Conservative groups on Monday sharply criticized the comprehensive immigration reform bill making its way through the Senate, revealing divisions between conservative politicians and policy leaders.
The Heritage Foundation released a report Monday estimating the cost of the amnesty portion of the comprehensive immigration reform bill to be $6.3 trillion over the immigrants’ lifetimes.
The Center for Immigration Studies held a press conference in the afternoon to discuss biased reporting in the media, and the New York Times in particular, on immigration.
These events came as conservative leaders are beginning to question the wisdom of the Senate bill, titled the "Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act."
Supported by Republican Sens. Marco Rubio (Fla.), John McCain (Ariz.), Lindsey Graham (S.C.), and Jeff Flake (Ariz.), the bill faces its first test on Thursday when the Senate Judiciary Committee will field amendments to it.
Illegal immigrants granted amnesty by the bill would end up consuming more in taxpayer-funded benefits than they will contribute through taxes, the Heritage Foundation report states.
If amnesty is enacted, legalized immigrants will receive $9.4 trillion in benefits over the course of their lifetimes while only paying $3.1 trillion in taxes, creating a deficit of $6.3 trillion, said Robert Rector, one of the authors of the report, at a press conference.
Jim DeMint, president of the Heritage Foundation, noted many people want to see America’s immigration system reformed and said there are many benefits to immigration.
"Amnesty will only make the problem worse in the future," he said.
DeMint and Rector said Heritage’s report likely underestimates the actual costs of granting illegal immigrants amnesty.
Immigrants end up costing the state more than they give because of their low average education, Rector said. Illegal immigrants have, on average, a tenth-grade education and 75 percent have a high school degree or less. A lower education level depresses earning potential and forces people to turn to state-provided social services for help.
Rector noted that the costs are relatively contained for the first 10 years after the bill when newly legalized immigrants are not able to receive Social Security or Medicare.
"The deficits simply explode" afterwards, Rector said.
"The only approach that can work at this point is a piece-by-piece approach," DeMint said. Such an approach is opposed by Democrats in Congress and the White House.
The cost of legalizing immigrants and the media’s failure to cover it was one topic discussed at a panel hosted by the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) at the National Press Club.
The panel was pegged to a paper on the New York Times’ biased coverage of immigration written by CIS senior research fellow Jerry Kammer.
The Times regularly fails to cover certain aspects of the immigration debate, including the way that illegal immigration affects farmers and ranchers who live near the border and who feel overwhelmed by the influx of immigrants, Kammer said.
"The lack of such reporting is evidence that reporters and editors simply don’t see the story," Kammer wrote in his report.
"It suggests a field of vision that is constricted by ideology."
Vanity Fair’s Donald Barlett, coauthor of The Betrayal of the American Dream, praised Kammer’s paper, saying the Times’ coverage of the immigration issue is "a freaking disgrace."
Not everyone praised Kammer’s analysis of the Times’ coverage, however. Ted Hesson, immigration editor for ABC and Univision’s Fusion publication, agreed that there has been a shift in reporting on immigration, but contended that this shift reflected evolving sensibilities on the issue.
Blogger Mickey Kaus, author of The End of Equality, pointed to the "quasi-monopoly of opinion" about immigration among conservatives, noting that many Fox News hosts favor amnesty.
Those who oppose amnesty are often labeled "racist," which has harmed the debate about immigration reform in the United States, Kammer said.
"I think we need to have an open, honest, civil, and well-informed debate," Kammer said.
Kammer’s experience covering immigration in Arizona in the 1990s impressed two fundamental ideas about immigration reform in his mind, Kammer said: immigrants should integrate into American society, and immigration should be limited.
Reaction to the Heritage Foundation’s report among conservatives was mixed.
Americans for Tax Reform (ATR) said the report was "flawed" and its cost estimates "unfairly inflated."
"America has entitlement, welfare, and education crises, not an immigration crisis," an ATR press release said.
"America should welcome more legal immigrants to pay into the system without receiving benefits and boost the economy while we work toward sustainable reform," ATR’s Josh Culling said in the statement.
When asked about the criticism coming from Americans for Tax Reform, Rector defended his analysis.
"I would stake my entire career on those numbers," Rector said.
Sen. Jeff Sessions (R., Ala.) hailed the Heritage Foundation’s report as a useful analysis for lawmakers.
"At a time when our nation’s major entitlements are already nearing bankruptcy, we cannot afford to add another $6.3 trillion in long-term net costs to already over-burdened state, local, and federal governments," Sessions said in a statement.
The influx of newly legalized immigrants will depress wages and increase competition for American workers, Sessions said.
"This bill may be good for the special interests who helped write it," Sessions said. "But it’s bad for workers, bad for taxpayers, and fails to serve the national interest."