Firmer Case on Immigration Costs

California and other states that share a border with Mexico have called repeatedly on Washington to reimburse them for costs related to illegal immigration. In 1994, then-Gov. Pete Wilson even tried suing the federal government for reimbursement of the money that the state spends on services connected with illegal immigrants--schooling, health care, law enforcement. No matter how rational the request, getting federal reimbursement in immigration matters can be like pulling teeth.

A new study of such costs, conducted by the U.S./Mexico Border Counties Coalition and funded by the federal government, may provide better ammunition. Since the beginning of a border crackdown in 1995, illegal crossings in urban zones such as San Diego have diminished dramatically. But the enhanced enforcement has also driven illegal immigrants to dangerous remote crossings all along the border. As university researchers from California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas clearly document in the study, the counties that border Mexico pay up to $108 million a year in law enforcement and medical and forensic expenses associated with illegal crossings. In California, San Diego and Imperial counties spent $55.7 million on increased law enforcement and medical treatment for illegal immigrants in 1999.

The cost to the immigrants themselves is all too often in lives: About 230 would-be immigrants died crossing the border in 1999, and 500 since 1995. Cutting that toll should be a top federal and state priority.

As for the cost to counties, Congress should consider a bill sponsored by Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) that offers federal relief to border states and county governments. Kyl proposes providing these states with $1.6 billion over the next four years for indirect costs relating to incarceration and to emergency health services furnished to illegal immigrants. This would be on top of direct reimbursement for such things as routine health care and schooling.

This is not the answer to the burden of illegal immigration on America’s southern border, but it would help stem the human and fiscal losses that result from the continuing flow.