0-5.: What is the correlation between economic costs of migration and the numbers of people who leave Mexico for the United States?

Answer:

Whatever the economic costs, they would appear to be comparatively minimal for both the United States and Mexico. Actually, for Mexico the economic benefits are much greater than whatever economic costs might be involved. For the United States, the cost is much lower than the general public perceives it to be, as there is not a commensurate use of the public and social services available by the illegal aliens. The one item that is worrisome is the amount spent on the Immigration and Naturalization Service in its border patrol and control functions. By and large, however, the migration bring substantial short-term and even some long-term benefits to the parties involved, although the gains are clearly asymetrical and the relationship quite exploitative.

As for the specific correlation between costs and number of migrants, it is not easy to calculate, though the INS itself should be able to arrive at some conclusions on the subject, since they would have some of the figures necessary. It is impossible to reach any accuracy on the subject, because no one knows exactly the number of undocumented aliens who cross the border every year. The INS estimates that 5 million entered from 1970 to 1977, but this is only a guess. What is clear is that the correlation is not going to be linear.

First of all, there will be one correlation for legal immigrants and a different one for the illegals. The reason is that the former pay a fee for entry and also involve a clear and inevitable bureaucratic cost for processing. Also, upon settling in the U.S., they can readily avail themselves of a variety of public and social services. The latter, on the other hand do not pay any entry fee and, in fact, generate bureaucratic processing costs primarily if and when they are caught. Nor do they enjoy the same easy access to public and social services which would have resulted in greater economic costs. Besides, they are also less likely to have a need for such services, as they are more likely to be without a family here. Futhermore, there is the multiple-entry/multiple-arrest phenomenon, which means that the same individual is sometimes apprehended, returned into Mexico, only to come back later and be caught again. One INS District Director estimates that, out of a given number of undocumented aliens arrested, only

3/5 of that figure would constitute the actual number of separate individuals. This should be taken into account.

Another bureaucratic cost must be added, however for the undocumented. Many do eventually attempt to legalize their status in this country. The same INS District Director mentioned above estimates that probably 50% of those aliens who come to the INS office are undocumented. Thus, as the number of visitors increases, the office staff may be expanded in some measure, though, incredibly enough, not all of those INS employees in the Southwest who come into direct contact with the Mexican aliens have enough command of the Spanish language to be able to assist them smoothly and effectively.

As the number of illegal entries is perceived to be increasing, the funds spent on sensor devices, airplanes, helicopters and border patrol manpower, including overtime, increase also, though the INS considers itself to be very efficient in this area, having intercepted in 1977 around 800,000 undocumented crossers along the border with a mere 2,000 agents.

In conclusion, it is likely that much clearer correlations will be found between bureaucratic service costs and legal entries and between bureaucratic-policing costs and apprehensions of illegal entrants than between economic costs in general and the number of Mexican immigrants in general.

32-006 O-78-28

APPENDIX 6

RESPONSES OF HON. ABELARDO L. VALDEZ TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY SUBCOMMITTEE CHAIRMAN YATRON

Mr. Yatron: You indicate that the PIDER and National Employment Fund

programs will have to focus on those areas and conditions

contributing to outmigration.

Is Mexico prepared to make

Mr. Valdez:

the policy changes and create new delivery systems which

you suggest will be necessary?

Although I indicated that the PIDER program is not
specifically addressing the poverty conditions in the
areas contributing most to outmigration to the U.S.,
I acknowledged in my statement that it is not the
specific intent of the Mexican Government to confine
PIDER to microregions within the key migrant "sending"
states, but to locate the program in microregions
where there is an absorbtive capacity for investment
in agricultural infrastructure. I would regard it
as unlikely that the Mexican Government will shift
from its present policy governing further expansion
of the PIDER program.

The National Employment Fund is still in the early
planning stages, and the program mechanisms and
focus are still being worked out by government
departments. We cannot judge with any certainty

Mr. Yatron:

Mr. Valdez:

A.I.D. has indicated that Salvadoran illegal
migration to the U.S. is reportedly second only

to Mexico's in magnitude.

Would you substantiate

that or cite the Agency's source of information?

Our statement for the record indicates that
there are fifteen countries comprising the major
undocumented worker source countries. These

are Mexico, the Dominican Republic, Haiti, Jamaica,
Guatemala, Colombia, Peru, Ecuador, the Philippines,
Korea, Thailand, Greece, India, Iran and Nigeria.
More recent estimates also include El Salvador

and Honduras in this list of major source
countries. However, we do not intend that our
statement indicate that El Salvador was second
only to Mexico as a source of illegal migration.

In ranking the importance of countries as sources of illegal migration, the AID statement indicates that the INS estimates that 60% of the undocumented workers are Mexican, 20% are from Caribbean countries and 20% from other Western and Eastern Hemisphere countries. This latter percentage includes the undocumented workers from El Salvador