Although anti-immigrant campaign platforms might help win a primary in a state like Arizona, supporters of harsh immigrant enforcement measures must still address the resulting economic fall out. Last week, the Arizona Governor’s Task Force on Tourism and Economic Vitality hired HMA Public Relations, a Phoenix-based marketing communications and public relations firm, to the tune of $100,000 to “develop a series of needs and goals for Arizona tourism in light of the controversy created by SB 1070”—and, boy, do they have their work cut out for them. Similarly, cities like Fremont, Nebraska—where an anti-immigrant ordinance passed in June—are also being forced to run damage control. Fremont’s City Council is currently considering a property tax increase proposal to help shoulder the projected legal fees resulting from the city’s restrictive immigration ordinance.

Perhaps HMA’s first order of business should be spinning a recent State Department report to the U.N.’s Human Rights Council which lists the federal government’s successful legal challenge to Arizona’s enforcement law as an effort to protect human rights. (Attempting to violate human rights, generally speaking, is probably not good for tourism.) Or maybe the firm should have a serious sit down with Arizona Governor, Jan Brewer, who referred to the majority of undocumented immigrants as “drug mules” in an interview a few months back—rhetoric which doesn’t exactly scream “welcome to my state” either.

Even though a federal district judge enjoined the most controversial parts of SB 1070, Arizona’s reputation as an anti-immigrant state lingers as Arizona politicians continue to bash immigrants for political gain. With a growing list of economic boycotts, a declining housing market and a budget deficit of roughly $4.5 million, Arizona will continue to face the fiscal consequences of its “get tough on immigration” rhetoric. And that’s not even considering the estimated cost of implementing the law or the legal fees resulting from lawsuits, which could reach into the hundreds of millions of dollars. Sadly, Arizona’s not the only state running damage control on anti-immigrant measures.

The city of Fremont, Nebraska, recently sent a proposal for a property tax hike (an additional 18% for resident property owners) to the City Council in anticipation of defending the city’s immigration enforcement ordinance—an ordinance that will require businesses to verify employees’ immigration status and renters to apply for an occupancy license. City officials estimate the annual cost of defending the ordinance to be about $750,000. Similarly, Farmers Branch, Texas and Hazleton, Pennsylvania are facing costly litigation to defend their immigration laws, both in the millions of dollars.

Currently, 22 other states are considering enforcement measures similar to Arizona’s and many will, in all likelihood, face similar legal challenges and incur mounting legal fees. As politicians continue to take a “get tough on immigration” stance in the run up to midterm elections, voters may decide that their pocketbooks trump their politics when it comes to immigration.

Photo by star5112.

A new report from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and American Council on International Personnel (ACIP) highlights the enormous contributions that highly skilled immigrants make to the U.S. economy. The report, entitled Regaining America’s Competitive Advantage: Making Our Immigration System Work, rebuts the simplistic claims of immigration restrictionists that foreign-born professionals who come to the United States on temporary employment visas (such as H-1Bs) are somehow “stealing” jobs from native-born workers. As the report notes, the restrictionists overlook the myriad ways in which highly skilled immigrants fuel U.S. economic growth and create U.S. jobs through their innovation and entrepreneurship.

The Chamber of Commerce/ACIP report argues that one of the biggest mistakes made by critics of high-skilled immigration is to assume, incorrectly, that foreign-born and native-born professionals are competing for some fixed number of jobs in the U.S. economy. In reality, however, a skilled immigrant who contributes to a scientific breakthrough, a new invention, or the founding of a new company in the United States is creating jobs, not merely filling one. The report cites an abundance of research demonstrating this basic fact. For instance:

• A 2008 study by researchers at Duke University and Harvard University concluded that one-quarter of all engineering and technology-related companies founded in the United States from 1995 to 2005 “had at least one immigrant key founder,” and that these companies “produced $52 billion in sales and employed 450,000 workers in 2005.” Moreover, these immigrant-founded firms have “contributed greatly to the country’s economic growth over time.”

• A 2006 study by the National Venture Capital Association found that, during the previous 15 years, immigrants started one-quarter of the public companies in the United States backed by venture capital. These companies had a market capitalization of more than $500 billion and employed 220,000 workers in the United States in 2006. The largest of these immigrant-founded firms were Intel, Solectron, Sanmina-SCI, Sun Microsystems, eBay, Yahoo!, and Google.

• A 2001 study by researchers at Georgia State University and the University of Missouri-St Louis found that foreign-born scientists and engineers in the United States are “disproportionately represented” among individuals elected to the National Academy of Sciences and National Academy of Engineering, among authors of scientific papers and patents, and among founders and chairs of biotechnology companies.

It is difficult to imagine how the U.S. economy or U.S. workers would benefit from the absence of these highly skilled immigrants and the jobs they create. As the Chamber of Commerce/ACIP report concludes:

Closing the door to highly educated individuals…who aid the competitiveness of U.S. companies will weaken, not strengthen, our country and will diminish the competitiveness of American employers. In the global economy, investment follows the talent and attempts to restrict the hiring of talented foreign-born professionals in the United States encourages such hiring to take place overseas, where the investment dollars will follow.

In other words, if the United States won’t take the best and the brightest, then its economic competitors will.

Photo by Niosh

Despite a stagnant economy and unemployment rate, Mark Whitehouse at the Wall Street Journal reports that some companies are still struggling to hire workers. As Whitehouse explains:

Since the economy bottomed out in mid-2009, the number of job openings has risen more than twice as fast as actual hires, a gap that didn’t appear until much later in the last recovery. The disparity is most notable in manufacturing, which has had among the biggest increases in openings. But it is also appearing in other areas, such as business services, education and health care.

Many of the employment sectors left unfilled are traditionally filled by foreign born workers, who are not in competition with native born U.S. citizens. At the site of the infamous Postville immigration raid, the newly reformed company, Agri Star, is struggling to both hire workers and to make a profit. The reality remains that part of the solution to our struggling economy must be comprehensive immigration reform which allows for legalization of the many workers who can fill these jobs, and programs that account for future flow of immigrants to fill other employment gaps.

Slate columnist Daniel Gross theorizes that the gap between unemployment and hiring may be caused by employers who simply are not offering workers enough benefits. Gross explains that:

In the past few decades, workers have generally lost ground against employers in negotiating terms of employment. Defined-benefit pension plans have been replaced by 401(K)s, and then employers sometimes cut the matching contributions. A smaller percentage of private-sector jobs today come with health insurance, while many workers who have insurance have to pay more for it.

Without question, the myriad economic issues we are to face in the next decade are complex, but passing comprehensive immigration reform would at the very least start to solve some of them. While Congress has been slow to realize this, the majority of the American public (including 61% of Democrats and Independents and 59% of Republicans) wants comprehensive immigration reform, now. Despite public support, Mark Penn summarizes the political problems facing immigration legislation:

This is an issue that can only be solved through a centrist effort that would bring together moderate Republicans and moderate Democrats into a grand bargain on all of the major issues. The left and the right would vote down any likely compromise, but there probably would be enough votes in the center to get it done in a common sense, non-partisan way. But that’s the rub – there is no political mechanism in today’s polarized environment for bringing together the kind of cross-caucus coalition necessary to pass a bill. And perhaps this illustrates exactly why the voters are so sour on Congress – they now perceive it as an institution that can’t overcome partisan divides to find solutions to today’s growing and intractable problems outside of the red/blue framework.

Both sides of Congress appear so afraid to lose before the November elections that a near-term solution looks unlikely. Maybe after that, they can put aside politics and pass an immigration bill that is good for citizens, immigrants, and the U.S. economy alike.

Photo by Kandyjaxx

Today, Senators Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Claire McCaskill (D-MO) released a Border Security Proposal which would provide $600 million in offset funding for various border security provisions. The bill was a counter to a different border security bill proposed by Republican Arizona Senators Jon Kyl and John McCain, which would have gleaned its funding from the 2009 economic stimulus.

The Schumer-McCaskill bill proposes $175.9 million for the hiring of additional Border Patrol agents on the southwest border, $50 million for additional Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, $14 million for additional border fencing, $32 million for unmanned aerial vehicles, and funding for a number of other programs designed to secure the border and fight drug and gun smuggling.

BY JUAN M. PEDROZA, ROB SANTOS, AND MOLLY SCOTT*

Immigration policy and reform debates test our ability to think about what’s at stake when we open (and close) our doors to a diverse range of newcomers, and how ongoing immigration affects our future. As the debate on how immigrant workers and families continue to reshape the country gathers steam, the public is often misled about the challenges and opportunities stemming from policies about who can come to (and stay in) the US.

Typically, two questions come up most often: How much of an economic and fiscal impact do immigrants have at the federal, state and local level? What are the range of impacts, including costs and benefits?

Casual consumers of information will come across a flurry of mixed messages from abundant studies of varying quality.

Reliable studies lay out researchers’ decisions, such as:

• Research questions and design: what pieces of a policy puzzle to examine and how to carry out a study;

• Data sources: where to look for information (or how to arrive at estimates) to help answer our questions;

• Data collection: how to keep track of the important parts of the puzzle we want to figure out; and

• Research methods: what kind of analysis can best help us answer our questions.

These decisions should be honest and transparent, and limitations—especially those related to findings—should be presented up front. All researchers make these decisions, though not all studies are equally defensible.

In cases where rigorous research doesn’t yield the expected results, some analysts are tempted to pick and choose only the evidence that supports their opinion and to ignore or downplay the rest. Such exercises amount to putting your thumb on the scale to make sure the results come out the way you want them. Below are a few signs that a study is not reliable and best passed over in favor of findings based on more solid research questions and methods.

To avoid being misled, consider the source and whether a study is promoting an agenda. To determine whether a study should be taken seriously, look closely at both sides of the cost-benefit ledger: do you get the impression that authors brainstormed every conceivable cost and then defined benefits to include the narrowest possible types of contributions, or vice versa? If so, such an analysis does not advance our national dialogue.

Some observers start with a research question that barely conceals a predetermined position. For example, an unbiased report does not start by asking: how much do immigrants drain welfare and schools? Likewise, a complete study should acknowledge that each level of government devotes resources to incorporate newcomers. Moreover, if a report claims to tell you the number of dollars that “illegal aliens” cost the taxpayer, be skeptical. Since there is no definitive source of data for the number of unauthorized immigrants and their involvement with various public programs or their exact contributions, all studies rely on estimates and all estimates have limitations. Be especially skeptical if these estimates make no distinction between “non-citizens,” legal permanent residents, unauthorized immigrants (those who overstay visas or enter the U.S. without invitation), and naturalized citizens. Finally, a serious person does not conflate “unauthorized immigrant” with “U.S. born children of unauthorized immigrants.” Few things tilt the scales more effectively than forgetting that someone born in this country is not an immigrant.

For examples of a comprehensive approach to studying the costs and benefits of immigration, consider a 2007 study published by The Urban Institute on the net economic and fiscal effects of immigrants on Arkansas. More recently, a 2008 Nebraska study examined the economic and fiscal impacts of the state’s immigrant population. Both studies present a comprehensive snapshot of the effects that a population can have on a state’s economy. The authors applied a tested research method (e.g., an input-output model) that can reasonably capture the full set of important economic and fiscal costs and benefits. They also spell out the decisions they made—including simulations based on population estimates—when analyzing their information and acknowledge their research limitations.

As the immigration reform debate continues, we should be prepared to interrogate analyses and distinguish between rigorous research and opinionated information disguised as research. Otherwise, the policies we choose about who can come to (and stay in) the U.S. will be based on little more than anecdotes and bias.

*Juan M. Pedroza and Molly Scott are Research Associates and Rob Santos a Senior Methodologist at The Urban Institute. The Urban Institute is a nonprofit, nonpartisan policy research and educational organization that examines the social, economic, and governance problems facing the nation. The views expressed above are those of the author and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.

Following the district court’s ruling enjoining the most controversial provisions of SB 1070 last week, some states are now deciding whether or not to move forward with their own version of Arizona’s immigration legislation—or are at least considering dumping the Arizona-style provisions that U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton temporarily halted. Currently, 22 states have introduced or are considering introducing similar legislation. State legislators are citing fear of costly lawsuits and a charged political environment in which restrictive immigration legislation might not pass as factors in their decision. The city of Fremont, Nebraska, for example, recently halted the enforcement of its enforcement legislation (which prohibits the hiring of or renting to undocumented immigrants) in the face of legal challenges from civil rights groups.

In Ohio, state representative Courtney Combs (R-Hamilton) is revising Ohio’s version of Arizona’s law to avoid potential lawsuits:

Filing an Arizona-style bill “would be wasting taxpayers’ money,” Combs says. “I think we need to make sure that we comply with what the federal courts come up with.”

Similarly, Idaho’s state senator, Robert Geddes, is editing out the enjoined provisions Judge Bolton halted last week:

“I don’t know that we would cut and paste exactly what Arizona has, based on what the judge has already ruled,” Geddes says. “That doesn’t help us much to engage in the same battle that Arizona has lost.”

In Fremont, Nebraska—where residents fought a two-year battle with the city to pass an ordinance that requires businesses to verify employees’ immigration status and renters to apply for an occupancy license—the city council recently delayed enforcement of the ordinance just days before it was scheduled to go into effect. City Council President, Scott Getzschman, cited scant city resources and legal challenges as reasons for the delayed enforcement:

“Given the size of our city, we will make a decision based on the best interest of the citizens of Fremont. As we evaluate legal challenges ahead, we need to look at our resources carefully,” Getzschman said.

Coming out of the recession, many states are facing budget deficits and cannot afford the hefty expenses and fees brought on by legal challenges. According to a report by Immigration Policy Center, Farmers Branch, Texas has already spent about $3.2 million to defend itself since September 2006, when it launched the first of three immigration ordinances. Similarly, Hazleton, Pennsylvania’s insurance carrier is asking a federal judge to rule that it is not responsible for nearly $2.4 million in attorney fees being sought by the plaintiffs who successfully challenged the city s Illegal Immigration Relief Act.

While some states will undoubtedly move forward with the introduction of new immigration enforcement measures, the district court’s ruling on SB 1070 is at least making other states pause and consider the large costs and political consequences associated with enforcing restrictive immigration laws. Whether or not state legislators realize that a patchwork of state immigration policy does nothing to actually solve immigration problems on a national scale remains to be seen.

Photo by Asbestos Bill.

Earlier today, Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis and AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka discussed the complicated intersection of labor, immigration, and the United States economy. “The immigration system has always been important to the labor movement,” said Trumka. Both Secretary Solis and Trumka advocated for comprehensive immigration reform (CIR)—acknowledging the obvious economic benefits to all U.S. workers—and lamented the fact that Republicans have been unwilling thus far to come to the negotiating table on the issue. The lack of Republican cooperation is surprising, considering a CIR bill would be beneficial to U.S. workers and businesses, and was part of the impetus for Solis and Trumka to come together for the webinar.

Trumka rejected the notion that the border should be secured first, stating that the thirst for cheap labor would trump anything that we can do at the border, and CIR would actually be cheaper and easier than a borders first approach. While he acknowledged that we do need reasonable border security, Trumka warned that continuing as is threatens to make undocumented immigrant workers a permanent underclass, and cuts wages for all workers. Secretary Solis also pointed out that the U.S. is losing billions in tax dollars by not allowing workers to legalize and pay back taxes as well as taxes going forward.

Trumka presented specific solutions that would be present in CIR and stated that every labor union in the AFL-CIO supported this general outline:

• Let undocumented people already here have a pathway to legalization
• Prevent the exploitation of workers, address real shortages through independent commission
• Rational reasonable border control, as well as visa enforcement
• Strict compliance by employers to not hire undocumented workers, as well as a tamper proof ID
• End to guess worker programs.

Secretary Solis outlined her goals for comprehensive immigration reform: Identifying the 11 million undocumented who want to become citizens, performing background checks, making them pay back taxes and possibly a tax penalty, making them learn English, and making them go to the back of the line for citizenship.

Secretary Solis also announced that launch of the “We Can Help Campaign,” which seeks to educate all workers on their rights and protections. The campaign offers a free, confidential outline for any worker to report labor abuses such as under or unpaid wages, workplace safety issues, and other abuse.

On Arizona’s controversial law SB 1070, both commented that they supported the Department of Justice lawsuit. Secretary Solis pointed out that the Administration actually reduced border crossings, and that the government is spending more money on the border now than ever before. Trumka echoed this sentiment, adding that politicians are trying to blame immigrants for the failed economic policies of the last three decades. Both questioned the idea of trying to deport undocumented workers, especially as 85% of that group has one or more legal U.S. citizens in their family.

A caller asked what the Department of Labor and the AFL-CIO were doing to advance CIR, and both hosts commented that without any Republican support at all, it would be difficult to get even a small immigration proposal through both houses of congress. Despite the stagnation of Republicans, however, Secretary Solis and Trumka continued to advocate for both CIR and smaller pieces of legislation like the DREAM Act, calling its failed passage a complete waste of talent and resources, especially since the U.S. spends money to educate these children yet our broken policies won’t let them move on to college or get jobs. Hopefully at least a few of the politicians in Washington were watching the webinar—they owe at least that much to the workers and businesses in their respective districts.

Photo by fkjyt.

Every year, undocumented immigrants come to the U.S. along with their young children. These kids grow up in the U.S., speak English, and hang out with their friends just like other American kids. But unlike their classmates, they cannot join the military, work, or pursue their dreams because they don’t have legal status. Every year, roughly 65,000 undocumented students graduate from high school, but many don’t apply for college, even when they’re at the top of their class, because they can’t afford it. These hard-working students are not eligible for loans or work study and must often pay high out-of-state or international tuition rates. They often live in fear of detection by immigration authorities. The DREAM Act—which would benefit these students as well as the U.S. economy—proposes to fix these problems, but not without the political will of Congress.

The Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act, or the “DREAM Act” (S. 729 and H.R. 1751), addresses the plight of young undocumented immigrants who, growing up in the United States, wish to go to college and obtain lawful employment. By providing a path to legal permanent status, the DREAM Act would create a needed incentive for students to stay in school, pursue higher education or join the military.

According to a new report by the Migration Policy Institute (MPI), approximately 114,000 potential beneficiaries with at least an associate’s degree would be immediately eligible for conditional legal permanent resident (LPR) status. Another 612,000 potential beneficiaries would be immediately eligible for conditional status because they already have a high school diploma or GED and 934,000 children under 18 could be eligible for conditional LPR status in the future under the DREAM Act.

Experts report that the DREAM Act would have economic and social benefits for the U.S. According to a fact check by the Immigration Policy Center (IPC), the DREAM Act would:

• Provides an opportunity to raise individual wages and the resulting tax contributions. If legalized, these students would get a better education and better jobs and would earn more and pay more in taxes.

• Allow legalized immigrants to invest in the U.S. economy. Removing the uncertainty of unauthorized status allows legalized immigrants to earn higher wages and move into higher-paying occupations, and also encourages them to invest more in their own education, open bank accounts, buy homes, and start businesses.

• Reduce the drop-out rate for immigrant students by creating a strong incentive for undocumented students to remain in school until graduation

• Help universities by increasing school revenues as students who would not normally attend college start to pay tuition.

• Aid military recruiting. According to West Point Professor Lt. Col. Margaret Stock, the DREAM Act “would be tremendously beneficial to the military. It gives the opportunity to enlist hundreds of thousands of high-quality people.”

On the legislative end, the DREAM Act has come up for a vote several times in past years and has garnered as many as 48 co-sponsors in the Senate and 152 in the House; it passed the Senate Judiciary Committee twice; and it received more than 50 votes as a stand-alone bill. Yet it has failed to become law. Some Members of Congress who support DREAM in principle have voted against it because they want to see it pass as part of a broader immigration reform effort and fear that passage of the DREAM Act alone would hamper the possibility of larger reform. For example, Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA)—then a Republican, now a Democrat—voted against the bill because he thought it would weaken the chances of CIR, not because he disagreed with the contents of the bill. According to a recent poll, the DREAM Act has garnered public support across party lines with as many as 70% of Americans favoring the DREAM Act.

Recently, many Republicans have come under fire for supporting any form of immigration “amnesty,” including the DREAM Act, and some former supporters have switched their positions. Earlier this May, five immigrants sat in the office of Senator John McCain (R-AZ) and refused to leave, asking him to sponsor DREAM. In past years, Senator McCain was a co-sponsor for the DREAM Act, but became more conservative on immigration issues during his 2008 presidential campaign and continues to do so during his 2010 Senate campaign, where he is facing a primary challenge from the right.

Research has shown that the DREAM Act would be a boon to the economy and the U.S. workforce. Moreover, the DREAM Act create an opportunity for many young people to get on the path to permanent legal status, improve their education, invest in themselves and their communities, and serve their country. But for the DREAM Act to pass, it would likely need the support of both the moderate Republicans who supported it in the past, as well as the Democrats who may be holding out hope for CIR.

Photo by SomewhereinAK.

This week, the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) came out with more fuel for the anti-immigrant movement’s fire. Their most recent publication discusses the costs of unauthorized immigration to the United States. As usual, FAIR has put out a highly misleading fiscal snapshot of the costs allegedly imposed on U.S. taxpayers by unauthorized immigrants and completely discounts the economic contributions of unauthorized workers and consumers. Moreover, FAIR inflates their costs in a variety of ways and conveniently ignores any contributions that would offset these costs.

While the publication is long and deals with a wide range of issues that warrant more dissection by credible economic experts, the trade publication Education Week has already begun the deconstruction with an item that sheds light on their misleading claims about providing English language services in schools.

According to the Immigration Policy Center (IPC), FAIR’s report suffers from three fatal flaws:

• The report notes that the single biggest “expense” it attributes to unauthorized immigrants is the education of their children, yet most of these children are native-born, U.S. citizens who will grow up to be tax-paying adults. It is disingenuous to count the cost of investing in the education of these children, so that they will earn higher incomes and pay more in taxes when they are adults, as if it were nothing more than a cost incurred by their parents.

• The report fails to account for the purchasing power of unauthorized consumers, which supports U.S. businesses and U.S. jobs.

• The report ignores the value added to the U.S. economy by unauthorized workers, particularly in the service sector.

In contrast to FAIR’s report, the Perryman Group estimated that if all unauthorized workers and consumers were somehow removed from the U.S. economy, the United States would lose $552 billion in total economic activity (”expenditures”), $245 billion in Gross Domestic Product (GDP), and 2.8 million jobs.” This doesn’t count the billions it would cost to actually implement a mass deportation program.

Another argument FAIR makes, which makes it hard to glean what their solution would be (if they were really interested in solutions), is the high cost of deporting undocumented workers which FAIR blames on the immigrants themselves. It’s a somewhat circular argument to say that the cost of undocumented immigrants includes the cost of failing law enforcement efforts. So, in essence, FAIR is saying that the deport-them-all approach costs too much money and doesn’t work. Yet their “solution” is to spend even more money on enforcement.

This is not all that surprising. FAIR’s publication is meant only to reinforce their vision of “attrition through enforcement”—hoping that if you make their lives miserable enough they may choose to return home on their own. It is not rooted in an effort to move the immigration debate forward or advance real solutions. However, despite what little credibility FAIR suffers from in the mainstream press, what is most concerning about this report and its corresponding graphic maps with big numbers (the perfect stage prop for nativist state legislators like Russell Pierce and his ilk) is that they will be cited and used by those attempting to pass punitive state legislation. These numbers do not withstand scrutiny and must be challenged.

If FAIR was serious about ending illegal immigration, they would be working hard for immigration reform. That way, the government could stop wasting tax dollars on enforcement programs that don’t work and ensure all immigrants are paying their fair share in taxes.

Photo by Hayley Bouchard.

While comprehensive immigration reform looks to be stalled until the lame duck session or the beginning of the 112th Congress, chief executives of several major corporations and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg are joining together to form a coalition, “Partnership for a New American Economy,” advocating for immigration reform. Bloomberg stated the group’s intent, saying that “somebody has to lead and explain to the country why [immigration reform] is in our interests.” Although some may question the coalition’s intentions—Fox & Friends is busy trying to distort the coalition’s message as “borders first”—the group of mayors and successful CEOs may actually just want to make the economic case that “if America wants to remain economically competitive,” it needs to have policies in place that allow the world’s best and brightest to succeed and thrive here.

The CEOs include Rupert Murdoch of News Corp., as well as executives from Hewlett-Packard, Boeing, and Disney. Murdoch appeared on Fox News to discuss the coalition. “We’re just going to keep the pressure on the congressmen,” Murdoch said. “I think we can show to the public the benefits of having migrants and the jobs that go with them.” The group plans to publish studies, conduct polls, convene forums on immigration, and pay for public education campaigns.

The group’s stated objectives are to:

• Secure the borders
• Develop an easy system for work eligibility verification
• Hold companies accountable for breaking immigration laws
• Develop a pathway to legal status for all undocumented immigrants

Mayor Bloomberg stated that he believed all 12 million undocumented workers should be given the opportunity for citizenship, and said that any lawmaker who wanted to deport all of them was “living in a fantasy world.”

“I can’t think of any ways to destroy this country quite as direct and impactful as our immigration policy,” he said Wednesday. “We educate the best and the brightest, and then we don’t give them a green card.”

Likely, Bloomberg and his cadre of CEOs realize that comprehensive immigration reform is a benefit to the economy, while letting the current problems stagnate would, as Bloomberg said, be “national suicide.” Walt Disney CEO Robert Iger echoed this statement, calling immigration “our great strength as a nation,” and “critical for continued economic growth.” He continued by reasoning that “to remain competitive in the 21st century, we need effective immigration reform that invites people to contribute to our shared success by building their own American dream.”

Bloomberg addressed unemployment directly on Fox News, stating that “there’s this belief that immigrants take jobs away [from Americans] and that’s just not true.” He also called for a plan to bring in and give legal status to immigrants who were able to come to the U.S., start businesses, and employ American workers.

The group, which collectively run companies making more than $220 billion in annual sales, plans to use television and radio to try to do what others have not been able to, convince Congress to take up and pass comprehensive immigration reform. If the investment, and more importantly, the leadership, is up to the task, it may actually be possible.

Photo by Edward Reed.