FOR EVERY ILLEGAL THEY CATCH AT OUR BORDERS, THERE ARE ABOUT
EIGHT THAT CLIMB NOT ONLY OUR BORDERS, BUT OUR JOBS, GRINGO-PAID DREAM ACTS OR
MEX GANGS!
According to recently released U.S. Customs
& Border Protection (CBP) figures, 15,590 unaccompanied illegal alien
minors have crossed the border so far this fiscal year. (MSNBC, July 3,
2012) The CBP defines unaccompanied illegal alien minors as those under the age
of 18 who are traveling without their parents or guardians. (Id.) This
figure marks a significant increase over the past two years. Over the same time
period in 2011, the number of unaccompanied illegal alien minors was 10,776;
and in 2010, it was 13,267. (Id.) In fact, during 2011 alone, the total
number of unaccompanied minors apprehended was 16,607. (CNS News, June
12, 2012)
The significant growth in the number of
unaccompanied illegal alien minors comes at the same time as the Obama
Administration has significantly relaxed immigration enforcement. Most
recently, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano issued a memo last month
that offered to grant "deferred action" status and work authorization
to illegal aliens between the ages of sixteen and thirty who are already in the
country. (See FAIR Legislative Update, June 19, 2012)
This new policy of granting deferred action
has the potential to encourage even more illegal border crossings by minors.
This is mainly because one of the prerequisites to receiving deferred action is
presence in the U.S. as of June 15, 2012 (although Administration officials
suggested during a stakeholder phone call the exact cut-off date was still
being determined). While future border crossers will not meet that deadline,
once in the U.S., they will likely forge documents to establish eligibility.
Meanwhile both Republicans and Democrats in
Congress continue to voice support for the DREAM Act, which would grant
permanent amnesty to virtually all illegal alien minors. Rep. David Rivera
(R-FL), and Sens. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) and Jon Kyl (R-AZ), have all
touted competing versions of the DREAM Act. (See H.R. 5869, May 30, 2012;
see also FAIR Legislative Update, April 2, 2012) Sen. Marco
Rubio (R-FL), who appears to have been working with Sens. Hutchison and Kyl,
has been touting his own version of the DREAM Act for months, but announced he
is now withholding introducing it until after the November elections, on
account of the Administration rolling out its June amnesty memo. (See
FAIR Legislative Update, June 19, 2012; see also
The Hill,
June 18, 2012)
*
“What's needed to discourage
illegal immigration into the United States has been known for years: Enforce
existing law.” CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR
*
“The principal beneficiaries of our current immigration policy are
affluent Americans who hire immigrants at substandard wages for low-end work.
Harvard economist George Borjas estimates that American workers lose $190
billion annually in depressed wages caused by the constant flooding of the
labor market at the low-wage end.” CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR
*
Lou Dobbs Tonight
Tuesday, September 4, 2007
In
his first state of the union speech since becoming president of Mexico, Felipe
Calderon criticized the U.S. government and its efforts to shut down illegal
immigration. During the speech Calderon proclaimed that “Mexico does not end at its borders” and that “where there is a
Mexican, there is a Mexico.” Tune in for a full report on Calderon’s
vigorous fight to protect Mexican interests in the United States—even when
they’re built on illegal immigration.
*
“What's
needed to discourage illegal immigration into the United States has been known
for years: Enforce existing law.” CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR
*
“The principal beneficiaries of our current immigration policy are
affluent Americans who hire immigrants at substandard wages for low-end work.
Harvard economist George Borjas estimates that American workers lose $190
billion annually in depressed wages caused by the constant flooding of the
labor market at the low-wage end.” CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR
*
WE
ARE MEXICO’S WELFARE, JOBS, “FREE” ANCHOR BABY BIRTHING CENTER, AND JAILS PLAN!
FOR THIS THE MEXICAN WAVE THEIR COUNTRY’S FLAGS IN OUR FACES, SPEAK ONLY
SPANISH, AND LOOT OUR NATION!
“Such rhetoric would be more convincing if
Mexican officials were making a good faith effort to uplift the 50 percent of
their 106 million people who live in poverty.”
*
“What's
needed to discourage illegal immigration into the United States has been known
for years: Enforce existing law.” CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR
*
“The principal beneficiaries of our current immigration policy are
affluent Americans who hire immigrants at substandard wages for low-end work.
Harvard economist George Borjas estimates that American workers lose $190
billion annually in depressed wages caused by the constant flooding of the
labor market at the low-wage end.” CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR
*
CHRISTIAN
SCIENCE MONITOR
from
the March 30, 2006 edition - http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0330/p09s02-coop.html
MEXICO PREFERS TO EXPORT ITS POOR, NOT
UPLIFT THEM
At
this week's summit, failed reforms under Fox should be the issue, not US
actions.
By
George W. Grayson
WILLIAMSBURG,
VA. - At the parleys this week with his US and Canadian counterparts in Cancún,
Mexican President Vicente Fox will press for more opportunities for his
countrymen north of the Rio Grande. Specifically, he will argue for additional
visas for Mexicans to enter the United States and Canada, the expansion of
guest-worker schemes, and the "regularization" of illegal immigrants
who reside throughout the continent. In a recent interview with CNN, the
Mexican chief executive excoriated as "undemocratic" the extension of
a wall on the US-Mexico border and called for the "orderly, safe, and
legal" northbound flow of Mexicans, many of whom come from his home state
of Guanajuato. Mexican legislators share Mr. Fox's goals. Silvia Hernández
Enriquez, head of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations for North America,
recently emphasized that the solution to the "structural phenomenon"
of unlawful migration lies not with "walls or militarization" but
with "understanding, cooperation, and joint responsibility." Such rhetoric would be more convincing if
Mexican officials were making a good faith effort to uplift the 50 percent of
their 106 million people who live in poverty. To his credit, Fox's
"Opportunities" initiative has improved slightly the plight of the poorest
of the poor. Still, neither he nor Mexico's lawmakers have advanced measures
that would spur sustained growth, improve the quality of the workforce, curb
unemployment, and obviate the flight of Mexicans abroad. Indeed, Mexico's
leaders have turned hypocrisy from an art form into an exact science as they
shirk their obligations to fellow citizens, while decrying efforts by the US
senators and representatives to crack down on illegal immigration at the border
and the workplace. What are some examples of this failure of
responsibility? · When oil revenues are excluded, Mexico raises the equivalent
of only 9 percent of its gross domestic product in taxes - a figure roughly
equivalent to that of Haiti and far below the level of major Latin American
nations. Not only is Mexico's collection rate ridiculously low, its fiscal
regime is riddled with loopholes and exemptions, giving rise to widespread
evasion. Congress has rebuffed efforts to reform the system. Insufficient
revenues mean that Mexico spends relatively little on two key elements of
social mobility: Education commands just 5.3 percent of its GDP and healthcare
only 6.10 percent, according to the World Bank's last comparative study. · A
venal, "come-back-tomorrow" bureaucracy explains the 58 days it takes
to open a business in Mexico compared with three days in Canada, five days in
the US, nine days in Jamaica, and 27 days in Chile. Mexico's private sector
estimates that 34 percent of the firms in the country made "extra
official" payments to functionaries and legislators in 2004. These bribes
totaled $11.2 billion and equaled 12 percent of GDP. · Transparency
International, a nongovernmental organization, placed Mexico in a tie with
Ghana, Panama, Peru, and Turkey for 65th among 158 countries surveyed for
corruption. · Economic competition is constrained by the presence of
inefficient, overstaffed state oil and electricity monopolies, as well as a
small number of private corporations - closely linked to government big shots -
that control telecommunications, television, food processing,
transportation, construction, and cement.
THE
TELECOMMUNICATIONS ARE IN THE HANDS OF CARLOS SLIM, A MEX WITH 70 BILLION! SLIM
IS NOW THE RICHEST MAN IN THE WORLD, AND OWNS 10% OF THE NEW YORK TIMES. IF YOU
GET THE TIMES, YOU WILL NOTE THAT IT IS NOW THE MOUTHPIECE FOR LA RAZA
PROPAGANDA, DAILY COMING OUT WITH EDITORIALS THAT SUPPORT LA RAZA SUPREMACY,
AND NEVER, EVER, EVER AN ARTICLE OF MEXICAN CRIME TIDAL WAVE, THE LA RAZA
WELFARE STATE, OR MEXICAN RACISM!
Politicians
who talk about, much less propose, trust-busting measures are as rare as a
snowfall in the Sonoran Desert. Geography, self-interests, and humanitarian
concerns require North America's neighbors to cooperate on myriad issues, not
the least of which is immigration. However, Mexico's power brokers have failed
to make the difficult decisions necessary to use their nation's bountiful
wealth to benefit the masses. Washington and Ottawa have every right to insist
that Mexico's pampered elite act responsibly, rather than expecting US and
Canadian taxpayers to shoulder burdens Mexico should assume.
*
“What's
needed to discourage illegal immigration into the United States has been known
for years: Enforce existing law.” CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR
*
“The principal beneficiaries of our current immigration policy are
affluent Americans who hire immigrants at substandard wages for low-end work.
Harvard economist George Borjas estimates that American workers lose $190
billion annually in depressed wages caused by the constant flooding of the
labor market at the low-wage end.” CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR
*
UNFETTERED IMMIGRATION = Poverty FOR AMERICANS
FIRST WE ARE FORCED TO HAND OVER OUR JOBS TO LA RAZA (OBAMA’S SEC. OF
(ILLEGAL) LABOR IS A LA RAZA SUPREMACIST HILDA SOLIS. HER JOB IS TO BUY THE
ILLEGALS VOTES WITH OUR JOBS!), THEN WE GET THE STAGGERING BILLS FOR THE LA
RAZA WELFARE STATE, AND THEN WE’RE TOLD TO PUSH 2 FOR ENGLISH! VIVA LA RAZA?
*
By
Robert Rector Heritage.org | May 16, 2006
This
paper focuses on the net fiscal effects of immigration with particular emphasis
on the fiscal effects of low skill immigration. The fiscal effects of
immigration are only one aspect of the impact of immigration. Immigration also
has social, political, and economic effects. In particular, the economic
effects of immigration have been heavily researched with differing results.
These economic effects lie beyond the scope of this paper. Overall, immigration
is a net fiscal positive to the government’s budget in the long run: the taxes
immigrants pay exceed the costs of the services they receive. However, the
fiscal impact of immigrants varies strongly according to immigrants’ education
level. College-educated immigrants are likely to be strong contributors to the
government’s finances, with their taxes exceeding the government’s costs. By
contrast, immigrants with low education levels are likely to be a fiscal drain
on other taxpayers. This is important because half of all adult illegal
immigrants in the U.S. have less than a high school education. In addition,
recent immigrants have high levels of out-of-wedlock childbearing, which
increases welfare costs and poverty. An immigration plan proposed by Senators
Mel Martinez (R-FL) and Chuck Hagel (R-NE) would provide amnesty to 9 to 10
million illegal immigrants and put them on a path to citizenship. Once these
individuals become citizens, the net additional cost to the federal government
of benefits for these individuals will be around $16 billion per year. Further,
once an illegal immigrant becomes a citizen, he has the right to bring his
parents to live in the U.S. The parents, in turn, may become citizens. The
long-term cost of government benefits to the parents of 10 million recipients
of amnesty could be $30 billion per year or more. In the long run, the
Hagel/Martinez bill, if enacted, would be the largest expansion of the welfare
state in 35 years. Current Trends in Immigration Over the last 40 years,
immigration into the United States has surged. Our nation is now experiencing a
second “great migration” similar to the great waves of immigrants that
transformed America in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. In 2004, an
estimated 35.7 million foreign-born persons lived in the U.S. While in 1970 one
person in twenty was foreign born, by 2004 the number had risen to one in
eight. About one-third of all foreign-born persons in the U.S. are illegal
aliens. There are between 10 and 12 million illegal aliens currently living in
the U.S.[1] Illegal aliens now comprise 3 to 4 percent of the total U.S.
population. Each year approximately 1.3 million new immigrants enter the
U.S.[2] Some 700,000 of these entrants are illegal.[3] One third of all
foreign-born persons in the U.S. are Mexican. Overall, the number of Mexicans
in the U.S. has increased from 760,000 in 1970 to 10.6 million in 2004. Nine
percent of all Mexicans now reside in the U.S.[4] Over half of all Mexicans in
the U.S. are illegal immigrants,[5] and in the last decade 80 to 85 percent of
the inflow of Mexicans into the U.S. has been illegal.[6] The public generally
perceives illegals to be unattached single men. This is, in fact, not the case.
Some 44 percent of adult illegals are women. While illegal men work slightly
more than native-born men; illegal women work less. Among female illegals, some
56 percent work, compared to 73 percent among native-born women of comparable
age.[7] As well, Mexican women emigrating to the U.S. have a considerably
higher fertility rate than women remaining in Mexico.[8] Decline in Immigrant
Wages Over the last 40 years the education level of new immigrants has fallen
relative to the native population. As the relative education levels of immigrants
have declined, so has their earning capacity compared to the general U.S.
population. Immigrants arriving in the U.S. around 1960 had wages, at the time
of entry, that were just 13 percent less than natives’. In 1965, the nation’s
immigration law was dramatically changed, and from 1990 on, illegal immigration
surged. The result was a decline in the relative skill levels of new
immigrants. By 1998, new immigrants had an average entry wage that was 34
percent less than natives.’[12] Because of their lower education levels,
illegal immigrants’ wages would have been even lower. The low-wage status of
recent illegal immigrants can be illustrated by the wages of recent immigrants
from Mexico, a majority of whom have entered the U.S. illegally. In 2000, the
median weekly wage of a first-generation Mexican immigrant was $323. This was
54 percent of the corresponding wage for non-Hispanic whites in the general
population.[13] Historically, the relative wages of recent immigrants have
risen after entry as immigrants gained experience in the labor market. For
example, immigrants who arrived in the U.S. in the 1960s and 1970s saw their
relative wages rise by 10 percentage points compared to natives’ wages during
their first 20 years in the country. But in recent years, this modest catch up
effect has diminished. Immigrants who arrived in the late 1980s actually saw
their relative wages shrink in the 1990s.[14] Immigration and Welfare
Dependence Welfare may be defined as means-tested aid programs: these programs
provide cash, non-cash, and social service assistance that is limited to
low-income households. The major means-tested programs include Food Stamps,
Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, public housing, the earned income
credit, and Medicaid. Historically, recent immigrants were less likely to
receive welfare than native-born Americans. But over the last thirty years,
this historic pattern has reversed. As the relative education levels of
immigrants fell, their tendency to receive welfare benefits increased. By the
late 1990s immigrant households were fifty percent more likely to receive
means-tested aid than native-born households.[15] Moreover, immigrants appear
to assimilate into welfare use. The longer immigrants live in the U.S., the
more likely they are to use welfare.[16] A large part, but not all, of
immigrants’ higher welfare use is explained by their low education levels.
Welfare use also varies by immigrants’ national origin. For example, in the
late 1990s, 5.6 percent of immigrants from India received means-tested
benefits; among Mexican immigrants the figure was 34.1 percent; and for
immigrants from the Dominican Republic the figure was 54.9 percent.[17] Ethnic
differences in the propensity to receive welfare that appear among
first-generation immigrants persist strongly in the second generation.[18] The
relatively high use of welfare among Mexicans has significant implications for
current proposals to grant amnesty to illegal immigrants. Some 80 percent of
illegal immigrants come from Mexico and Latin America.[19] (See Chart 1)
Historically, Hispanics in America have had very high levels of welfare use.
Chart 2 shows receipt of aid from major welfare programs by different ethnic
groups in 1999; the programs covered are Medicaid, Food Stamps, public housing,
Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, General Assistance, and Supplemental
Security Income.[20] As the chart shows, Hispanics were almost three times more
likely to receive welfare than non-Hispanic whites. In addition, among families
that received aid, the cost of the aid received was 40 percent higher for
Hispanics than for non-Hispanic whites.[21] Putting together the greater
probability of receiving welfare with the greater cost of welfare per family
means that, on average, Hispanic families received four times more welfare per
family than white non-Hispanics. 1. Part, but not all, of this high level of
welfare use by Hispanics can be explained by background factors such as family
structure.[22] It seems likely that, if Hispanic illegal immigrants are given
permanent residence and citizenship, they and their children will likely
assimilate into the culture of high welfare use that characterizes Hispanics in
the U.S. This would impose significant costs on taxpayers and society as a
whole. Welfare use can also be measured by immigration status. In general,
immigrant households are about fifty percent more likely to use welfare than
native-born households.[23] Immigrants with less education are more likely to
use welfare. (See Chart 3) 1. The potential welfare costs of low-skill
immigration and amnesty for current illegal immigrants can be assessed by
looking at the welfare utilization rates for current low-skill immigrants. As
Chart 4 shows, immigrants without a high school degree (both lawful and
unlawful) are two-and-a-half times more likely to use welfare than native-born
individuals.[24] This underscores the high potential welfare costs of giving
amnesty to illegal immigrants. 1. All categories of high school dropouts have a
high utilization of welfare. Immigrants who have less than a high school degree
are slightly more likely to use welfare than native-born dropouts. Legal
immigrants who are high school dropouts are slightly more likely to use welfare
than native-born dropouts.[25] Illegal immigrant dropouts, however, are less
likely to use welfare than native-born dropouts mainly because they are
ineligible for many welfare programs. With amnesty, current illegal immigrants’
welfare use would likely rise to the level of lawful immigrants with similar
education levels. Illegal Immigration and Poverty 1. According to the Pew
Hispanic Center, 4.7 million children of illegal immigrant parents currently
live in the U.S.[26] Some 37 percent of these children are poor.[27] While
children of illegal immigrant parents comprise around 6 percent of all children
in the U.S., they are 11.8 percent of all poor children.[28] This high level of
child poverty among illegal immigrants in the U.S. is, in part, due to low
education levels and low wages. It is also linked to the decline in marriage
among Hispanics in the U.S. Within this group, 45 percent of children are born
out-of-wedlock.[29] (See Table 1.) Among foreign-born Hispanics the rate is
42.3 percent.[30] By contrast, the out-of-wedlock birth rate for non-Hispanic
whites is 23.4 percent.[31] The birth rate for Hispanic teens is higher than
for black teens.[32] While the out-of-wedlock birth rate for blacks has
remained flat for the last decade, it has risen steadily for Hispanics.[33]
These figures are important because, as noted, some 80 percent of illegal
aliens come from Mexico and Latin America.[34] In general, children born and
raised outside of marriage are seven times more likely to live in poverty than
children born and raised by married couples. Children born out-of-wedlock are
also more likely to be on welfare, to have lower educational achievement, to
have emotional problems, to abuse drugs and alcohol, and to become involved in
crime.[35] 5. Poverty is also more common among adult illegal immigrants, who
are twice as likely to be poor as are native-born adults. Some 27 percent of
all adult illegal immigrants are poor, compared to 13 percent of native-born
adults.[36] Economic and Social Assimilation of Illegal Immigrant Offspring One
important question is the future economic status of the children and
grandchildren of current illegal immigrants, assuming those offspring remain in
the U.S. While we obviously do not have data on future economic status, we may
obtain a strong indication of future outcomes by examining the educational
attainment of offspring of recent Mexican immigrants. Some 57 percent of
current illegal immigrants come from Mexico, and about half of Mexicans
currently in the U.S. are here illegally.[37] First-generation Mexican immigrants
are individuals born in Mexico who have entered the U.S. In 2000, some 70
percent of first-generation Mexican immigrants (both legal and illegal) lacked
a high school degree. Second-generation Mexicans may be defined as individuals
born in the U.S. who have at least one parent born in Mexico. Second-generation
Mexican immigrants (individuals born in the U.S. who have at least one parent
born in Mexico) have greatly improved educational outcomes but still fall well
short of the general U.S. population. Some 25 percent of second-generation
Mexicans in the U.S. fail to complete high school. By contrast, the high school
drop out rate is 8.6 percent among non-Hispanic whites and 17.2 percent among
blacks. Critically, the educational attainment of third-generation Mexicans
(those of Mexican ancestry with both parents born in the U.S.) improves little
relative to the second generation. Some 21 percent of third-generation Mexicans
are high school drop outs.[38] Similarly, the rate of college attendance among
second-generation Mexicans is lower than for black Americans and about
two-thirds of the level for non-Hispanic whites; moreover, college attendance
does not improve in the third generation.[39] These data indicate that the
offspring of illegal Hispanic immigrants are likely to have lower rates of
educational attainment and higher rates of school failure compared to the
non-Hispanic U.S. population. High rates of school failure coupled with high
rates of out-of-wedlock childbearing are strong predictors of future poverty
and welfare dependence. Immigration and Crime Historically, immigrant
populations have had lower crime rates than native-born populations. For
example, in 1991, the overall crime and incarceration rate for non-citizens was
slightly lower than for citizens.[40] On the other hand, the crime rate among
Hispanics in the U.S. is high. Age-specific incarceration rates (prisoners per
100,000 residents in the same age group in the general population) among
Hispanics in federal and state prisons are two to two-and-a-half times higher
than among non-Hispanic whites.[41] Relatively little of this difference
appears to be due to immigration violations.[42] Illegal immigrants are
overwhelmingly Hispanic. It is possible that, over time, Hispanic immigrants and
their children may assimilate the higher crime rates that characterize the
low-income Hispanic population in the U.S. as a whole.[43] If this were to
occur, then policies that would give illegal immigrants permanent residence
through amnesty, as well as policies which would permit a continuing influx of
hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants each year, would increase crime in
the long term. The Fiscal Impact of Immigration One important question is the
fiscal impact of immigration (both legal and illegal). Policymakers must ensure
that the interaction of welfare and immigration policy does not expand the
welfare-dependent popula_?tion, which would hinder rather than help
immi_?grants and impose large costs on American society. This means that immigrants
should be net contributors to government: the taxes they pay should exceed the
cost of the benefits they receive. In calculating the fiscal impact of an
individual or family, it is necessary to distinguish between public goods and
private goods. Public goods do not require additional spending to accommodate
new residents.[44] The clearest examples of government public goods are
national defense and medical and scientific research. The entry of millions of
immigrants will not raise costs or diminish the value of these public goods to
the general population. Other government services are private goods; use of
these by one person precludes or limits use by another. Government private
goods include direct personal benefits such as welfare, Social Security benefits,
Medicare, and education. Other government private goods are “congestible”
goods.[45] These are services that must be expanded in proportion to the
population. Government congestible goods include police and fire protection,
roads and sewers, parks, libraries, and courts. If these services do not expand
as the population expands, there will be a decrease in the quality of service.
An individual makes a positive fiscal contribution when his total taxes paid
exceed the direct benefits and congestible goods received by himself and his
family.[46] The Fiscal Impact of Low Skill Immigration The 1997 New Americans
study by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) examined the fiscal impact of
immigration.[47] It found that, within in a single year, the fiscal impact of
foreign-born households was negative in the two states studied, New Jersey and
California.[48] Measured over the course of a lifetime, the fiscal impact of
first-generation immigrants nationwide was also slightly negative.[49] However,
when the future earnings and taxes paid by the offspring of the immigrant were
counted, the long-term fiscal impact was positive. One commonly cited figure
from the report is that the net present value (NPV) of the fiscal impact of the
average recent immigrant and his descendents is $83,000.[50] There are five
important caveats about the NAS longitudinal study and its conclusion that in
the long term the fiscal impact of immigration is positive. First, the study
applies to all recent immigration, not just illegal immigration. Second, the
finding that the long-term fiscal impact of immigration is positive applies to
the population of immigrants as a whole, not to low-skill immigrants alone.
Third, the $83,000 figure is based on the predicted earnings, tax payments, and
benefits of an immigrant’s descendents over the next 300 years.[51] Fourth, the
study does not take into account the growth in out-of-wedlock childbearing
among the foreign-born population, which will increase future welfare costs and
limit the upward mobility of future generations. Fifth, the assumed educational
attainment of the children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren of
immigrants who are high school dropouts or high school graduates seems
unreasonably high given the actual attainment of the offspring of recent
Mexican and Hispanic immigrants.[52] The NAS study’s 300-year time horizon is
highly problematic. Three hundred years ago, the United States did not even
exist and British colonists had barely reached the Appalachian Mountains. We
cannot reasonably estimate what taxes and benefits will be even 30 years from
now, let alone 300. The NAS study assumes that most people’s descendents will
eventually regress to the social and economic mean, and thus may make a
positive fiscal contribution, if the time horizon is long enough. With similar
methods, it seems likely that out-of-wedlock childbearing could be found to
have a net positive fiscal value as long as assumed future earnings are
projected out 500 or 600 years. Slight variations to NAS’s assumptions used by
NAS greatly affect the projected outcomes. For example, limiting the time
horizon to 50 years and raising the assumed interest rate from 3 percent to 4
percent drops the NPV of the average immigrant from around $80,000 to
$8,000.[53] Critically, the NAS projections assumed very large tax increases
and benefits cuts would begin in 2016 to prevent the federal deficit from
rising further relative to GDP. This assumption makes it far easier for future
generations to be scored as fiscal contributors. If these large tax hikes and
benefit cuts do not occur, then the long-term positive fiscal value of
immigration evaporates.[54] Moreover, if future tax hikes and benefit cuts do
occur, the exact nature of those changes would likely have a large impact on
the findings; this issue is not explored in the NAS study. Critically, the
estimated net fiscal impact of the whole immigrant population has little
bearing on the fiscal impact of illegal immigrants, who are primarily
low-skilled. As noted, at least 50 percent of illegal immigrants do not have a
high school degree. As the NAS report states, “[S]ome groups of immigrants
bring net fiscal benefits to natives and others impose net fiscal costs¼
[I]mmigrants with certain characteristics, such as the elderly and those with
little education, may be quite costly.”[55] The NAS report shows that the
long-term fiscal impact of immigrants varies dramatically according to the
education level of the immigrant. The fiscal impact of immigrants with some
college education is positive. The fiscal impact of immigrants with a high
school degree varies according to the time horizon used. The fiscal impact of
immigrants without a high school degree is negative: benefits received will
exceed taxes paid. The net present value of the future fiscal impact of
immigrants without a high school degree is negative even when the assumed
earnings and taxes of descendents over the next 300 years are included in the
calculation.[56] A final point is that the NAS study’s estimates assume that
low skill immigration does not reduce the wages of native-born low-skill
workers. If low-skill immigration does, in fact, reduce the wages of
native-born labor, this would reduce taxes paid and increase welfare
expenditures for that group. The fiscal, social, and political implications
could be quite large. The Cost of Amnesty Federal and state governments
currently spend over $500 billion per year on means-tested welfare
benefits.[57] Illegal aliens are ineligible for most federal welfare benefits
but can receive some assistance through programs such as Medicaid, In addition,
native-born children of illegal immigrant parents are citizens and are eligible
for all relevant federal welfare benefits. Granting amnesty to illegal aliens
would have two opposing fiscal effects. On the one hand, it may raise wages and
taxes paid by broadening the labor market individuals compete in; it would also
increase tax compliance and tax receipts as more work would be performed “on
the books,”[58] On the other hand, amnesty would greatly increase the receipt
of welfare, government benefits, and social services. Because illegal immigrant
households tend to be low-skill and low-wage, the cost to government could be
considerable. The Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) has performed a thorough
study of the federal fiscal impacts of amnesty.[59] This study found that
illegal immigrant households have low education levels and low wages and
currently pay little in taxes. Illegal immigrant households also receive lower
levels of federal government benefits. Nonetheless, the study also found that,
on average, illegal immigrant families received more in federal benefits than
they paid in taxes.[60] Granting amnesty would render illegal immigrants
eligible for federal benefit programs. The CIS study estimated the additional
taxes that would be paid and the additional government costs that would occur
as a result of amnesty. It assumed that welfare utilization and tax payment
among current illegal immigrants would rise to equal the levels among
legally-admitted immigrants of similar national, educational, and demographic
backgrounds. If all illegal immigrants were granted amnesty, federal tax
payments would increase by some $3,000 per household, but federal benefits and
social services would increase by $8,000 per household. Total federal welfare
benefits would reach around $9,500 per household, or $35 billion per year
total. The study estimates that the net cost to the federal government of
granting amnesty to some 3.8 million illegal alien households would be around
$5,000 per household, for a total federal fiscal cost of $19 billion per
year.[61] preference for entry visas. The current visa allotments for family
members (other than spouses and minor children) should be eliminated, and quotas
for employment- and skill-based entry increased proportionately.
*
“The principal beneficiaries of our current immigration policy are
affluent Americans who hire immigrants at substandard wages for low-end work.
Harvard economist George Borjas estimates that American workers lose $190
billion annually in depressed wages caused by the constant flooding of the
labor market at the low-wage end.” CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR
No comments:
Post a Comment