Posted on 01/19/2005 8:56:57 PM PST by Dan12180
Federation for Immigration Reform
The Costs of Illegal Immigration to Californians: Executive Summary
Analysis of the latest Census data indicates that California's illegal immigrant population is costing the state's taxpayers more than $10.5 billion per year for education, medical care and incarceration. Even if the estimated tax contributions of illegal immigrant workers are subtracted, net outlays still amount to nearly $9 billion per year. The annual fiscal burden from those three areas of state expenditures amounts to about $1,183 per household headed by a native-born resident.
This analysis looks specifically at the costs to the state for education, health care and incarceration resulting from illegal immigration. These three are the largest cost areas, and they are the same three areas analyzed in a 1994 study conducted by the Urban Institute, which provides a useful baseline for comparison ten years later. Other studies have been conducted in the interim, showing trends that support the conclusions of this report.
As this report will note, other significant costs associated with illegal immigration exist and should be taken into account by federal and state officials. But, even without accounting for all of the numerous areas in which costs associated with illegal immigration are being incurred by California taxpayers, the programs analyzed in this study indicate that the burden is substantial and that the costs are rapidly increasing.
The more than $10.1 billion in costs incurred by California taxpayers is composed of outlays in the following areas:
* Education. Based on estimates of the illegal immigrant population in California and documented costs of K-12 schooling, Californians spend approximately $7.7 billion annually on education for illegal immigrant children and for their U.S.-born siblings. Nearly 15 percent of the K-12 public school students in California are children of illegal aliens.
* Health care. Uncompensated medical outlays for health care provided to the state's illegal alien population amount to about $1.4 billion a year. * Incarceration. The cost of incarcerating illegal aliens in California's prisons and jails amounts to about $1.4 billion a year (not including related law enforcement and judicial expenditures or the monetary costs of the crimes that led to their incarceration).
State and local taxes paid by the unauthorized immigrant population go toward offsetting these costs, but they do not come near to matching the expenses. The total of such payments can generously be estimated at about $1.6 billion per year.
The fiscal costs of illegal immigration do not end with these three major cost areas. The total costs of illegal immigration to the state's taxpayers would be considerably higher if other cost areas such as special English instruction, school feeding programs, or welfare benefits for American workers displaced by illegal alien workers were added into the equation.
While the primary responsibility for combating illegal immigration rests with the federal government, there are many measures that state and local governments can take to combat the problem. Californians should not be expected to assume this already large and growing burden from illegal immigration simply because businesses or other special interests benefit from being able to employ lower cost workers. The state must adopt measures to systematically collect information on illegal alien use of taxpayer-funded services and on where they are employed. Policies could then be pursued to hold employers financially accountable.
The state could also enter into a cooperative agreement with the federal government for training local law enforcement personnel in immigration law so that illegal immigrants apprehended for criminal activities may be turned over to immigration authorities for removal from the country. Similarly, local officials who have adopted "sanctuary" measures that shield illegal aliens from being reported to the immigration authorities should be urged to repeal them.
November 2004 http://www.fairus.org/
ping
I strongly disagree with you. It's no longer about what we stand for. Who says we HAVE to foot the bill for millions of criminals who have broke OUR laws to get here?? In case you haven't noticed we are losing our country to millions of illegals. IF we make 15-20 million people citizens, our welfare system will collapse, because they will be able to go on ALL of the free programs. We simply can't pay for it all. Our hospitals are already running out of money taking care of illegals. We simply don't have the money.
I see you're from Michigan, so you're not one of the border states with Mexico like CA, AZ, NM, and TX are. WE are getting slammed with having to take care of illegals from Mexico. Since you think it's the thing to do, we'll start sending them to your state and let YOU foot the bill for them. Maybe then you would see how foolish this amnesty crap is. I'm FED UP! Let's take care of AMERICAN'S first, for a change. I swear, I don't want ANY more immigrants coming to America for the rest of my life, and I don't care where they're coming from. Furthermore, I don't care who doesn't like it.
It's ridiculous for us to take millions of mouths to feed when OUR OWN country has people who NEED help. Since the last amnesty we have had 15-20 million more illegals cross the border from Mexico. Did the last amnesty stop them from coming? NO and IF we gave them ALL amnesty tomorrow, in 10 years or so we would have another 10-15 million illegals. It HAS to stop!! Deport, deport, deport. That's the battle cry. LOL < / rant off >
Eliminate all welfare and those that are now receiving it can either pick the crops or lay down in the street and die.
Oh yes we can and we should. We should stop all immigration for 10 years, round-up the illegal scum who are here, and deport them, then go back to a very, very controlled 100,000 immigrants, carefully screened, per year.
Screw your absorbing "attendant costs and attendant pains"; that's BS. They either prove to be a benefit, or they don't get in here. We're not a catch-drain for the world's human garbage.
I smell a troll.
BTW, you didn't hear Dane whining about that when it happened.
How about..."our attitude toward immigration must ultimately turn on THE LAW."
I'll be happy to abide by that as long as you do too when the President's guest worker program is passed and so many's status changes from illegal to legal.
Clearly your ancestors didn't have to prove a benefit or pass an IQ test, why should these folks?
Our own 'poor' live in better conditions than some middle class in other countries. It's not without precedent in history that we can help those both here at home and those from other countries that want a better life here.
I have no problem with legal immigration and I welcome legal immigrants with open arms and a hearty hello.
When the President's immigration reform passes they'll all be legal, so there's no need to make such a distinction. But you're free to call 'em what you want.
Until I see some sort of documentation, proof or link to a reliable website, I'm going to chalk that figure up to more left-wing FAIR propaganda.
Back then, immigration was tightly controlled, and many were turned away.
I didn't say anything about an IQ test; you did. But if they have a skill or are trainable, they should be part of a firm monthly quota.
Coming here and winding-up on welfare for 20-30 years just isn't acceptable, IMO. My ancestors all had skills, or acquired new ones after arriving.
Quotas? I happen to be quite conservative and think there should be no quotas in government. Let the market decide how many shall come. If someone wants to come here to pick your lettuce at a farm, I would gladly accept them although it's not the kind of job that most would consider 'skilled'.
It ain't just ILLEGAL immigration.
Reauthorization of the 1996 welfare and immigration reform laws is long overdue, as best I can tell from some hard googling. There have been two Congresses and the only thing done was to extend the original laws and the changes that softened their impact. The House wants to keep the restrictions in place and the Senate wants to open the Treasury to legal permanent residents again(!).
The 1996 laws ended virtual automatic SSI, etc. for those coming after August, 1996 and there were time limit restrictions placed on SSI, food stamps, etc. etc. for those receiving government money prior to enactment in August, 1996. The time limits have been set aside already, i.e., benefits were to have been terminated after a set number of years but have been extended and extended as the years passed.
By 1996 almost one-third of the elderly getting SSI* (not the same as SS) were aged parents and other elderly relatives of legal immigrants. The elderly were sponsored and then put into SSI, food stamps, subsidized housing*, etc. etc. What a deal!
American taxpayers should celebrate and feeeeeeeeeeel good?
We concentrate on ILLEGAL aliens getting a pass via the "guest worker" plan. But the Bush administration and the Senate also want to undo some (all?) of the 1996 welfare restrictions placed upon legal permanent residents. What percentage of the world's population would like to get a U.S. government check each month?
* Note 1 - SSI Aged Noncitizens, from a Ways and Means immigration report (Green Book), 2003
Year. Number.. Percent of Total Aged SSI
1982 91,900 5.9
1983 106,600 7.0
1984 127,600 8.3
1985 146,500 9.7
1986 165,300 11.2
1987 188,000 12.9
1988 213,900 14.9
1989 245,700 17.1
1990 282,400 19.4
1991 329,690 22.5
1992 372,930 25.4
1993 416,420 28.2
1994 440,000 30.0
1995 459,220 31.8
1996 417,360 29.5
1997 367,200 27.0
1998 364,980 27.4
2000 364,470 28.3
2001 364,550 28.9
2002 364,827 29.1
The 1996 reforms stopped the practice of legal immigrants bringing their elderly relatives here for their SSI, etc. "golden" years. A little googling reveals that the immigrants often had very fine incomes, thank you.
* Note 2 - I cannot find the article but a year or two ago there was a S.F. Bay area news article about the local government wanting to relocate an apartment building full of elderly to a newer building. All were getting subsidized apartments. Plans had to be slipped because the government was having problems locating interpreters -- none of the elderly spoke English -- and the government did not want to alarm the elderly who might fear that they were being kicked out of their homes.
What is your point? That when the government offers benefits, people will take them up on their offer? Why don't we keep our doors open to immigration, yet reduce or elminate these welfare benefits for all. That way we'll benefit economically from the immigration, culturally from the diversity and we'll also save a few bucks.
You got the point. Why did you ask?
Immigration is fine, as long as it's legal. If he wants to push amnesty, fine. He has to deal with the political fallout, though.
No, I didn't. It seems to be a bunch of cut and paste words without much meaning. Can you sum it up in two sentences?
Not whining Ben, just wanted to make a point that some of us are here do discuss the issue, and maybe make some changes happen.
Others are here to troll for people they can call racists and hopefully, get tossed off the board.
;)
Actually, I did hear Dane mention it....and he was right.
Only if the reader has knowledge of the events leading up to the 1996 welfare and immigration reform laws; the subsequent debate and laws modifying the original laws; SSI, etc.; and has knowledge beyond their home state's borders.
For you I'll simply ask, American taxpayers should celebrate and feeeeeeeeeeel good about paying out billions to care for immigrants' elderly parents and relatives none of whom paid one penny into the system?
Now I will add some general comments for no one in particular.
"One Nation, Indivisible: Is It History?" By William Booth Washington Post Staff Writer Sunday, February 22, 1998.
This 1998 WashPo article asks "What will happen when Hispanics overtake blacks as the nation's single largest minority?"
It has already happened. Big deal or not?
Well, in the past I'd say not. I believe that as a group Hispanics, like all immigrants, have served the American ideal very well even winning more Medals of Honor than any other group.
But that was before "diversity." That was before the xenophiles smashed the melting pot and threw the pieces out with last night's trash. That was before xenophiles started peeing on the graves of citizens past -- all Americans of all ethnic origins.
Today hyphenated groups demand their own private lanes on our highways for their use and their use alone. America is just a place in the feeeeeeeeeeelings of many. A duty free zone. Emphasis on absence of duty.
Do these hyphenated "immigrant rights" group speak for the majority of their groups?
I am inclined to say no. I have hope that the pieces of the melting pot can be found in the city dump and put back together.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.