ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS AND WELFARE - THE PROPAGANDA IGNORES THE EVIDENCE

The cover of The Economist of September 10 of this year promotes the issue's feature article: "Art of the Lie." In it the magazine claims that many populist politicians rely on assertions that "feel true," but have no basis in fact. It editorializes that "politicians have always lied," and it wonders if it really matters if they leave the truth behind entirely. The author concludes that the manner in which some politicians now lie, and the havoc they wreak by doing so, is extremely worrying.

Nothing illustrates the crux of this article better than the populist pre-occupation with all facets of immigration, especially when it concerns illegal aliens. Critics of immigration policy make their points by grossly exaggerating undesirable effects of a perceived influx of undocumented immigrants. The propaganda developed to make their points focuses primarily on welfare costs related to assisting illegal aliens. Jim Hoft, an ultra right-wing blogger and owner of "Gateway Pundit," managed to arouse his following by headlining: "We're $16 trillion in debt and giving welfare to illegal immigrants. It is confirmed: Majority of Illegal Immigrants Receive Government Welfare." (March 26, 2013). The Federation for American Immigration Reform published an article in June of 2010 suggesting that "Illegal Aliens Cost U.S. Taxpayers More Than $100 Billion Annually." And Robert Rector, senior research fellow on domestic policy at the Heritage Foundation, during an event in May of 2013, when asked how many illegal immigrants were on welfare, answered: "11 million!"

These proclamations are generally unsupported by statistical evidence, but they have the intended effect of causing level-headed citizens to doubt their own conclusions. Even those sympathetic to the plight of undocumented workers may profess to be uncomfortable with the thought that illegal immigrants have access to government entitlements. While recognizing that some available data could be interpreted differently by folks on opposite sides of the issue, and that inclusion or exclusion of some components could skew the argument, we do well to familiarize ourselves with substantiated facts if we want to engage in intelligent discourse.

* Contrary to populist opinion, illegal immigrants do not "swarm into the country" (Mizanor Rahman, January 25, 2008). Over 40% overstay their visas. They don't all come from Mexico. In 2014 5.4 million came from Asia and Central America. None are eligible to receive public benefits - ever.

* Welfare for illegal immigrants is mostly associated with children. Under the 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause, U.S.-born children of immigrants are natural-born United States citizens, and they are eligible for programs like Medicaid and the state's Children's Health Insurance Program.

There are an estimated 3.4 million households headed by illegal immigrants (Center for Immigration Studies, 2015). Illegal immigrant households without children accessing welfare programs comprise only 14% of all illegal households receiving welfare benefits.

* Less than 1% of households headed by undocumented immigrants receive cash assistance for needy families, compared to 5% of households headed by native-born citizens.

* An estimated 50% of undocumented workers are paid legally. They end up paying Social Security and other payroll taxes. Since many have fake or stolen documents (especially Social Security numbers) they cannot benefit from taxes withheld. Undocumented workers pay an estimated $15 billion a year into Social Security. (In 2010 they also paid $10.6 billion in state and local taxes.) (Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy). The magnitude of this is evidenced by the Social Security Administration's "Earnings Suspense File," which holds taxes that cannot be matched to workers' names and Social Security numbers. These deposits are significant. In 2003 alone $7.2 billion was credited to this fund. As of 2014 there were about 340 million unclaimed tax forms recorded in the file, compared to 270 million a decade ago.A good portion of these forms were filed by employers on behalf of undocumented immigrants. (SSA report of September, 2015, and The Atlantic of September, 2016).

Government agencies like the Social Security Administration and the United States Department of Health and Human Services produce ample statistics that counter the trumped up propaganda spewed by populist anti immigrant groups. However, many potential critics are lazy, and allow exaggerated claims to feed their ignorance. Such is the political climate we live in. While none of this excuses illegal immigration or undocumented workers, this information ought to contribute to the discussion and provide some perspective.

ELECTIONS - WHEN WE HOLD THEM, WILL THEY COME?

With the election less than two months away, one of the questions already cropping up is what percentage of eligible voters will actually participate in the process. Given the relative disenchantment with our major parties' candidates, and the anxiety among many about the state of the world and our place in it, voter participation could be a major factor in the outcome on November 8. Presidential elections traditionally tend to draw more voters than mid-term elections. In 2012 roughly 55% of eligible voters showed up at the polls, while in 2014 only 37% exercised their right to cast a ballot. The US has traditionally had one of the lowest voter turnout rates in the "free world." Of 39 countries listing average participation percentages during lower house elections between 1960 and 1995 we end up dead last, averaging only 48%. (Mark Franklin, "Electoral Participation," 2001).

Political scientists are often pre-occupied with voter turnout as a measure of system legitimacy. A high turnout is generally considered desirable. However, the issue tends to be more complex. Dictators have fabricated high turnouts in showcase elections to reflect their "legitimacy," while some low participation rates may result from opposition parties boycotting elections they see as unfair or illegitimate. Consequently, there are political scientists who question the view that high turnout is implicit endorsement of the system. One of these, Mark Franklin, contends, for instance, that in the European Union elections opponents of the EU are just as likely to vote as its opponents. (Mark Franklin, "Electoral Engineering," British Journal of Political Science, 1999).

Esoteric discourse aside, political operatives regularly confront the practical question: "How do we increase participation by Americans eligible to vote?" Strategies designed to elevate participation rates include: Making voting compulsory, as is the norm in 22 other countries, including 12 Latin American countries (something President Obama suggested while addressing a civic group in Cleveland in 2015), automatic voter registration, designating election day a federal holiday, and moving election day to a weekend. None of these promises to be a panacea, but they do deserve consideration.

A study completed for the In Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance concluded that participation in compulsory voting countries averaged around 85%, compared to 65% in countries featuring voluntary voting rules. Some legal experts believe that making voting mandatory may be unconstitutional since "freedom of speech" includes the freedom not to vote. opponents and proponents of such a law line up either supporting civil rights or asserting civic duty (as in the case of jury duty). Since some experts believe that compulsory voting would actually benefit the Democratic Party, such a change would more than likely die in Congress. However, the facts speak for themselves. In countries where voting is mandatory and enforced participation rates are significant. Australia, which has had a compulsory system since 1920, has turnout rates in excess of 93%. Countries like Venezuela and The Netherlands, where compulsory voting has been rescinded, have seen substantial decreases in turnout.

Proponents of automatic voter registration argue that adopting such a system will add up to 50 million eligible voters to the rolls, save money, increase accuracy, improve the security of our elections, and substantially enhance participation rates. (New York Unversity School of Law, September 22, 2015). This system has been provided to eligible citizens in 15 states, but there appears to be opposition to rolling it out nationally. In November of 2015 Governor Christie vetoed a bill that would have allowed New Jersey to join this group.

A proposal to make Election Day a federal holiday was submitted and rejected by Congress in 2005. The suggestion was reintroduced in 2014, but has not yet been enacted. Proponents argue that it would increase election participation by allowing people to vote without interfering with their jobs, while underscoring the importance of elections in a democracy. Thus far eight states and the territory of Puerto Rico have declared Election Day a civic holiday. Turnout in Puerto Rico's quadrennial elections has been 50% higher than it was for presidential elections in the fifty states. However, the other members of this group have seen little real effect.

Another question that keeps coming up is: "Why do we vote on Tuesday? Saturday or Sunday would make much more sense." The reasoning goes back to 1845. That year Congress instituted a uniform date. The US was a largely agrarian society. Farmers often needed a full day to travel by horse-drawn vehicle to the County seat to vote. Tuesdays did not interfere with the biblical Sabbath or with market day, which in many towns was on Wednesday. Now Tuesday is a work day, which decreases turnout. Outside the U.S. Strong election participation in countries like Australia, Belgium, Germany and India are often attributed in part to holding elections on a weekend or on designated holidays.

No matter how many of us will ultimately cast our ballots this November, the question about participation rates will continue to be raised and potential solutions will continue to be controversial. The issue is not new. Greek philosopher Plato already admonished us centuries ago that "one of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors." So, go out and do your civic duty. Every election is determined by the people who show up.