Migrant Costs Elusive : Report: Illegal immigration takes a toll on nearly every county service, but an actual cost estimate proves hard to pin down, study finds.

SANTA ANA — Orange County officials have concluded that illegal immigration pulls services from virtually every department in county government, yet little information exists to measure the actual costs.

In a 57-page draft report circulated among the Orange County Board of Supervisors on Friday, the elusive cost estimates stood in sharp contrast to a similar but controversial study in San Diego which found that illegal immigrants took a huge toll on public sources, estimated at more than $145 million.

Privately, county officials have acknowledged that there was great “sensitivity” to the potential for criticism by immigrant rights advocates who continue to blast the San Diego report as an attempt by government to find a scapegoat for pressing financial problems.

In the report, which was requested by the Orange Chamber of Commerce and members of the Orange County Grand Jury, officials repeatedly stated that insufficient data existed to quantify the county’s direct costs in a host of areas, including health care and court functions.

Of the millions spent to fund service institutions, which could benefit illegal immigrants, the only major department that listed a broad estimate was the Sheriff’s Department, with incarceration costs of between $1.5 million to $2.2 million per year.

To conduct a more precise measure that “would avoid many of the criticisms raised about the San Diego study could conceivably reach $500,000,” the report found. “Such a study would not add significantly to the understanding that Orange County is indeed negatively impacted financially by illegal immigration.”

Gilbert Gonzalez, a professor of Chicano-Latino studies at UC Irvine, said the reluctance of county officials to come to more concrete conclusions may grow out of “political pressure” to shy away from criticism of immigrants in the face of an emerging Latino voting bloc and other factors.

But the very existence of the study, Gonzalez said, fits a pattern.

“It’s a pattern that goes back to the 1920s. Whenever there’s a conflict or economic downturn, Mexican immigrants suddenly become disloyal or expendable,” he said. “They become a liability.”

Board of Supervisors Chairman Harriett M. Wieder said Friday that the report’s findings should not reflect any political hesitancy on the county’s part, but instead should draw attention to the federal government’s inadequacy in controlling its borders.

“I don’t think you can look illegal immigrants in the face and use them as scapegoats for our problems,” Wieder said. “I don’t blame them. It is our country’s fault for providing the circumstances which allow them to come here.”

Wieder said she would push recommendations listed in the report that the county join with San Diego and Los Angeles counties to lobby the federal government for greater border enforcement measures. She said the county would also ask that local government share in the millions of dollars in possible reimbursements for federally mandated immigrant services, as requested by the state congressional delegation.

“The strongest thing we can do is for us to gather forces and go to Washington so that improvements can come to our borders,” Wieder said.

According to the county report, the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service listed Orange County as ranking fourth in the nation as an area of intended residence for immigrants. Similarly, the report found that Orange County ranked second only to Los Angeles County in the nation with 184,000 pending applications for amnesty under the Immigration Reform and Control Act.

Leo Chavez, a UC Irvine anthropologist who has been a vocal critic of the San Diego study, said the Orange County report comes to the same conclusion as many past works--that local governments need more help from Washington.

But of the county’s avoidance of specific figures and false assumptions, he said: “It’s probably one of the more truthful reports I’ve heard about. Basically, they say there’s just no data available.”

He took issue, however, with the recommendation that the county do more to track the immigrant population.

“You begin to start targeting the immigrant population as a drain,” he said. “What would you do if you found they contributed a great deal--give them some (money) back? Or are you just looking for the negative?”

In further distancing itself from the San Diego report, the county’s report found that there were “significant” differences between the government procedures, and the study methodologies prevented local officials from coming to certain cost estimates.