, “Information on Criminal Aliens Incarcerated in Federal and State Prisons and Local Jails” [Report # GAO-05-337R] for some actual data (if seriously understated).

It is entirely typical that a academic study purporting to show low levels of immigrant crime would be based on numbers that are absurdly wrong.

[sk]

Peter S,

Thanks again. I understand more about your complaints. Regarding the crimes committed by the immigrants, I find there is some inconsistency in your own comments while I can see some consistency between your comments and the nber.org study Anne mentions.

You said,
"The (very pro-immigration) Migration Policy Institute data shows that Hispanic crime rises 8 fold from the first to second generations and ends up 3-4 times the white rate (and roughly 10 times the Asian rate)."

This statement implies the first generation (Immigrant) Hispanic crime rate is less than half the white crime rate, which concurs with the NBER study that shows immigrant crime rates are much lower than natives. Asian crime rate is even lower.

When these two major immigrant groups are excluded from "high crime rate groups", it's almost impossible for the immigrant group as a whole to get higher crime rate. All the white immigrants criminals, maybe? ( Yeah, I am getting stupid here...)

[anne]

http://www.cbpp.org/4-20-06health.htm

September 28, 2006

THE NEW MEDICAID CITIZENSHIP DOCUMENTATION REQUIREMENT

Under a new federal requirement that took effect July 1, most U.S. citizens applying for Medicaid or renewing their coverage must prove their citizenship by submitting a passport or a combination of a birth certificate and an ID. This new requirement, part of budget legislation enacted in February, was intended by its sponsors to keep illegal immigrants from fraudulently enrolling in Medicaid. (Certain legal immigrants are eligible for Medicaid; they are not affected by the new requirement.) ...

[anne]

http://www.cbpp.org/8-1-07health.htm

August 1, 2007

NEW CHARGES ABOUT HOW HOUSE CHILDREN'S HEALTH BILL AFFECTS UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANTS ARE FALSE

Undocumented immigrants have never been eligible for Medicaid (other than for some emergency medical care) or SCHIP. Eligible legal immigrants have always been required to provide various documents to prove that they have legal status and that their particular legal status lets them qualify for Medicaid under federal law. In addition, any citizens whose citizenship is in question have always been required to prove it. In 2005, Dr. Mark McClellan, then-Administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, wrote that this policy “allows states to enroll eligible individuals while preserving program integrity.”

In 2006, however, Congress changed the law. A proposal authored by Rep. Deal and the late Rep. Charles Norwood requires every citizen child and parent receiving or applying for Medicaid to provide an original birth certificate, passport, or similar document to prove his or her citizenship. Congress enacted the provision even though Dr. McClellan had indicated there was no evidence that it was needed.

Supporters said the provision was necessary to keep undocumented immigrants out of Medicaid and that it would have no impact on citizens. Studying the issue in 2005, however, the Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) Inspector General did not find evidence of a problem. As Dr. McClellan, who was CMS Administrator at the time, noted concerning the Inspector General’s report, “The report does not find particular problems regarding false allegations of citizenship, nor are we aware of any.”

Furthermore, the results of the provision have proved just the opposite of what Rep. Deal forecast: Tens of thousands of children who are U.S. citizens have been shut out of the program because their parents lacked ready access to a birth certificate or passport, while virtually no undocumented immigrants have been identified....

[anne]

http://www.cbpp.org/8-1-07health.htm

"Undocumented immigrants have never been eligible for Medicaid (other than for some emergency medical care) or SCHIP."

Get it? There have never been rotten awfull horrible illegal pregnant women women stealing health care from sweet innocent pine-cheeked though disease ridden children. Get it? Not only were undocumente immigrants never eligible for Medicaid and SCHIP, but even though there was no problem of stealing helth care according to the inspector general, Congress tightened the document requirements, well, tighter, creating a problem for eligible American citizens. Get it?

[anne]

http://www.cbpp.org/pubs/citdoc.htm

Since I asked for data and studies, here we have 10 documente articles on the requirement of citizenship for Medicaid and SCHIP that has always been with us but has even been tightened. Notice how easy providing data and studies can be. However, there is even now an hysterical member of Congress, Nathan Deal, fear-mongering away about all those illicit pregnant women wishing to steal the very health from our very own precious children by being, well, pregnant.

Should I continue with the data?

Me, I still like caring for pregnant women. Say what?

[anne]

http://www.migrationpolicy.org/

http://www.migrationpolicy.org/search/index.php

Migration Policy Institute (MPI)

"In spite of all of the above, we do have some facts."

Show us the facts facts facts, since a search of the Mogration Policy Institute shows no such facts facts facts. Where is the precise study? Where is the precise reference. Where is the data, where is the study? Show us the facts facts facts, along with the horrid prejudiced fear-mongering and intimidation.

[anne]

http://www.cbpp.org/8-1-07health.htm

"Undocumented immigrants have never been eligible for Medicaid (other than for some emergency medical care) or SCHIP."

"A woman here illegally taking money for her medical care that was intended for children? A child that goes without medical coverage because their care was stolen by an adult criminal?

"Do you hate children or just our country?"

[real person from the real world]

Back in the mid 1800s we had racists (Nativists and "Know Nothings") complaining about immigrants. At that time it was Scots, and worse of all, Irish Catholics. At that time too, Americans started a war with Mexico to steal Texas, California, and other territories that would become Arizona and New Mexico. Mexicans who lived in these territories had the land taken from them, with no recompense.

If the economy were to get bad enough in the US, the flow of illegal aliens might well be from the US to Mexico. There is a difference between Mexico, a country we share a border and history with, and aliens brought in from the 3rd world by plane, over an ocean. BORDERS are POROUS! Even the Great Wall of China did not keep the Mongols out.

Mexican names fill our judiciary, and other government arms. They are not illegals and have been here a while, though sharing the same ancestry as the illegals.... Obviously a few of Hispanics managed to make it through school despite the fact newer immigrants do "poorly" in school since, as someone claims above, they come from a culture not valuing education as highly as Asians, or some other nonsense.....

We need to work out some sort of system. Proximity needs to be considered as a matter of practicallity....

[real person from the real world]

A little US History:

Back in the mid 1800's, before the Civil War, a popular idea called "Manifest Destiny,” was circulating. This idea suggested that Southwestern and Western areas of the American continent west of the Mississippi, which belonged to Mexico and were home to Mexican settlers, should be incorporated into the fledgling USA. Immigrants from the USA were encouraged to settle in these areas belonging to Mexico (including Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, and California), and because the land belonged to Mexico, most agreed at first, to nominally profess allegiance to Mexico. Texas would eventually seceded from Mexico and applied to join the US, igniting the war where Mexico lost Texas.

Meanwhile, "Nativists" back in the eastern part of the continent, in the USA (including members of a party called the "Know Nothings" mostly in New York, who would hit their high point in 1853 through 1856), warily eyed the mostly Catholic Christian Irish and Germans coming in. The Nativists actively tried to discriminate against this new wave of immigrants, especially the Irish, who they considered inferior drunken trash of low morals, who would soon be taking over the USA in the name of the Catholic Pope in Rome. Abusive policies drove the discriminated against immigrant Irish and Germans into the lowest ranks of the US Army. And the army was beginning to be called upon increasingly by the US immigrants in the Mexican territories (notably Texas), since the US immigrants were beginning to outnumber the Mexicans.

The newly inducted immigrants in the US Army faced abuse and discrimination from their protestant officers. In some cases they deserted to join the Mexican Army. During the Mexican-American War (in Mexico, aka "the North American Intervention" of 1847), these men formed the ranks of the Famous (at least in Mexico) Batallón de San Patricio, who fought bravely for Mexico, but were later captured and hanged by the US Army despite international pleas for mercy. The Batallón de San Patricio is commemorated on September 12, the anniversary of the first group of executions, and on Saint Patrick's Day.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_american_war
“Mexico lost more than 500,000 square miles (1,300,000 square km) of land, almost half of its territory. The annexed territories contained about 1,000 Mexican families in California and 7,000 in New Mexico. A few moved back to Mexico; the great majority remained in the US, though they were denied citizenship.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nativists
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Know_Nothings
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifest_Destiny
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Patricios

[evagrius]

What is the source of the anger?

[James Killus]

Krugman button pushed, check.
Racism button pushed, check.
Anti-immigration button pushed, check.

Please turn either left or right and go to your respective sides of the arena. All systems are now go for standard scatfight scenario. When the buzzer sounds, begin hurling whatever is at hand at your chosen opponents. When the slime pile in the center becomes large enough, the usual wallowing may begin.

Good luck.

[BJ Feng]

So you have to go back 150 years to justify illegal immigration? If I remember correctly, it was the Mexican army that crossed the Rio Grande into US territory. The Mexicans were as eager for war as those on the US side, plus they had a numerical advantage though that did them little good. Thanks to capitalism, immigrants such as Colt and Winchester were able to develop and sell their superior firearms to the army, which used their technological advantage to defeat the Mexicans. But instead of annexing all of Mexico, the United States actually paid Mexico for the land it took, in an offer that couldn't be refused.

I don't see how any of this is relevant since the people who fought in that war are long since dead, and most Americans don't even have relatives who fought in that war thanks to legal immigration.

You are right, if our economies were reversed, then many Americans would be trying to get into Mexico, but I don't see how that would nullify Mexico's right to enforce its borders. Yet the roles aren't reversed and there's a reason why things are the way they are. We have the superior economic system. It would be a tragedy if the Mexican system were to take hold here in America.

P.S. It's absolutely true that Mexicans do not value education as much as Asian immigrants or native Americans. Just look at the grades and the dropout rates.

[anne]

"It's absolutely true that Mexicans do not value education as much as Asian immigrants or native Americans."

Always the rubbish of prejudice, all the time, because those who are steeped in prejudice must deal in prejudicial rubbish.

There was the tubbish about adult women stealing health care from our precious children. There was the rubbish of intimidation that disappears on the least investigation.

We have a cultivation of virulent prejudice that is astonishing.

[anne]

"It's absolutely true that Mexicans do not value education as much as Asian immigrants or native Americans."

Notice the insistence and persistence of prejudice. There are those who simply must reside in prejudice, as though beyond all introspection and self-control. Notice the definitive expressions of prejudice. Always hate-filled rubbish, all the time.

Paul Krugman has written a splendid and courageous essay indeed, and I am so thank ful for it.

says...

Gee Anne.............SCHIPS is not MEDICAID. Its a program for childrens health. Childrens Health Insurance Program.... the S stands for State, hence SCHIPS at the state level.

Unfortunately here in Texas its being used to provide pre natal care to pregnant illegal alien adults. Believe it or not at your convience. Its a fact.

Illegal Immigrants are causing all the things these nice folks have gently pointed out to you even though you answer them with hate filled ramblings. If you want specifics go to the Center For Immigraton Studies. They have the best stat's to date. They will also verify everything Mr. Feng and Peter have tried to educate you about.

To evagrius

Not anger, just frustration at revisionist history, attacks on my country (apparently by folks that never risked more than a hang nail to enjoy its benefits) and the self appointed moral superority buffs.

I don't mind if you disagree with me, heck...almost 30% of the country does and about 5-7% for valid selfish economic gain. At least I know their motives.

To DJM

Perfectly valid method of funding in my view. Can't see a single reason not to use it. Plenty of fat in that budget.

"First I want to say when you are talking about maternity care there is a baby/child involved, or does right to life only count in abortion decisions. (rhetorical question)"

We are speaking of funds diverted from US citizen children for the benefit of illegal alien adults and ( her) unborn non-citizen child. I personally choose the American child to care for, if you or any other choose the illegal alien, we will be in eternal opposition.

To Real Person

Proximity needs to be considered as a matter of practicallity....

Let me guess.........you live where? 700-1000 miles removed from the reality of illegals?

That choice if continued will destroy our Republic.

[anne]

http://www.cbpp.org/8-1-07health.htm

August 1, 2007

NEW CHARGES ABOUT HOW HOUSE CHILDREN'S HEALTH BILL AFFECTS UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANTS ARE FALSE

Undocumented immigrants have never been eligible for Medicaid (other than for some emergency medical care) or SCHIP. Eligible legal immigrants have always been required to provide various documents to prove that they have legal status and that their particular legal status lets them qualify for Medicaid under federal law. In addition, any citizens whose citizenship is in question have always been required to prove it. In 2005, Dr. Mark McClellan, then-Administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, wrote that this policy “allows states to enroll eligible individuals while preserving program integrity.”

In 2006, however, Congress changed the law. A proposal authored by Rep. Deal and the late Rep. Charles Norwood requires every citizen child and parent receiving or applying for Medicaid to provide an original birth certificate, passport, or similar document to prove his or her citizenship....

[anne]

http://www.cbpp.org/8-1-07health.htm

August 1, 2007

NEW CHARGES ABOUT HOW HOUSE CHILDREN'S HEALTH BILL AFFECTS UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANTS ARE FALSE

Rep. Nathan Deal has launched a new attack on House health insurance legislation that would cover about 5 million uninsured lower-income children, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates. Rep. Deal charged the bill opens Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) to illegal immigrants, encourages more illegal immigrants to enter the United States, and reflects an "eagerness to offer free services to illegals at taxpayer expense."[1]

The charges are false.

What the Provisions at Issue Would Actually Do

The charges revolve around two provisions of the health legislation that is headed to the House floor.

One addresses severe problems that resulted from a poorly designed provision enacted in 2006 that imposes more burdensome requirements on U.S. citizens applying for Medicaid than on eligible legal immigrants and has caused thousands of poor, eligible citizen children and parents to be denied entry into Medicaid (or to have their entry into the program delayed). Many of these children and parents apparently became or remained uninsured as a result.

The second broadens a provision of current law, under which certain categories of legal immigrants can qualify for Medicaid and SCHIP after residing for five years in the United States, to give states an option to cover legal immigrant children and pregnant women during their first five years here. The National Governors Association and the National Conference of State Legislatures have both endorsed this change on a bipartisan basis. It would not make any undocumented immigrants eligible....

[anne]

http://www.cbpp.org/8-1-07health.htm

[1] See Rep. Nathan Deal, "New Entitlement for Illegal Aliens: Oppose the CHAMP Act," July 30, 2007; email from Todd Smith, deputy chief of staff for Rep. Deal, to all Members of the House, July 30, 2007; and "A new entitlement for illegals," Washington Times, July 30, 2007.

Completely false....

[anne]

http://www.cbpp.org/8-1-07health.htm

Undocumented immigrants have never been eligible for Medicaid (other than for some emergency medical care) or SCHIP....

Simple.

[Thomas More]

Simple....just not factual.

No problem though. I understand you choose to provide medical care to illegal aliens rather than American citizens.

We can't care for both and I choose the American mother and child.

[BJ Feng]

Anne, it would be better for you and like-minded individuals on the left to acknowledge cultural differences among Blacks and Hispanics especially in regards to the value of education. Getting good grades is perceived as "acting white" among many Blacks. Bill Cosby addressed this perception and how harmful it is to his community. Instead of denying and ranting, the left should try to help and end this harmful behavior. Making education a cultural priority would do much more good than the various government programs being proposed, such as more after school functions and preschool. You have to ask why Asians aren't really considered a minority, even though many struggle to speak English when first arriving, and are just as poor as other immigrants. The emphasis on education is a large part of the reason. I know in my case, doing well in school was expected. "A" stood for acceptable, and "B" stood for bad in terms of grades. Getting a C much less dropping out of school was unthinkable. The Los Angeles school district currently has a dropout rate of nearly 50% among Hispanics! Getting good grades qualifies you for a top college, which in turn makes it easier to get a high paying job. Instead of denying the truth, it would be more productive to help.

[BJ Feng]

Perhaps it's just me, but I don't know anyone who isn't able to get an ID if they are legitimate. Even my aunts who came to the US recently were able to get IDs easily, yes it takes paperwork, but saying that Americans are being harmed from having to show ID is ridiculous. The only people who cannot get IDs are illegal immigrants, and that the IDs prevent illegals from collecting social services is the real reason we have the complaints. I believe the number of people who legitimately have trouble getting IDs must number in the dozens, if that large. That's why all the puff pieces drummed out by the media only portray temporary problems for legitimate residents; people who just need to fill out some forms and get an ID, rather than a permanent program where someone cannot get an ID no matter how hard they try.

[BJ Feng]

Perhaps it's just me, but I don't know anyone who isn't able to get an ID if they are legitimate. Even my aunts who came to the US recently were able to get IDs easily, yes it takes paperwork, but saying that Americans are being harmed from having to show ID is ridiculous. The only people who cannot get IDs are illegal immigrants, and that the IDs prevent illegals from collecting social services is the real reason we have the complaints. I believe the number of people who legitimately have trouble getting IDs must number in the dozens, if that large. That's why all the puff pieces drummed out by the media only portray temporary problems for legitimate residents; people who just need to fill out some forms and get an ID, rather than a permanent program where someone cannot get an ID no matter how hard they try.

[anne]

Undocumented immigrants have never been eligible for Medicaid or SCHIP, while as of July 2006 legislation has required "every citizen child and parent receiving or applying for Medicaid to provide an original birth certificate, passport, or similar document to prove his or her citizenship." Notice the need for an "original" document to prove legal status.

The idea that pregnant women from Mars are being cared for and having Martian babies in our hospitals under Medicaid and SCHIP rules while the Martian babies are in turn tossing precious lemon faced American babies from cribs is deceiving rubbish.

[anne]

"It's absolutely true that Mexicans do not value education as much as Asian immigrants or native Americans."

Always prejudice, absolutely all the time, because that is what prejudice absolutely requires absolutely.

[evagrius]

http://www.cbpp.org/7-13-06health.htm

NEW HHS REGULATIONS FOCUS MEDICAID DOCUMENTATION REQUIREMENT ON U.S. CITIZEN FAMILIES
By Judith Solomon and Andy Schneider

On July 6, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services released interim final regulations implementing a new documentation requirement for Medicaid beneficiaries.[1] (The interim final regulations supersede the CMS guidance issued to state Medicaid agencies on June 9.)[2] The regulations exempt Medicare beneficiaries and most elderly and disabled individuals who receive Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits from the citizenship documentation requirement. Thus, the burden of meeting the new requirement will now fall primarily on U.S. citizen children and parents.

As of July 1, all U.S. citizen families who apply for Medicaid or renew their Medicaid eligibility must prove their citizenship by presenting a U.S. passport or the combination of a U.S. birth certificate and an identification document. Citizen children and parents who cannot do so will be denied health services financed with federal Medicaid funds. The new requirement was mandated by the Deficit Reduction Act (DRA) of 2005.[3]

At least 28 million children and 15 million adults will be affected by the new requirement, as will millions of individuals who will need Medicaid’s health care services in the future.[4] The requirement does not apply to legal immigrants, who for many years have been required to demonstrate satisfactory immigration status and financial need in order to qualify for Medicaid.

Under the interim final regulations released July 6:

Most U.S. citizens applying for or renewing Medicaid coverage are subject to the new documentation requirement. Only Medicare beneficiaries and most elderly or disabled individuals who receive SSI benefits are exempt.[5] The interim final regulations do not protect other groups that may have considerable difficulty meeting the requirement, including children in foster care, victims of natural disasters, Native Americans, and some individuals with disabilities who do not receive Medicare or SSI.
People applying for Medicaid who are subject to the requirement will not be able to receive Medicaid coverage for needed health care services while they attempt to obtain the needed documents, or while the state Medicaid agency seeks to obtain their birth record or identity information through a cross-match with another agency (see below).
Individuals who are required to supply documents to prove their citizenship (as distinguished from those whose birth certificates are obtained by the state agency through a data match – see below) must provide passports or birth certificates unless they can show that these documents either do not exist or cannot be obtained within a reasonable period of time. All documents provided to meet the requirement must be originals or copies certified by the issuing agency.
These provisions are likely to result in delays and outright denials of coverage for U.S. citizens applying for Medicaid, as well as the loss of Medicaid coverage for U.S. citizens now enrolled in the program. As a result, the number of uninsured citizens — as well as the amount of uncompensated care provided by hospitals and other health care providers to low-income individuals — is likely to increase.

On a more positive note, the interim final regulations permit states to use a cross-match with state vital statistics agencies to document individuals’ birth record and to match records with other government agencies to establish individuals’ identity. The ability to document a birth record through a cross-match will be helpful for applicants and beneficiaries who reside in the state where they were born. (States do not have the capacity to do cross-matches with vital records agencies in other states). By taking advantage of this option, states can make the documentation requirement substantially less burdensome for Medicaid applicants and beneficiaries. That, in turn, can reduce the degree to which the requirement leads to an increase in uninsurance and uncompensated care. It also can lessen the paperwork burden the requirement imposes on state eligibility workers.

Passport or Birth Certificate Required Unless State Cross-Matches with Other
As of July 1, all U.S. citizen families who apply for Medicaid or renew their Medicaid eligibility must prove their citizenship by presenting a U.S. passport or the combination of a U.S. birth certificate and an identification document. Citizen children and parents who cannot do so will be denied health services financed with federal Medicaid funds. The new requirement was mandated by the Deficit Reduction Act (DRA) of 2005.[3]

At least 28 million children and 15 million adults will be affected by the new requirement, as will millions of individuals who will need Medicaid’s health care services in the future.[4] The requirement does not apply to legal immigrants, who for many years have been required to demonstrate satisfactory immigration status and financial need in order to qualify for Medicaid.

Under the interim final regulations released July 6:

Most U.S. citizens applying for or renewing Medicaid coverage are subject to the new documentation requirement. Only Medicare beneficiaries and most elderly or disabled individuals who receive SSI benefits are exempt.[5] The interim final regulations do not protect other groups that may have considerable difficulty meeting the requirement, including children in foster care, victims of natural disasters, Native Americans, and some individuals with disabilities who do not receive Medicare or SSI.
People applying for Medicaid who are subject to the requirement will not be able to receive Medicaid coverage for needed health care services while they attempt to obtain the needed documents, or while the state Medicaid agency seeks to obtain their birth record or identity information through a cross-match with another agency (see below).
Individuals who are required to supply documents to prove their citizenship (as distinguished from those whose birth certificates are obtained by the state agency through a data match – see below) must provide passports or birth certificates unless they can show that these documents either do not exist or cannot be obtained within a reasonable period of time. All documents provided to meet the requirement must be originals or copies certified by the issuing agency.
These provisions are likely to result in delays and outright denials of coverage for U.S. citizens applying for Medicaid, as well as the loss of Medicaid coverage for U.S. citizens now enrolled in the program. As a result, the number of uninsured citizens — as well as the amount of uncompensated care provided by hospitals and other health care providers to low-income individuals — is likely to increase.

On a more positive note, the interim final regulations permit states to use a cross-match with state vital statistics agencies to document individuals’ birth record and to match records with other government agencies to establish individuals’ identity. The ability to document a birth record through a cross-match will be helpful for applicants and beneficiaries who reside in the state where they were born. (States do not have the capacity to do cross-matches with vital records agencies in other states). By taking advantage of this option, states can make the documentation requirement substantially less burdensome for Medicaid applicants and beneficiaries. That, in turn, can reduce the degree to which the requirement leads to an increase in uninsurance and uncompensated care. It also can lessen the paperwork burden the requirement imposes on state eligibility workers.

Passport or Birth Certificate Required Unless State Cross-Matches with Other
As of July 1, all U.S. citizen families who apply for Medicaid or renew their Medicaid eligibility must prove their citizenship by presenting a U.S. passport or the combination of a U.S. birth certificate and an identification document. Citizen children and parents who cannot do so will be denied health services financed with federal Medicaid funds. The new requirement was mandated by the Deficit Reduction Act (DRA) of 2005.[3]

At least 28 million children and 15 million adults will be affected by the new requirement, as will millions of individuals who will need Medicaid’s health care services in the future.[4] The requirement does not apply to legal immigrants, who for many years have been required to demonstrate satisfactory immigration status and financial need in order to qualify for Medicaid.

Under the interim final regulations released July 6:

Most U.S. citizens applying for or renewing Medicaid coverage are subject to the new documentation requirement. Only Medicare beneficiaries and most elderly or disabled individuals who receive SSI benefits are exempt.[5] The interim final regulations do not protect other groups that may have considerable difficulty meeting the requirement, including children in foster care, victims of natural disasters, Native Americans, and some individuals with disabilities who do not receive Medicare or SSI.
People applying for Medicaid who are subject to the requirement will not be able to receive Medicaid coverage for needed health care services while they attempt to obtain the needed documents, or while the state Medicaid agency seeks to obtain their birth record or identity information through a cross-match with another agency (see below).
Individuals who are required to supply documents to prove their citizenship (as distinguished from those whose birth certificates are obtained by the state agency through a data match – see below) must provide passports or birth certificates unless they can show that these documents either do not exist or cannot be obtained within a reasonable period of time. All documents provided to meet the requirement must be originals or copies certified by the issuing agency.
These provisions are likely to result in delays and outright denials of coverage for U.S. citizens applying for Medicaid, as well as the loss of Medicaid coverage for U.S. citizens now enrolled in the program. As a result, the number of uninsured citizens — as well as the amount of uncompensated care provided by hospitals and other health care providers to low-income individuals — is likely to increase.

On a more positive note, the interim final regulations permit states to use a cross-match with state vital statistics agencies to document individuals’ birth record and to match records with other government agencies to establish individuals’ identity. The ability to document a birth record through a cross-match will be helpful for applicants and beneficiaries who reside in the state where they were born. (States do not have the capacity to do cross-matches with vital records agencies in other states). By taking advantage of this option, states can make the documentation requirement substantially less burdensome for Medicaid applicants and beneficiaries. That, in turn, can reduce the degree to which the requirement leads to an increase in uninsurance and uncompensated care. It also can lessen the paperwork burden the requirement imposes on state eligibility workers.

Passport or Birth Certificate Required Unless State Cross-Matches with Other
Under the DRA, U.S. citizens can satisfy the requirement to document their citizenship and identity by producing a U.S. passport. However, recognizing that many low-income Medicaid beneficiaries do not have passports (which are costly to obtain), the DRA also allows citizens to document their citizenship through a U.S. birth certificate or other proof that they were born in the United States; such individuals must then also provide a driver’s license or other document proving their personal identity. [6] In addition, the DRA gives the Secretary of HHS discretion to specify additional documents that provide proof of U.S. citizenship or a reliable means of documenting personal identity.

The interim final regulations establish a hierarchy of acceptable documents on the basis of their reliability. They direct states to ask for documents at the highest level of reliability before accepting a document of lesser reliability; only if a document at a higher level of reliability is not “available” (a term not defined in the interim final regulations) may a state accept a document at a lower level. There is no reference to such a hierarchy process in the DRA. Moreover, while a few states required documentation of citizenship for Medicaid prior to the enactment of the DRA, the interim final regulations specify a narrower range of acceptable documents than have been acceptable under those state requirements.[7]

Under the interim final regulations, “primary” documents — considered the most reliable evidence of citizenship and identity — are a U.S. passport and a certificate of naturalization. In states that do not automatically extend Medicaid coverage to SSI beneficiaries, primary documentary evidence may (at the state’s option) include a cross-match with the State Data Exchange for SSI recipients.

If these primary documents are not available, the state may accept “secondary” documents as evidence of citizenship, such as birth certificates, final adoption decrees, or official records of U.S. military service. As discussed below, states have the option of cross-matching with a state vital statistics agency to document a birth record.

If neither primary nor secondary documents are available, “third level” evidence of citizenship is acceptable. Third level documents are either hospital records that indicate a U.S. place of birth or life, health, or other insurance records indicating a U.S. place of birth. Such records must have been created at least five years before the individual applied for Medicaid.

The interim final regulations allow the use of “fourth level evidence” to establish citizenship only “in the rarest of circumstances.”[8] Examples of such documents include institutional admission papers from a nursing facility, medical records created at least five years before the Medicaid application date, and written affidavits. Affidavits may “ONLY be used in rare circumstances” to document citizenship.[9] Two affidavits must be submitted, one of which must be from a person not related to the applicant or beneficiary. Persons making the affidavits must be able to prove their own citizenship and identity and must have personal knowledge of the “event(s)” establishing the applicant or beneficiary’s citizenship, presumably his or her birth. Given these restrictions, such affidavits are not likely to be helpful for most individuals who have been unable to provide other proof, because they will probably not have ready access to two people who have personal knowledge of their birth.

Citizens Without Passports Must Document Identity as Well as Citizenship Unless Their State Cross-Matches with Other Databases

U.S. citizens who cannot provide primary-level documents to meet the documentation requirement must provide proof of their personal identity as well as their citizenship. The interim final regulations specify certain documents as acceptable proof of identity, including a driver’s license with a photograph, a school identification card with a photograph, and a U.S. military card. As discussed below, states have the option of using a cross-match with other agency databases to satisfy the requirement for proof of identity.

For children under age 16, an affidavit by the parent or guardian stating the child’s date and place of birth may be used, but only if none of the other allowable identity documents is available.

Applicants’ Coverage Will Be Delayed Until Required Documentation Is Provided

The interim final regulations prohibit states from providing Medicaid coverage to citizens who apply for Medicaid until they satisfactorily document their citizenship and identity.[10] The regulations require states to give applicants a “reasonable opportunity” to meet the documentation requirement before determining the individual’s eligibility for Medicaid, but they do not specify a timeframe.[11]

Thus, U.S. citizens applying for Medicaid coverage cannot receive it until they obtain documents such as a passport or birth certificate — even if they have made a sworn declaration that they are citizens, have met all Medicaid eligibility requirements, and have applied for a passport or birth certificate and are waiting to receive it. During this period, they may go without coverage for prescription drugs, doctor’s visits, mental health treatment, and all other health care services unless their health care providers are willing to furnish such services free of charge. State Medicaid agencies may elect to help applicants obtain the needed documents, but are required to do so only “when because of incapacity of mind or body” the individual would be unable to comply with the documentation requirements “in a timely manner” and the applicant “lacks a representative to assist him or her.”[12]

This treatment of U.S. citizens who apply for Medicaid contrasts with the treatment of legal immigrants who apply for Medicaid. Legal immigrants who are otherwise eligible for Medicaid may receive benefits during the time it takes them to obtain the documents they need to prove that they are in a legal immigration status.[13] Similarly, U.S. citizens who are Medicaid beneficiaries and seek to renew their coverage can keep their Medicaid coverage while they obtain the documents they need to meet the new citizenship documentation requirement. (State Medicaid programs are required to redetermine eligibility for Medicaid at least every 12 months.)

Children in Foster Care and Other Vulnerable U.S. Citizens Remain at Risk

The interim final regulations exempt Medicare beneficiaries and SSI beneficiaries whose Medicaid eligibility is based upon their receipt of SSI from the new documentation requirement. These exemptions, while critically important, do not reach all of the vulnerable groups of U.S. citizens whose Medicaid coverage may be delayed, denied, or terminated as the result of the requirement. Among the groups left unprotected are victims of natural disasters like Hurricane Katrina, individuals with disabilities who receive state supplemental payments, homeless individuals, members of Native American tribes (other than the Texas Band of Kickapoos), and children in foster care.

The failure to protect U.S. citizen children receiving federal foster care payments is particularly unfortunate, because research has documented that children in foster care are much more likely to have chronic medical conditions and emotional problems than other children. Currently, when a state child welfare agency determines that a child is eligible for federal foster care payments — a process that includes verifying that the child is a citizen or a legal non-citizen — the state signs the child up for Medicaid as well. The interim final regulations ignore this longstanding linkage between Medicaid and foster care and force state Medicaid agencies to duplicate the work of state child welfare agencies by documenting the citizenship of children whose citizenship (or legal status) has already been verified. The option to cross-match data will mitigate but not eliminate this unnecessary requirement. [14]

States May Cross-Match with Other Databases for Birth Records and Identity

The interim final regulations allow states to use information technology (IT) to reduce the paperwork burdens that the new citizenship documentation requirement imposes on applicants, current beneficiaries, and state eligibility workers alike.[15] IT can be particularly important for low-income families, who constitute the overwhelming majority of the population subject to the requirement.

For example, most low-income women and children will not have passports and thus will need to produce a birth certificate to prove citizenship. A certified copy of a birth certificate costs from $5 to $30, depending on the state. Normal processing times can range from several days to eight weeks, and expedited delivery can cost up to $60. These costs can be burdensome for Medicaid applicants and beneficiaries: most Medicaid beneficiaries have income below the poverty line ($1,388 per month for a family of three in 2006).

Under the interim final regulations, state Medicaid agencies are not required to insist that an applicant or current beneficiary produce an original birth certificate or certified copy. They may instead “use a cross match with a State vital statistics agency to document a birth record.”[16] Similarly, for purposes of proving identity, state Medicaid agencies may “use a cross match with a Federal or State governmental, public assistance, law enforcement or corrections agency’s data system to establish identity if the agency establishes and certifies true identity of individuals.” Examples of agencies specifically cited in the regulation that state Medicaid agencies can use to establish identity are agencies that administer food stamps, child support, corrections (including juvenile detention), motor vehicle, and child protective services.[17]

The use of cross-matching to satisfy the citizenship and identity requirements would substantially reduce the financial and logistical burden on citizens, as well as the paperwork burden on the Medicaid agency. Cross matches also could markedly reduce the time applicants need to meet the documentation requirement. In states that do not elect these cross-match options, all documents must be either “originals or copies certified by the issuing agencies”; copies or notarized copies will not be sufficient.[18]

Conclusion

The interim final regulations improve on CMS’s earlier guidance by exempting most elderly individuals and people with disabilities from the new citizenship documentation requirement. Nevertheless, many vulnerable U.S. citizens who are fully eligible for Medicaid — primarily poor children and parents— are likely to go without health care while they wait for birth records or other paperwork as a result of the requirement. Some who cannot obtain the necessary documents or who become discouraged by the new requirement may never get coverage and be uninsured. States can lessen the harm caused by the new requirement by cross-matching with other state and federal databases to document individuals’ citizenship and identity where possible.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

End Notes:

[1] The interim final regulations were published in the Federal Register on July 12, 2006. (71 Fed Reg 39214). The regulations became effective on July 6 when they were placed on display at the Federal Register one day prior to a scheduled hearing in Bell v. Leavitt, N.D. Ill. (filed June 29, 2006), a nationwide class action challenging the constitutionality of the new documentation requirement and seeking to enjoin its implementation. Public comments will be accepted on these regulations until August 11, but the regulations will be effective while comments are being received and considered.

[2] The guidance was issued as a State Medicaid Director Letter, SMDL# 06-012. For an analysis of the guidance, see Judith Solomon and Andy Schneider, “HHS Guidance will Exacerbate Problems Caused by New Medicaid Documentation Requirement,” Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, June 16, 2006.

[3] The new requirement is at section 6036 of the Deficit Reduction Act. For more information about the provision, see “The New Medicaid Citizenship Documentation Requirement: A Brief Overview,” Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, April 20, 2006.

[4] Congressional Budget Office March 2006 Baseline Fact Sheet, Enrollment by Eligibility Category, FY 2006.

[5] Eleven states do not automatically extend Medicaid coverage to SSI recipients. While SSI recipients in those states (Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma and Virginia) are not exempt from the citizenship documentation requirement, the regulations give states the option of using information on the citizenship of SSI recipients that is kept in the State Data Exchange (SDX) database for SSI recipients to document both the citizenship and identity of SSI recipients in these eleven states. 42 CFR 435.407(a)(5).

[6] Passports cost $97 for individuals over age 16 and $82 for those under 16. Getting passports on an expedited basis costs an additional $60.

[7] For a list of documents accepted by Georgia, Montana, New Hampshire, and New York, see Patricia Boozang, Melinda Dutton, and Julie Hudman, Citizenship Documentation Requirements in the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005: Lessons from New York, Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured, June 2006, Table 1.

[8] 42 CFR 435.407(d).

[9] 42 CFR 435.407(d)(5).

[10] The regulations state that federal matching funds are not available for the costs of Medicaid services for an applicant unless the state “has obtained satisfactory documentary evidence of citizenship or national status.” 42 CFR 435.1008.

[11] 42 CFR 435.407(j) states that “[t]he time States give for submitting documentation of citizenship should be consistent with the time allowed to submit documentation to establish other facets of eligibility for which documentation is requested.” In general, that time period is 45 days for everyone except people with disabilities, who have 90 days to establish that they meet Medicaid eligibility requirements. 42 CFR §435.911.

[12] 42 CFR 435.407(g).

[13] Section 1137(d)(4) of the Social Security Act.

[14] Pat Redmond, “Children in Foster Care May Have to Delay Health Care Because of Federal Regulations on Citizenship Requirement,” Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, July 7, 2006.

[15] For a discussion of the IT options available, see Leighton Ku, “Using Information Technology to Document Citizenship in Medicaid,” Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, June 20, 2006.

[16] 42 CFR 435.407(b)(1).

[17] 42 CFR 435.407(e)(10). The regulation states that if a Medicaid agency elects to use a cross-match to document identity, it is “still responsible for assuring the accuracy of the identity information.”

[18] 42 CFR 435.407(h)(1). Requiring certified copies undermines efforts to make it easier for working families to apply and retain Medicaid coverage. As of July 2005, 45 states (including the District of Columbia) did not require a face-to-face interview when applying for Medicaid for a child, and 48 states (including DC) did not require a face-to-face interview when renewing coverage for a child. But many low-income individuals, after spending time and money to obtain a certified document to prove their citizenship, may be reluctant to take the chance of losing the document in the mail, and thus will opt to visit the Medicaid eligibility office to apply for or renew their coverage. That could require them to take time off from work and lose some pay and may, in some cases, antagonize their employers.

Document Resources:
PDF of this report
E-mail to a friend
Print

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Report Categories:
All Reports by Date
Health Policy

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CBPP Services:
E-mail Notifications
RSS Alerts

Home | Background | Donate | Board of Directors | Staff | Search | Jobs | Internships | State Policy Work Home Page | Press Room

Click here to join the Center's e-mail notification list.
To ask questions, or send comments, write to bazie@cbpp.org
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
820 First Street, NE, Suite 510
Washington, DC 20002
Ph: (202) 408-1080
Fax: (202) 408-1056