Anti-immigrant rhetoric will lead to trouble for all Iowans, advocates say

Tough talk from the campaign trail may make for great headlines, and might even appeal to certain pockets of voters, but it rarely translates into sustainable and thoughtful public policy, according to some Iowa immigration advocates.

University of Iowa Spanish professor Tom Lewis speaks to those gathered on the Ped Mall in Iowa City about the dangers of strict state-based immigration legislation like that passed in Arizona. (Photo: Lynda Waddington/The Iowa Independent)

On Tuesday, Republican gubernatorial candidate Terry Branstad said he would like to overturn the U.S. Supreme Court decision that says children in the United States illegally must be allowed access to public education. The court determined that denying education benefits to children in the country illegally violates the Fourteenth Amendment and ultimately would be worse for society than providing them. Branstad disagrees.

Last week, state House Minority Leader Kraig Paulsen said individuals who enter the U.S. without proper documentation should be denied all public services, a position also supported by Branstad.

Not only do advocates argue that workers — documented or undocumented — contribute to the tax base that provides such services, they believe that denial of things like basic education, police protection and emergency health care to any segment of society has ripple effects for everyone.

“If that type of policy was carried forth, we would see society deteriorate — the same way and for the same reason we saw deterioration of our inner cities,” said Tom Lewis, professor of Spanish at the University of Iowa. “If you take away education, if you let people die on the sidewalk outside of the emergency room, a brutal society is created that will ultimately impact even those who have access to public services. There would be significant unrest that would be carried out of the isolated community and into other facets of society.”

Lewis spoke to The Iowa Independent after participating in an Iowa City rally Thursday night in support of immigrant rights and against controversial laws that partially went into effect in Arizona. His warning to all Iowa residents to carefully consider what measures are taken to address immigration concerns echoed those of Dr. Sergio Aguilar-Goxiola, a founding director of the Center for Reducing Health Disparities at the University of California-Davis Health System.

According to research conducted by Aguilar-Goxiola and his colleagues, immigrant populations that have access to basic services prosper and give much more to a community than they take.

“I happen to believe that if we were to pay attention to access to health care and access to education for these populations that the return would be much greater than the cost,” he told The Iowa Independent last August. “Unfortunately, I think that as a part of the national debate on immigration that there is an idea or a sentiment that immigrant populations are a burden … [but] from a public health perspective it is better to tend to the populations, especially when they are contributing in one way or another to the economic region.”

The nonpartisan Iowa Immigration Education Coalition understands and shares the frustration nationally with the lack of federal immigration reform, but does not believe that “unworkable state-based restrictions” are the solution.

“Reliable studies show that immigration has been a positive influence in Iowa, in terms of both economics and education,” Project Coordinator Geofrey Fischer said in an e-mail to The Iowa Independent. “IIEC believes that any policy decision at the state level should take into account these facts.”

Lori Chesser, chairwoman of the Davis Brown Law Firm‘s Immigration Department and a member of IIEC, said the Legislative Services Bureau correctly concluded that the “only services that unauthorized aliens receive from the state are those that benefit everyone,” such as use of recreational spaces, fire and police protection, and those mandated by federal law such as public K-12 education and emergency medical services. In a 2007 study, the LSA said decreasing undocumented immigrant eligibility for state spending is not a viable policy option.

“The question really is whether it is good public policy to have a ‘show your papers’ law that covers 911 calls, garbage pick up or the use of public parks,” she said, noting that most would cringe at the thought of verifying immigration status before a 911 dispatcher would send an ambulance or placing a copy of their driver’s license or birth certificate in the lid of a curbside waste receptacle.

“Because no one is marked with a scarlet ‘U’ — for unauthorized — all Iowa residents would be required to prove their legal status before accessing such services,” she said. “Even if this suggestion was not absurd, very likely it would be more expensive to implement than the cost of providing these ‘services’ to everyone.”

The real problem, she says, is an inadequate and antiquated immigration system that must be fixed.

The fact that the existing system is broken is something that Branstad and Paulsen already know, said David Smithers, who plans to enter the November ballot as a Green Party candidate in Iowa House District 89. He questions if Branstad, in particular, is committed to his latest statements or just looking to score political points.

“I think Branstad is worried that the Republican Party will split — that the tea party crowd is more to the right and more anti-immigrant, and that he needs to appeal to them [in order to win],” Smithers said. “During the primary, Branstad presented himself as a centrist or a more business-type Republican. Now he seems to be pandering to the right wing. I think he might be worried. Still, what he is doing is dangerous, and I hate to see it happen.”