Public Admin Essay

If you would like to get into a heated debate with someone, illegal immigration would be a good topic. In the United States today there are few issues that draw more emotional reactions than the government’s policies for dealing with illegal immigrants. From border security to the provision of social services to illegal residents, there seem to be a countless number of elements to this polarizing issue. And as the nation struggles over the illegal immigration quandary, the issue has become a perennial point of contention within the federal system of government. With the national, state, and local governments all playing key roles in the management of illegal immigration issues, it is inevitable that this topic will illustrate the complexity of intergovernmental relations in the United States today.

As with so many other aspects of public administration, the U.S. Constitution says very little about the subject of immigration. While never mentioning the word “immigration,” the Constitution addresses naturalization of citizens in two places: Article I, Section 8, authorizes Congress to “establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization,” and the Fourteenth Amendment declares “All persons born or naturalized in the United States … are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” With such scant direction from the highest law in the land it has fallen on generations of public officials to manage the process by which foreign-born individuals enter into citizenship.

While the process of becoming a citizen has been under the federal government’s auspices, the management of the flow and treatment of those illegally entering the United States has been much more fragmented. Ports of entry, border-crossing patrols, and customs operations are run by the federal government, with penalties such as incarceration carried out by federal authorities. Although the issue of border security and the prevention of illegal residents from entering the country are the domain of the feds, there is very little satisfaction with the way the powers in Washington, D.C., have dealt with the issue. According to the Pew Hispanic Center, there were approximately 11 million illegal immigrants living in the United States in 2007, with almost 6 in 10 coming from Mexico. But other estimates go as high as 20 million. The situation is so out of control that no one can provide any numbers with certainty.

To deal with this vast population of illegal immigrants, state and local governments have struggled to provide support services. From schools to medical care, illegal immigrants require many of the same services needed by legal immigrants and citizens. However, illegals are likely to have paid less in taxes than citizens because of “under the table” employment options, which often allow them to work for undocumented and untaxed cash as part of the nation’s already vast underground tax-evading economy. In addition, their often poor economic conditions, lack of health insurance, and language barriers require more public social services than those needed by average Americans. The failure of the federal government to stop the influx of these illegal aliens or to adequately compensate state and local governments for the costs entailed in providing social services for them has led to many initiatives emerging from state capitals, counties, and even cities.

The gut issue here is not so much the immigrants themselves, who tend to be an overall plus for the economy, but the costs of servicing their needs. To the extent that the federal government fails to control its international borders, it is forcing—mandating—state and local governments to provide billions of dollars in educational, medical, and other social services to the illegal immigrants without reimbursement. This is why illegal immigration is the mother of all unfunded mandates.

According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, at least 1,100 immigration bills were submitted by state lawmakers during 2007, a mark that doubled the previous record set in 2006. This flurry of bills came as a major federal immigration overhaul bill that was supported by President Bush failed to emerge from Congress. In the void left by the federal government’s inactivity, the state bills have tended to be punitive to illegal immigrants. Among the approaches most commonly employed by states have been policies that deny illegal immigrants access to government programs and laws that penalize employers for hiring undocumented workers. In some cases states have passed laws that strip government funding to charitable organizations if they use the money to provide services to illegal immigrants.

The complexity of this issue can be illustrated by the problem of in-state state university tuition rates for illegal aliens. Out-of-state tuition is often twice as much. But illegal aliens who graduate from local high schools with grades that make them eligible for the less expensive in-state tuition rate say they should be allowed to enroll at that rate. Critics contend that they should not be allowed to enroll at all. Indeed—the critics continue—as they are now adults (being over 18), they no longer need to reside with their parents, and, in consequence, should be immediately deported—as well as their parents, if illegal. Besides, if a state allows the lower tuition rate for illegals, how can the state deny it to perfectly legal citizens of other U.S. states? And if it does, isn’t this a violation of Article IV, Section 2, of the Constitution, which states that: “The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States”?

While the states have thrown themselves headlong into the fracas, the most contentious battles in the immigration tempest seem to be occurring at the municipal level. Surprisingly, many of the most controversial actions are not occurring in major cities or communities on the Mexican border, but in smaller towns far away from the highest concentrations of illegal residents. For example, the small Pennsylvania city of Hazelton drew national attention when it adopted an ordinance that fined businesses and landlords who employ or house illegal immigrants. A recent surge of Hispanic residents to the formerly homogenous city pushed the issue onto the public agenda in Hazelton, but as can be expected in a federal system, Hazelton’s laws would not be left to the city’s residents to decide. Instead, the Hazelton laws are being challenged in federal court largely on the grounds that municipalities have no right to preempt federal authority on immigration issues, and that the Hazelton laws clash with federal antidiscrimination and fair-housing laws.

While the federal courts did find Hazelton’s law unconstitutional in July of 2007, it seems clear that the outcome of the case did not end the intergovernmental mess that engulfs this issue. In 2008 and 2009 several states, including Oklahoma, Colorado, and Virginia, decided to curtail medical care, mortgage loans, and other benefits for illegal immigrants as the national economy soured. And back on the West Coast there were renewed efforts in California to place a question on the ballot that would end public benefits for illegal immigrants, cut off welfare benefits for their children, and impose new rules for birth certificates. It is clear the combination of immense political and economic pressures, changing demographics, and large gray areas within the realm of American federalism will keep intergovernmental relations in the area of immigration very tense for years to come.