The immigration debate continues to be a hot topic of discussion, and Gov. Ted Kulongoski’s suggestion last week that Oregon could comply with the federal Real ID Act by creating a two-tiered system, where individuals who can prove their citizenship would get one kind of driver’s license while those who cannot would receive a different license, only added fuel to the fire.
Immigration opponents like State Rep. Bruce Hanna (R-Roseburg) came out swinging against the proposal, arguing that it will create a double standard and actually make it easier for undocumented immigrants to obtain driver’s licenses. Others are concerned about the impact this policy would have on people who could not prove their status in this country because they have lost their birth certificates or other identification papers. But few so far have considered the long-term, more subtle impact this proposal could have on our state as a whole: this two-tiered license system could create a two-tiered social system, where those who were unable to prove their citizenship (or residency status) would be treated differently from those who have the “right” kind of identification.
The Real ID Act is itself a bad idea because, by imposing regulations telling the states how to issue and verify identification documents, the federal government would, in effect, be issuing a national identification card. In addition to the concerns about privacy and related civil liberties concerns, the Real ID Act could force states to make bad policy decisions that could have long-term impact on their economies.
Immigration opponents like State Rep. Hanna argue that the states should make it difficult or impossible for undocumented migrants to receive any kind of access to public schools, hospitals or other public services. They believe that denying driver’s licenses will curtail immigrants’ access to these services, will limit their capacity to transport themselves to and from work, and will make life for undocumented immigrants generally difficult to the point where they will go back to their countries of origin.
Needless to say, this thinking is short-sighted and is bad policy. Undocumented workers in Oregon generate between $1.8 billion and $2.5 billion in annual revenue for the state, according to the Oregon Center for Public Policy. Moreover, OCPP estimates that undocumented workers pay between $134 million to $187 million annually in state taxes, including income and property taxes, as well as Medicare and Social Security. Perhaps more importantly, however, is that even undocumented immigrants as a group have significant spending capacity: Undocumented workers earn roughly $2 billion in annual income in Oregon alone.
The other element that supporters of the Real ID Act have failed to consider is that the continued immigration into the United States is the result of misguided trade policies based on the idea of “free trade,” and not solely the result of lax enforcement of immigration laws. In Mexico, for example, corn producers have suffered a tremendous hit because they have been forced to compete with large-scale corn producers in the United States, who continue to receive significant subsidies from the government. Without a source of income, Mexican farmers are forced to migrate to the United States to seek sources of income.
In addition to the economic impact, the social impact of a national identification card could also be significant. For example, anyone who is unable to meet the identification requirements, from undocumented migrants to homeless individuals without access to their birth certificates, may be denied access to state services, especially those services for which an official form of identification is required.
Kulongoski’s plan could have the same sort of impact on Oregon’s undocumented population. Someone with a valid permit but who was unable to prove her citizenship could be the subject of disparate treatment simply because the license does not prove her citizenship. For example, a driver with the second-tier identification would be entitled to drive under the laws of the issuing state but a police officer conducting a routine traffic stop may use the different kind of identification to probe just a bit deeper than he would if the driver displayed the first-tier license.
This low-level form of state-sponsored discrimination could drive undocumented people further underground, reluctant to use state services or seek assistance from the government. It could also further alienate a population that is already feeling the pressure from anti-immigrant groups that are the driving force behind such short-sighted policies as the Real ID Act. The impact on our society is already being felt: many immigrants are increasingly reluctant to assist local law enforcement for fear of being detained or deported and separated from their families. A two-tier system would exacerbate these feelings and would make it easier for others to discriminate against those who have the second-tier identification.
While the governor may want to bring the state into compliance with the federal law, the state would be better served by ensuring that those who are unable to present the necessary documents to prove their status in the country are not unfairly discriminated against. We should expect no less from the governor if and when he formally announces this two-tiered approach. But the state, and the nation as a whole, may be best served by focusing on what is driving the wave of immigration into the country: unfair and misguided economic policies that force people to abandon their native countries in search of better opportunities.
