Comments on “The Findings and Policy Implications of the GAO Report and the Urban Institute Hiring Audit” by Michael Fix

Michael Fix begins with a review of the circumstances that led to the issuance by the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) of its congressionally mandate study of the implementation of the employer sanctions provisions of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA). I would only take exception with one passing remark in this section. It is the use of the word "appease" in his mention that IRCA provided $4 billion of federal funds "to appease states that feared that their services would be overrun by legalized aliens." Immigration policy has been held by the Supreme Court since 1892 (Elkie v. United States) to be solely the responsibility of the federal govern? ment. The full impact of the consequences of immigration policy-making, however, is played out in the cities and states where the immigrants actually live and work. Given that the legalization procedures involved at least 2.2 million persons (plus several million more illegal immigrants who did not apply or who were found not to be eligible for the amnesty) and that the full effects of the total number of additional family members of amnesty recip? ients who may eventually have their status adjusted is still unknown, the concerns of local and state governments over the derivative financial costs involved are very legitimate. Indeed, I have long believed that the federal government?as a matter of practice?should provide full funding to com? munities that are financially impacted by immigration just as it once did for local communities diat were adversely impacted by the employment effects associated with the placement of national defense installations around the country. If the federal government were obligated to assume these financial costs, policy-makers might be less mesmerized by the alleged benefits and act more responsibly if they also had to embrace considerations of the actual costs of their decisions.