THEY ASSAULT OUR
BORDERS, JOBS, WELFARE LINES AND INSTITUTIONS.
He added, “Illegal
immigration, in particular, drives down wages and inhibits job opportunities
for legal residents, while bringing more low-skilled, low-wage workers to these
states. In turn, this increases costs to state and local governments, and
discourages investment by businesses seeking a skilled labor force and lower
overhead.” PAUL BEDARD
Illegal immigrants cost taxpayers $6.5K a
year each: Report
VIDEO:
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-secrets/report-illegal-immigrants-cost-taxpayers-6-500-a-year-each?utm_source=Washington%20Secrets_02/06/2020&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=WEX_Washington%20Secrets&rid=117930
Illegal immigrants in
growing numbers are flooding into so-called sanctuary cities and states where
they are consuming up to $6,500 in taxpayer-funded services, according to a new
review of costs in 10 small states.
The surge is having an
outsized effect on smaller states and is cutting funds for services to
veterans, children, and disabled Americans, according to the report provided
exclusively to Secrets from the Federation
for American Immigration Reform.
The report said illegal
immigration costs the 10 states $454 million. “To put that figure into context,
that $454 million expenditure is more than 200 times what the state of Montana
budgets for its entire Veterans Affairs program, and it is 2.5 times the total
sum that West Virginia invests in its state university,” said the report.
And, it added, illegal
immigrants cost between $4,000 and $6,500 annually above any tax benefit they
provide.
“In many ways, the
influx of immigrants into less populous areas of the country has an even
greater impact on long-time residents than it does in larger and more urban
areas,” said Dan Stein, president of FAIR. “These areas have neither the tax
base, nor the economic and social infrastructure to accommodate the needs of
the growing numbers of immigrants taking up residence.”
The 10 states analyzed
in the study, Small
Migrant Populations, Huge Impacts, were New Hampshire,
Mississippi, Alaska, Maine, North Dakota, West Virginia, South Dakota, Vermont,
Montana, and Wyoming.
“Many local officials
tout immigration, including illegal immigration, as a remedy to economic
stagnation. However, as this report reveals, the reality is precisely the
opposite,” said Stein.
He added, “Illegal
immigration, in particular, drives down wages and inhibits job opportunities
for legal residents, while bringing more low-skilled, low-wage workers to these
states. In turn, this increases costs to state and local governments, and
discourages investment by businesses seeking a skilled labor force and lower
overhead.”
The report comes on the
heels of a key U.S. Supreme Court decision to let the Trump administration
block entry to immigrants who are likely to burden taxpayers.
FAIR’s report also
showed that sanctuary cities are a growing attraction for illegal immigrants,
especially in smaller states where the costs of living can be lower.
The key findings from
the report to Secrets:
- In each
of these states, each illegal immigrant resident carried a net tax deficit
of between $4,000 and $6,500 annually.
- Some
415,000 foreign-born reside in these 10 states, of whom about 88,000 (or
21%) are illegal immigrants. Additionally, there are about 35,000 U.S.-born
children of illegal immigrants in these states.
- Collectively,
these illegal immigrants and their U.S.-born children cost taxpayers in
the 10 states about $454 million each year for the provision of essential
services such as education and healthcare.
- Local
schools struggle to provide educators and cover the costs of instruction
for 50,000 K-12 students classified as Limited English Proficient.
- A
growing number of sanctuary jurisdictions (29 and counting, including the
entire state of Vermont), and lower living costs are a magnet for illegal
immigrants.
- The
growing immigrant population competes with legal residents for jobs in
economically depressed areas.
“This report highlights
the fact that the adverse effects of unchecked mass immigration, combined with
an immigration selection process that does not choose people based on
individual merit, job skills and education, are now being felt in all parts of
the country. Americans, in every part of the nation, are being affected by
antiquated and unenforced immigration policies, which is why it is at the top
of the list of voter concerns heading into the 2020 elections,” said Stein.
Report: Taxpayers
Forking Over Up to $6,500 per Illegal Alien
By Rob
Shimshock | February 6, 2020 | 12:24pm EST
(CNSNews.com) -- Much of the
media attention garnered by the border crisis typically revolves around states
that border Mexico like Arizona and Texas. Yet a February report reveals the
devastating economic consequences of illegal aliens on taxpayers as far north
as Montana.
Illegal aliens cost taxpayers in the ten states with the fewest
immigrants around $454 million per year, which works out to a net tax deficit
of $4,000 to $6,500 per illegal, according to a report by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR).
“In many ways, the influx of immigrants into less populous areas
of the country has an even greater impact on long-time residents than it does
in larger and more urban areas,” FAIR President Dan Stein said in the report's
news release. “These areas have neither the tax base, nor the economic and
social infrastructure to accommodate the needs of the growing numbers of
immigrants taking up residence.”
FAIR examined migration to Alaska, Maine, Mississippi, Montana,
New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming
in its study and found that 88,000 out of the 415,000 foreign-born residents in
these states are illegal aliens, or 21 percent. Around 35,000 others are
citizen children of illegal aliens.
“Many local officials tout immigration, including illegal
immigration, as a remedy to economic stagnation. However, as this report
reveals, the reality is precisely the opposite,” Stein continued. “Illegal
immigration, in particular, drives down wages and inhibits job opportunities
for legal residents, while bringing more low-skilled, low-wage workers to these
states. In turn, this increases costs to state and local governments, and
discourages investment by businesses seeking a skilled labor force and lower
overhead.”
FAIR notes that 29 sanctuary jurisdictions exist in these 10
states, including the whole state of Vermont.
The report also examined the financial implications of
immigrants more generally, noting that more than 50,000 K-12 students in the
ten states examined are categorized as having limited English proficiency
(LEP). FAIR estimated that taxpayers spend $96 million on the education of
these students.
Nationwide, the immigration nonprofit calculated that taxpayers
spent $59.8 billion educating LEP students in 2016, up from $51.2 billion in
2010.
Matt O’Brien, director of research at FAIR, expanded on the
impact of immigration on Lewiston, Maine, a city the nonprofit honed in on in
its analysis, while speaking with CNSNews.com.
Lewiston, which has a population under 40,000, has taken in more
than 7,500 migrants during the past decade-and-a-half. Between 2004 and 2017,
the percentage of LEP students in the town went from five to 30 percent.
“You’re putting all of the kids that have to go through that
school system at a deficit that they have to recover from after they get out of
the public school system," O’Brien told CNSNews.com. “Now they have to
compete with the massive amount of immigrants...as they’re trying to get entry-level
jobs.”
The FAIR report highlighted employers’ preference for hiring
foreign-born workers, who demand lower wages, over American citizens.
“This report highlights the fact that the adverse effects of
unchecked mass immigration, combined with an immigration selection process that
does not choose people based on individual merit, job skills and education, are
now being felt in all parts of the country. Americans, in every part of the
nation, are being affected by antiquated and unenforced immigration policies,
which is why it is at the top of the list of voter concerns heading into the
2020 elections,” Stein concluded in the release.
From ABC13.com:
By GARY LANGER
Updated an hour agoSen. Bernie Sanders ran competitively in unaccustomed support groups amid the Nevada Democratic caucuses while sweeping the table among Latino, young and very liberal voters, leaving his competitors wrestling inconclusively over the sharply fragmented remains, according to ABC News’ entrance poll results.Latinos joined the Sanders brigade in Nevada, the most diverse state to participate so far, giving him 51% of their votes, a vast tally in a seven-candidate race. Sanders fell off sharply among blacks, to 27% — yet that was good enough for second place to former Vice President Joe Biden’s 39% among blacks, Biden’s single best group. The Vermont senator won 29% of whites, easily first in this group…
I’m reminded of the arguments in the 2000s over whether Hispanics were Natural Conservatives as mainstream Republicans liked to theorize or whether Hispanics were primarily concerned about immigration policy. As I wrote skeptically in 2002, my impression is that Hispanic voters more tended toward family economic self-interest, which generally meant what FDR’s right-hand man (or to be ideologically more accurate: left-hand man) Harry Hopkins called “tax tax, spend spend, elect elect.”
Are Hispanics - or, for that matter, blacks - going to vote Republican based on these moral views? The answer is already in: no. Except when voting on rare single-issue referendums, such as California's anti-gay marriage initiative California two years ago, the Hispanic electorate seems far more concerned about bread and butter issues. Indeed, in their new book The Emerging Democratic Majority, John Judis and Ruy Teixeira contend that in American politics, social issues are essentially a luxury item that primarily interest better-off groups.
My general impression of Hispanic voters has long been that outside of some megachurch Protestant evangelicals, they aren’t really all that worked up over family values issues.
Nor, outside of the Diversity Inclusion Equity racketeers are they all that worked up over immigration. (Much less use of terms like “Latinx”: The Sanders campaign did focus groups on whether Hispanics like the term “Latinx” and found that practically nobody did, so they announced they weren’t using it. In contrast, Elizabeth Warren did use “Latinx” and got something like 7% of the vote in Nevada.)
Instead, they tend to be kind of poorly informed and not that interested in politics, but basically open toward voting themselves some benefits at other people’s expense in a no-hard-feelings but-this-is-good-for-me-and-mine way that I don’t take too personally either.
They didn’t vote much for Sanders in 2016 because they didn’t know who he was, but now they know and they like what he’s selling.
If and when this tips Texas Democratic, well, the GOP’s chances in the Electoral College are more or less over, except in occasional Schwarzenegger-in-California type elections. But the Republicans can’t say nobody warned them.
No comments:
Post a Comment