The data come from the Bureau of the Census.
Posted on 09/22/2011 7:26:28 AM PDT by free me
ORLANDO --
With both jobs and immigration likely topics of sharp debate at tonight's Republican debate here in Florida, a new report suggests that newly-arrived immigrants have filled a majority of new jobs created in Texas, home to Republican frontrunner Gov. Rick Perry.
"Of jobs created in Texas since 2007, 81 percent were taken by newly arrived immigrant workers (legal and illegal)," says the report from the Center for Immigration Studies, a group that advocates reduced levels of both legal and illegal immigration. The report estimates that about 40 percent of the new jobs were taken by illegal immigrants, while 40 percent were taken by legal immigrants. The vast majority of both groups, legal and illegal, were not American citizens.
Native-born Americans filled just 20 percent of the new jobs in Texas, the report says, even though "the native born accounted for 69 percent of the growth in Texas' working-age population." "Thus, even though natives made up most of the growth in potential workers, most of the job growth went to immigrants," the report concludes.
The report is based on analysis of the Census Bureau's Current Population Survey.
The study notes that 56 percent of newly-arrived immigrants in Texas since 2007 have had a high-school degree or less. But it also notes that "More than one out three…of newly arrived immigrants who took a job had at least some college." It would be a mistake, the report concludes, "to assume that immigrants are only competing for jobs at the bottom end of the labor market."
(Excerpt) Read more at campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com ...
There is no evidence the data have been manipulated.
Since you repeated lies about the CIS that originated with the SPLC, a group that refers to FR as a racist domestic terror threat, I’m sure you know all about propaganda.
For those not spinning wildly to obscure the truth about there terrible candidate, the study presents even more evidence of Perry’s history of pandering to illegals.
I saw your numbers. I concluded you are bad at math but even worse at interpreting studies.
If they’re using census data, that doesn’t separate out legal and illegal immigrants, does it?
• In 2009 (based on data collected in 2010), 57 percent of households headed by an immigrant (legal and illegal) with children (under 18) used at least one welfare program, compared to 39 percent for native households with children.
• Immigrant households’ use of welfare tends to be much higher than natives for food assistance programs and Medicaid. Their use of cash and housing programs tends to be similar to native households.
• A large share of the welfare used by immigrant households with children is received on behalf of their U.S.-born children, who are American citizens. But even households with children comprised entirely of immigrants (no U.S.-born children) still had a welfare use rate of 56 percent in 2009.
• Immigrant households with children used welfare programs at consistently higher rates than natives, even before the current recession. In 2001, 50 percent of all immigrant households with children used at least one welfare program, compared to 32 percent for natives.
• Households with children with the highest welfare use rates are those headed by immigrants from the Dominican Republic (82 percent), Mexico and Guatemala (75 percent), and Ecuador (70 percent). Those with the lowest use rates are from the United Kingdom (7 percent), India (19 percent), Canada (23 percent), and Korea (25 percent).
• The states where immigrant households with children have the highest welfare use rates are Arizona (62 percent); Texas, California, and New York (61 percent); Pennsylvania (59 percent); Minnesota and Oregon (56 percent); and Colorado (55 percent).
• We estimate that 52 percent of households with children headed by legal immigrants used at least one welfare program in 2009, compared to 71 percent for illegal immigrant households with children. Illegal immigrants generally receive benefits on behalf of their U.S.-born children.
• Illegal immigrant households with children primarily use food assistance and Medicaid, making almost no use of cash or housing assistance. In contrast, legal immigrant households tend to have relatively high use rates for every type of program.
• High welfare use by immigrant-headed households with children is partly explained by the low education level of many immigrants. Of households headed by an immigrant who has not graduated high school, 80 percent access the welfare system, compared to 25 percent for those headed by an immigrant who has at least a bachelor’s degree.
I keep hearing about all of these great jobs that require no training, yet I’m surrounded by 18-22 year olds that can’t get a job past McDonalds who’re dying to do real work. (IE: Looking for a job that pays well and offers benefits and the potential for upward mobility.)
So where’s the disconnect? Why are employers not being matched up with all of these hungry young people who are trying to bust into the work force?
On another thread a poster was saying that employers are only hiring illegals because they can’t find Americans who’re willing to work hard for the good money they’re willing to pay. I told him that I could round up a bus-load of healthy, drug-free 18-22 year men who’d be willing to work for the money he’s paying the illegals within one week. The catch? They’re going to expect medical benefits within a year of full-time employment.
The only kids who’re turning down jobs are the ones who manage to get a job at Taco Bell just as they get the call back from Pizza Hut.
(BTW, *NONE* of these kids are collecting unemployment.)
My son is an apprentice mechanic. He got laid off two months ago (not collecting unemployment) and can’t get another mechanics job because NOBODY is hiring in our area. If there is a job opening, it’s filled within a day or two by word-of-mouth.
I know and work with the folks at CIS. You are spewing crap and nonsense that comes from people like the SPLC and Maldef. White nationalists my ass. CIS is the best source of information on immigration in the country. Steve King, Lamar Smith, etc. work closely with CIS who often testify in Congress on behalf of reforming our immigration policies, which are destroying this country.
Forty percent of all new jobs in the US are in Texas (source).
This group claims that 80% of those jobs went to immigrants.
Combine the two, multiply the percentages: 80% of 40% is 32% overall.
Confirm with numbers; assume 100 new jobs in the US. Forty of them are in Texas (40%). Now 8 out of 10 of those jobs go to immigrants. That is 40 * 8 / 10 = 32. So 32 out of 100 - or 32%.
Thus, this group is claiming that 32% of all immigrants (at a minimum) must be relocating in Texas.
Where am I wrong?
The data come from the Bureau of the Census.
Thanks! Using the Census Bureau statistics you posted, I see 283,000 new jobs created between Q2 2007 and Q2 2011 I totaled the native and immigrant employment for the two data sets, and found the difference between the two totals ((8900+2397) - (8711+2247) = 13308 - 13025 = 283).
Of those 283,000 new jobs 129,000 went to natives (8900-8771 = 129) and 150,000 went to immigrants (2397-2247 = 150). That is 46% to natives (129/283 * 100%) and 53% to immigrants (150/283 * 100%). The remaining 1% is probably rounding errors by the Bureau (when counting by thousands).
So, the Bureau’s numbers that the CIS used for its sources say something different from what the CIS claims. Sure, 53% is a lot - but it’s not the 80% as claimed, is it? They screwed up the math one way or another...
I was using a “back of the envelope” sanity check from their own numbers, and it showed something wasn’t right (32% of all immigrants moved to Texas); the check of their sources proves their own claims are incorrect.
We bring in over a million legal immigrants a year. Go to Table 1--PERSONS OBTAINING LEGAL PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS: FISCAL YEARS 1820 TO 2010 These are the official US statistics showing who received LPR status by year. The 7.4 million you are using is bogus. Moreover, the DHS numbers don't include illegals.
“Of jobs created in Texas since 2007, 81 percent were taken by newly arrived immigrant workers (legal and illegal),”
Yep, lots of people moving to Texas so it makes sense that most jobs would be filled by non-Texans.
Growth in Employment. There are two ways to examine the share of employment growth that went to immigrants vs. natives in Texas during the economic downturn. One way is to compare the increase in total employment to the number of newly arrived immigrants holding a job. The second way is to compare the increase in employment to net growth in the number of immigrants holding a job. While there are differences in these two comparisons, no matter which method is used, the data show that a disproportionate share of job growth went to immigrant workers.
The Impact of Newly Arrived Immigrants. The left bar in Figure 1 shows the share of population growth among the working age (16 to 65) accounted for by newly arrived immigrants in Texas between the second quarter of 2007, before the recession began, and the second quarter of 2011, which is the most recent quarter for which data are available.2 Newly arrived immigrants (legal and illegal) are defined as those who indicated in the CPS that they came to the United States in the second quarter of 2007 or after.3 The population growth of 28.9 percent is for those of working age (16 to 65). There were 358,000 working-age (16 to 65) immigrants in 2011 who indicated that they had arrived in the United States in 2007 or later. This equals 28.9 percent of the 1.24 million overall increase in the size of the working-age population in Texas between the second quarter of 2007 and the second quarter of 2011. The second bar in Figure 1 shows employment relative to the number of newly arrived immigrants holding a job. There were 225,000 immigrants holding a job in 2011 who indicated that they had arrived in the United States in 2007 or later. This equals 80.6 percent of the 279,000 overall increase in employment in Texas between 2007 and 2011. Of new arrivals, 93 percent indicated they were not U.S. citizens.4 The newly arrived can be described as new foreign workers.
Native-born Americans filled just 20 percent of the new jobs in Texas, the report says, even though “the native born accounted for 69 percent of the growth in Texas’ working-age population.” “Thus, even though natives made up most of the growth in potential workers, most of the job growth went to immigrants,” the report concludes.
That table is irrelevant; you do not need legal permanent resident status to get a job in the US. You can get a temporary worker’s visa, an H1-B, and many other means to legally work in the US without getting permanent residency.
This is zero surprise. Perry’s vision for the country is Brazil and his policies in TX reflect that.
In the thread that was posted last night it was pointed out that they did not differentiate between illegal immigrants and legal immigrants. If they didn’t do that then the numbers are not right and the piece is propaganda plain and simple.
First off, their calculations in Table 1 are identical to what I ran, which shows that of the new jobs created, 53% went to immigrants - not 80%. So I knew that there had to be another problem with the summary or their claim. They were using the same data, and how you can make an error to go from 53% to 80% is beyond me.
So we look at the description for Figure 1 and find this:
The left bar in Figure 1 shows the share of population growth among the working age (16 to 65) accounted for by newly arrived immigrants in Texas between the second quarter of 2007, before the recession began, and the second quarter of 2011
The left bar shows how many of the newly employed people in Texas, between the ages of 16 and 65, are newly arrived immigrants (newly arrived being people who came between 2007 and now). So we see that of the jobs created in Texas (newly employed people), 29% were from new immigrants.
New immigrants accounted for 29% of the job growth - that is what the left bar of Figure 1 indicates.
This is also consistent with my earlier calculations about 53%, since my calculations were for ALL immigrants, not just new immigrants. So any number for the left bar that is at or below 53% would be a possible number (the Census Bureau data I used did not distinguish between new and old immigrants; you can be a resident of Texas for 40 years, hold a green card, and you're still counted as an immigrant according to the Census Bureau).
Now, the big lie is in the right hand bar of Figure 1. This one is titled "Newly-Arrived Immigrants as a Share of Job Growth". It's meant to lead you to believe that 81% of new jobs went to new immigrants, that's how it's worded. And from the summary and the reactions of many in this thread, that is how it was taken - new immigrants are taking the vast majority of all new jobs.
HOWEVER, drill into you posted description of the figure and we find:
The second bar in Figure 1 shows employment relative to the number of newly arrived immigrants holding a job.
It is a chart showing how many of the new immigrants actually have a job. It does NOT say what the ratio of new immigrants is relative to population, or what the ratio of those jobs held is relative to all jobs created! It just says that of the new immigrants to Texas, 81% of them held a job.
If there were just 100 new immigrants to Texas between Q2 2007 and Q2 2011, and 81 of them had a job, then the right bar would still be 100% correct, relative to the description in the text.
The right bar on Figure 1 says that 81% of new immigrants have a job. That is all.
But the text on the figure is HIGHLY misleading, especially when combined with the bar on the left which in no way, shape, or form relates to the same accounting/statistic of data. It's meant to confuse total employment and population rates with job growth - and it does not relate to either.
This is a purely propagandizing piece, meant to mislead people about what is actually happening, and uses a highly misleading chart to get there.
The raw facts about actual employment rates that I posted earlier (53% to immigrants) is 100% correct; the CIS even admits as much with the same data and internal conclusions. But they lied to everyone when they twisted it around and looked at other data and lumped disparate data together in the same figure, in an attempt, I am sure, to stir up anti-immigration fervor.
Yes, your post reinforces the point that An accurate, unbiased characterization of their study is that *unemployment insurance* benefits natives much, much more than new immigrants, or illegals for that matter.
It’s the jobs that were lost and not the jobs created that drive the census data they use.
The CIS conclusion is trite in regard to Perry. Though it is significant in the debates over the effect of unemployment insurance and immigration on employment and wages.
The report is wrong - the Census Bureau’s own data says that 46% of the new jobs went to natives. And the report quotes the Bureau’s own stats which confirm this. This 46% share is not in doubt - even by the CIS, since they quote the same figures in the report.
But then the report goes on to draw unrelated figures and numbers to make it seem like all the jobs are going to immigrants.
This is a hit piece, pure and simple.
So the US population is flocking to Texas to be unemployed there? Interesting.
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.