Posted on 04/11/2005 5:25:04 PM PDT by fight_truth_decay
Analysis of the latest Census data indicates Texas’s illegal immigrant population is costing the state’s taxpayers more than $4.7 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 more than $3.7 billion per year. The annual fiscal burden amounts to about $725 per Texas 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.
Other significant costs associated with illegal immigration exist, and these too should be taken into account by federal and state officials. Even without accounting for all of the numerous areas in which costs associated with illegal immigration are being incurred by Texas taxpayers, the program areas analyzed in this study indicate that the burden is substantial and that the costs are rapidly increasing.
The more than $4.7 billion in costs incurred by Texas taxpayers annually result from outlays in the following areas:
Education. Based on estimates of the illegal immigrant population in Texas and documented costs of K-12 schooling, Texans spend more than $4 billion annually on education for illegal immigrant children and for their U.S.-born siblings. About 11.9 percent of the K-12 public school students in Texas are children of illegal aliens.
Health Care. Taxpayer-funded medical outlays for health care provided to the state’s illegal alien population amount to about $520 million a year.
Incarceration. The uncompensated cost of incarcerating illegal aliens in Texas’s state and county prisons amounts to about $150 million a year (not including local jail detention costs or 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 slightly less than $1 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, welfare programs used by the U.S.-born children of illegal aliens, or welfare benefits for American workers displaced by illegal alien workers were also calculated.
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. Texans should not be expected to assume this already large and growing burden from illegal immigration simply because local businesses or other special interests benefit from being able to employ lower cost workers. The state could 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 illegal immigrants apprehended for breaking the law can be expeditiously turned over to the 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.
Texas has also voluntarily adopted policies that add to the cost burdens of illegal immigration. While all states are compelled under a 1982 U.S. Supreme Court decision to provide a free K-12 education to all children, irrespective of their immigration status, they are under no obligation to subsidize education beyond that point. Nevertheless, the Texas legislature and Governor Perry have decided to grant in-state tuition benefits at public colleges and universities to illegal aliens.
It is unreasonable for a state to expect federal assistance to compensate for the fiscal burden of illegal immigration if it is pursuing policies that encourage illegal aliens to come and remain in the state.
The full report is available in html and pdf
April 2005
Several senators have threatened to attach amnesty and other immigration liberalizing amendments to the emergency war supplemental bill being considered by the Senate this week.-AgJOBS Amnesty and other Liberalizing Immigration Provisions
FAIR Legislative Update April 11, 2005, Debate on the bill begins TODAY.
No surprise here. What is sort of a surprise is how bad the state GOP and its two US Senators are on the issue.
What the author of this article fails to understand, or deceptively fails to reveal, is that states are prohibited by the US Constitution from making distinctions based on ones immigration status. Therefore, if someone is a resident of Texas, they are to be allowed to pay in state tuition.
More distortions by FAIR. Why do they fail to include the economic benefit these people provide? They should at least include the value of their labor and what they contribute to Texas GDP. FAIR will never forward its agenda using UNfair and deceptive tactics.
Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) is considering offering an amendment to lift the cap on H-2B seasonal "unskilled" guestworkers. These foreign workers are often hired to fill jobs also sought after by American teens, including hotel resort work and other summer vacation related employment. The cap is currently set at 66,000 visas per year.
Another potential amendment includes the DREAM Act which would provide certain illegal aliens with amnesty and reduced in-state college tuition benefits.
Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Edward Kennedy (D-MA) may offer a guestworker/amnesty amendment that is far more sweeping than President Bush's guestworker/amnesty proposal.
http://capwiz.com/fair/issues/alert/?alertid=7384506&type=ta
"What the author of this article fails to understand, or deceptively fails to reveal, is that states are prohibited by the US Constitution from making distinctions based on ones immigration status. Therefore, if someone is a resident of Texas, they are to be allowed to pay in state tuition."
Mind pointing our the lyrics, line and verse, from the Constitution Song, for that claim of yours?
i got accepted to a university a month ago.
guess what? i got classified as out-of-state.
guess who gets in-state tuition? among residents, the children of illegals.
it's ironic that i grew up on a farm, hoeing beets and beans with migrants. their kids get in-state tuition, but i get out-of-state tuition. very few americans do field work.
another irony is that my natural mother's 3/4 indian. but i'm not affiliated with a tribe because i'm adopted and cannot prove myself. i look italian.
life in the united states of america.
Where in the US Constitution does it say anything that pertains to requiring Texas to provide education to illegal aliens (or to any child, for that matter) ?
The US Constitution is silent on education, which means it's up to the states.
The employers of the illegal aliens need to pay for the education of the children whose parents they have hired. Since the employer is the only one who benefits, they need to pay the cost for these children rather than sticking the taxpayer with it.
Don't mind CBG--he musta accidentally got a copy of the "Living Constitution." Those get misfiled in bookstores all the time.
"Policies could then be pursued to hold employers financially accountable. "
When illegal workers are found at a business the employer should be fined considerably, or seize business assets.
We don't need those kind of employers competing with legal, tax paying, fair wage paying employers. So if they are put out of business...... that is the consequence for hiring illegal immigrants!
We must take away the financial incentives that make hiring illegals so lucrative.
And stop the nonsense of issuing drivers licenses to illegals. Any government official that supports illegal immigrants is guilty of subversion and should be forcefully removed from office. There are no longer any reasonable excuses to support illegal immigrants.
I propose a possible solution to the problem of illegal immigration it's simple:
Make a law which requires all businesses to pay unskilled illegal immigrants the same paycheck as trained American citizens.
That way the businesses lose all incentive to hire them. The next step is to spread the word across the borders so that the immigrants will not make the mistake of becoming impoverished in US territories.
Of course the real challenge would be to convince business owners to support such a bill. But that's an ethical problem.
A 1996 federal law addressing illegal immigration included a provision affecting state residency requirements for in-state tuition rates, traditionally a matter of state law. Now, states are prohibited from offering in-state tuition rates to unauthorized immigrant students unless other U.S. citizens are eligible for the same rate. Since 2001, more than 20 states have introduced bills addressing in-state tuition for undocumented immigrants. Seven states have established new residency standards allowing unauthorized immigrant students to receive in-state tuition under certain conditions. Students without legal immigrant status continue to be ineligible for federal financial aid, although states are required to provide K-12 public education as a result of a 1982 Supreme Court decision.
Lawmakers watching Kansas tuition lawsuit
BY KEVIN O'HANLON / The Associated Press
With a legislative proposal pending to allow children of illegal immigrants to pay in-state tuition while attending Nebraska's public colleges, lawmakers are watching a federal lawsuit challenging a similar law in Kansas.
The lawsuit was filed last year in U.S. District Court in Topeka after the Kansas law was passed. It was filed on behalf of the Federation for American Immigration Reform and 24 university students who allege the tuition policy violates federal law, the U.S. Constitution and rewards illegal immigrants for being in the United States illegally. More Session 2005 stories
"It is the intent of Congress, as well as a compelling government interest, to remove the incentive for illegal immigration provided by the availability of public benefits," the lawsuit says. "It is a national policy that aliens within the nation's borders do not depend on public resources to meet their needs and that the availability of public benefits should not constitute an incentive for immigration to the United States."
The Nebraska measure (LB239) was introduced by Sen. Diane Schimek of Lincoln.
She said while there is a chance the Kansas lawsuit could adversely affect her bill, Schimek noted that eight states have passed such laws without objection from the federal government.
"I don't think the federal government thinks there's a problem with states doing this," she said. "I think you can make a very compelling argument that it's up to the states" and is not a federal issue.
Schimek's proposal has won the support of the University of Nebraska Board of Regents.
The bill would require illegal immigrants to be pursuing or promise to pursue legal status in order to take advantage of in-state tuition.
Supporters of the measure say the students who would be helped by the bill didn't choose to enter the country illegally and shouldn't be punished.
The Kansas lawsuit, which is scheduled for a hearing April 25, was filed last year by conservative Republican Kris Kobach, who lost his bid for a congressional seat in November.
Others also have criticized the Kansas law.
Kansas state Sen. Phil Journey, R-Haysville, has said the law is "an unfair burden on taxpayers to support illegal status."
Kansas Attorney General Phill Kline has distanced himself from the defense of the law. Kline said earlier that his office's civil litigation division will handle the state's defense in a federal lawsuit. He said its attorneys will report to Dave Davies, deputy attorney general for civil litigation, instead of Kline.
Kline said he is concerned efforts granting such in-state tuition will diminish the value of legal immigration. He also said a state-by-state approach to immigration issues is ill-advised.
Schimek's bill has not been designated a priority measure by any lawmaker, meaning it is unlikely to advance out of the Education Committee or be debated on the floor this session.
If it does not get killed by the committee, it would be eligible for debate next year.
Schimek said she will likely prioritize the measure next year.
"I want to prioritize this bill in the worst way," she said.
The employers of of illegal aliens should be prosecuted.
Article 1 section 8.
Sort of like the depressing the wages of unskilled labor in the area where they are prevalent. Illegals depress GDP all the way around. There is no benefit.
republicans will do nothing in the respect and dims want the
illegals to give benefits to so they can get votes.
look for nothing to be done in America's favor any time soon.
I don't think the matter of PROVIDING an education is at issue. It's whether a state can discriminate based on one's immigration status that is at issue. Clearly, a state may not. See article 1 section 8.
Yes and anyone who states that we owe ILLEGALS an education or anything else should be booted out of office. And that includes GW, Kennedy, or anyone else who advocates it.!!!!!!
Ive read it before and read it again. Dont see what youre pointing to.
"Ive read it before and read it again. Dont see what youre pointing to."
Sorry then.
lol Perhaps you could post the excerpt you claim you base your opinon on?
"unlike us immigrants don't demand Welfare and SS. I hope your talking about LEGAL'S not ILLEGALS because if you look at the burden that Illegals put on just Texas's and Cal. taxpayers you would change your tune.
"I know this is a cliche, but illegal immigrants really do take up the jobs that we don't want"
There is no job that Americans won't do if the pay is good.
"When an immigrant takes up a job, they are contributing to their employer, who in turn contributes to the rest of us through the taxes they and the immigrants themselves pay. Unlike us citizens, immigrants don't demand welfare and social security. They mainly want education for their child, something that I think we can all understand and relate to."
What a load of crap. Where did you get your talking points? LaRaza?
Your statement is false as far as I know. For example see my article on California's Prop. 187 in the illegal immigration section of my web site at www.allanfavish.com
"Aliens, even aliens whose presence in this country is unlawful, have long been recognized as 'persons' guaranteed due process of law by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments," Plyer v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 210 (1982); see also Kwong Hai Chew v. Colding, 344 U.S. 590, 596 (1953) (resident aliens are persons within the protection of the Fifth Amendment and may not be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process); Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U.S. 228, 238 (1896) (aliens accused of a crime are entitled to Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights).
Aliens enjoy equal protection rights as well, but distinctions between illegal aliens and others do not require as strong justifications as distinctions between citizens and aliens lawfully in the United States. Distinctions between resident aliens and citizens require more justification, but not the compelling state interests required for distinctions based on race. The longer an alien has been in the United States and the more legitimate the alien's immigration status, the more equivalent the alien's equal protection rights are to those of a U.S. citizen. Consistent with Article 25 of the Covenant, aliens are generally precluded from voting or holding federal elective office.
Agreed. The Republicans are shooting themselves in the foot with this issue. Why? All I can think of is that with chavez being flakey they are concerned a foreign source of oil. No, not into GW or Dick Cheney's pocket but because the world's economy runs on it and if Venezuala cut off our supply, it would hurt. Don't agree with it but that's all that I can think of. We bailed mexico out in the 80's to the tune of 40-50 billion dollars and they show no respect for us.
Hey, Vincente howzabout payin' that money back in oil startin' now.
"For example see my article on California's Prop. 187"
The federal courts trump your article. It's a well settled area of law.
"When an immigrant takes up a job, they are contributing to their employer, who in turn contributes to the rest of us through the taxes they and the immigrants themselves pay."
So, we should all quit our jobs and let illegals have them because it would be better for us?
" Unlike us citizens, immigrants don't demand welfare and social security."
You don't know the situation very well, do you? Illegals take billionsin welfare, emergency room care, etc. I do believe Los Angeles has lost their emergency rooms because they could no longer afford to operate them due to the illegals.
Thank you.
Where are you posting from that your born on date is tomorrow?
"...illegals are going to save Social Security..."
The catch, of course, is that the illegals will also be beneficiaries. They will get about $100,000 each from SS. Since they are uneducated and low-pay people, they will not, in their lifetime, pay in as much as they will take out. That is assuming they pay any taxes at all.
Re: Congress - it's a mistake to let socialists play with a capitalist economy.
Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Clause 2: To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
Clause 3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
Clause 4: To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
Clause 5: To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
Clause 6: To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
Clause 7: To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
Clause 8: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
Clause 9: To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
Clause 10: To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
Clause 11: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
Clause 12: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
Clause 13: To provide and maintain a Navy;
Clause 14: To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
Clause 15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
Clause 16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
Clause 17: To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, byCession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And
Clause 18: To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Which one of these clauses were you referring to>?
Clause 4: To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization
Oh yes, that clearly supports your position.(sarc) There has been over the last few years in my home state RI attempts to pass legislation giving illegals in-state tuition. As of yet it has not passed. Illegal aliens are not eligible for in-state tuition in RI.
Texas’s illegal immigrant population is costing the state’s taxpayers more than $4.7 billion per year
Illegal Immigration Costs California $10.5 Billion Annually
The chilling costs of illegal migration reach like an octopus into every aspect of our lives. Illegal aliens displaced American workers at a cost in excess of $133 billion dollars last year according to Harvard Professor George Borjas.
Docs journal reports hospitals being closed, previously vanquished diseases being spread
Cristobal Silverio emigrated illegally from Mexico to Stockton, Calif., in 1997 to work as a fruit picker.
He brought with him his wife, Felipa, and three children, 19, 12 and 8 – all illegals. When Felipa gave birth to her fourth child, daughter Flor, the family had what is referred to as an "anchor baby" – an American citizen by birth who provided the entire Silverio clan a ticket to remain in the U.S. permanently.
But Flor was born premature, spent three months in the neonatal incubator and cost the San Joaquin Hospital more than $300,000. Meanwhile, oldest daughter Lourdes married an illegal alien gave birth to a daughter, too. Her name is Esmeralda. And Felipa had yet another child, Cristian.
The two Silverio anchor babies generate $1,000 per month in public welfare funding for the family. Flor gets $600 a month for asthma. Healthy Cristian gets $400. While the Silverios earned $18,000 last year picking fruit, they picked up another $12,000 for their two "anchor babies."
Meanwhile, the number of criminal aliens mounts. In 1980 there were approximately 9,000 criminal aliens in U.S. jails and prisons; by 1994 the number had jumped to 59,000. Today, criminal aliens account for more than 25 percent of all inmates in federal prisons and are the fastest growing segment of the prison population. The federal prison population of non-citizens has increased by about 15 percent per year from the mid–1980s to the present, compared to a 10 percent increase for U.S. citizens. Upkeep for each prisoner costs the taxpayers $21,300 per year.
CRIME VICTIMS OF ILLEGAL ALIENS
There is an enormous number of Americans who have been harmed by the criminals who pass through the nation's open borders. For that reason, this section can only provide a symbolic tribute to the many unnamed victims who have been killed, raped, robbed, crippled and otherwise personally violated.
It is particularly shocking that even in post-911 America, the government still refuses to protect the people in the most basic ways from the world's terrorists and criminals who enter at will to do as they please. The borders remain a sieve while the human carnage from crime perpetrated from illegal aliens continues to mount. In another stunner of INS malfeasance, the agency often cannot even manage to deport dangerous criminal aliens when they reach the ends of their prison terms.
http://www.immigrationshumancost.org/text/crimevictims.html
3.7 billion?
Hey Texans are getting off cheap!
the illegals are costing us NINE BILLION A YEAR IN CA!
but heck, all you FReepers want that cheap lettece from Walmart! So what's a few billion here and there...
I'm tellin' ya...we could FLY every illegal in America back home, put them up at the Four Seasons for a night and still be WAAAAAAY ahead of the game at the end of the year!
It doesn't matter. Were they to be sued, they would lose. The constitution is quite clear in regard to distinctions made ones immigration status.
It would be unconstitutional to force someone to speak a particular language.
Where are the ALCU suits? Youre simply wrong.
That line you quote has them dealing with the the benefits.
I don't think that the case has been made that immigration, legal or illegal, is much of an economic benefit to the nation as a whole. There may be certain industries where its crucial, but the biggest study done to date (that I'm aware of) was back in the mid-late 90s by the National Academy of Sciences. It put the net effects of immigration as positive...to the whopping tune of one tenth of one percent of GDP, or in other words, nothing.
"Where are the ALCU suits? Youre simply wrong." No, I'm quite right. See Plyer v Doe.
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.