The down payment's been paid, when will the goods to be delivered?

For years, all we've heard from those opposed to immigration and immigration reform is that until the government could prove that it was "serious" about border security and enforcement, no meaningful discussion of immigration reform was going to take place. The mantra of "we can't reform immigration laws until we control immigration, and we can't control immigration unless we control our borders" has been the guiding principle behind every obstructionist attempt to derail systematic reform. And attempts to appease restrictionists, by adopting "enforcement first" policies" have become the accepted framework from which all discussions were forced to start.

But most of those working for positive change have known all along that "enforcement first" is just a catch-22. It's an ever-moving target that was never intended to be reached. The ultimate goal of those opposed to reform has never been to "control" immigration...but rather to end it.

Yet despite these obvious facts, both the Bush and Obama administrations dived head first into the enforcement waters.

The last few years have been marked by hugely escalating enforcement budgets, increased apprehension, deportation and detention, increased use of local law enforcement, raids, and employer audits.

Programs like "Operation Streamline", "Secure Communities", "287G", "Operation Community Shield", and "Rapid REPEAT", (to name a few) have all been ramped up to locate, and remove the undocumented population. And while the human suffering caused by these and other programs has been immeasurable, no one can deny their effect on both illegal entry and presence.

So the question now becomes; At what point can we say enough is enough?

At what point will the forces that demand strict enforcement before any discussion of reform can begin, be content? Immigrant communities across this nation have paid the price, they've made their down payment on reform ...when do they finally see something in return?

A couple of new studies demonstrate just how effective and massive these programs and operations have become. Both examining just one aspect of enforcement ...federal prosecutions for immigration related crimes ... which have increased 459% in the last ten years.

The Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) and Warren Institute at the University of California at Berkeley recently released reports highlighting the dramatic increase in federal immigration prosecutions and the link to Operation Streamline, a DHS program which mandates federal criminal prosecution of all persons caught crossing the border unlawfully.

The Warren Institute report highlights the impact of Operation Streamline on immigration enforcement and the TRAC report shows that federal immigration prosecutions rose to record levels during fiscal year 2009 and how a shift in priorities has created the largest number of federal immigration prosecutions of non-violent border crossers ever.

The latest available data from the Justice Department show that during the first nine months of FY 2009 the government reported 67,994 new immigration prosecutions. If this activity continues at the same pace, the annual total of prosecutions will be 90,659 for this fiscal year. According to the case-by-case information analyzed by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC), this estimate is up 14.1 percent over the past fiscal year when the number of prosecutions totaled 79,431.

Number Year-to-date	67,994
Percent Change from previous year	14.1
Percent Change from 5 years ago	139
Percent Change from 10 years ago	459
Percent Change from 20 years ago	973

The comparisons of the number of defendants charged with immigration-related offenses are based on case-by-case information obtained by TRAC under the Freedom of Information Act from the Executive Office for United States Attorneys

Compared to five years ago when there were 37,884, the estimate of FY 2009 prosecutions of this type is up 139 percent. Prosecutions over the past year are much higher than they were ten years ago. Overall, the data show that prosecutions of this type are up 459 percent from the level of 16,219 reported in 1999 and up 973 percent from the level of 8,448 reported in 1989.
TRAC

While the TRAK report looked at record increase in all federal immigration prosecutions, the Warren Institute looked at the effect of just one Operation along the US/ Mexico border: Operation Streamline.

The Department of Homeland Security(DHS) began implementing OperationStreamline along the U.S.-Mexico border in2005. The program has fundamentally transformed DHS’s border enforcement practices. Before Operation Streamline began, DHSBorder Patrol agents voluntarily returned first-time border crossers to their home countries or detained them and formally removed them from the United States through the civil immigration system. The U.S. Attorney’s Office reserved criminal prosecution for migrants with criminal records and for those who made repeated attempts to cross the border. Operation Streamline removed that prosecutorial discretion, requiring the criminal prosecution of all undocumented border crossers, regardless of their history.

Operation Streamline has generated unprecedented caseloads in eight of the eleven federal district courts along the border, straining the resources of judges, U.S. attorneys, defense attorneys, U.S. Marshals, and court personnel. The program’s voluminous prosecutions have forced many courts to cut procedural corners. Magistrate judges conduct en masse hearings, during which as many as 80 defendants plead guilty at a time, depriving migrants of due process. Indeed, in December 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that Operation Streamline’s en masse plea hearings in Tucson, Arizona violate federal law.By focusing court and law enforcement resources on the prosecution of first-time entrants, Operation Streamline also diverts attention away from fighting drug smuggling, human trafficking, and other crimes that create border violence
Assembly-Line Justice: A Review of Operation Streamline

• Immigration prosecutions make up 54 percent of all federal criminal prosecutions. The most prosecuted federal immigration crimes in FY 2009 were for immigrants caught entering the United States at an improper time or place, totaling approximately 40,000. Between 2002 and 2008, prosecutions for first time illegal entry in border district courts increased 330% from 12,411 to 53,697


• Illegal reentry of a deported alien accounted for nearly 22,000 prosecutions in FY 2009.


• In contrast, potential smuggling charges were brought less frequently. TRAC found 2,980 prosecutions for bringing in and harboring certain aliens, and 106 prosecutions for aiding and abetting an illegal entry.


• 85% of the prosecutions originated with Customs and Border Protection (CBP). Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) accounted for 13% of the prosecutions.


• Before 2005, CBP voluntarily returned first time border crossers or formally removed them through the civil system. Federal prosecutions were used almost exclusively for individuals with previous criminal records or repeat crossers. Operation Streamline --instituted in Del Rio, Texas in 2005 and later expanded to other areas -- shifted this practice by eliminating prosecutorial discretion and requiring that all unlawful border crossers be prosecuted in federal criminal court and imprisoned if convicted, regardless of their immigration history.15 Those who are caught entering the U.S. illegally for the first time are prosecuted for misdemeanors punishable by up to 6 months in prison.


• Most Operation Streamline defendants are migrants from Mexico or Central America who have no prior criminal convictions and who have attempted to cross the border in search of work or to reunite with family in the United States.


• The link between Operation Streamline and federal prosecution rates can be seen in the judicial districts near these enforcement zones. The Southern District of Texas prosecutes the most immigration crimes, with 23,000 in FY 2009, up 22.1% from FY 2008.1819 The District of Arizona was second with 16,477, up 39.7% from FY 2008.

If we add the fact that President Obama's proposed budget for 2011 includes additional increases in spending along the border and for interior enforcement it becomes obvious that the enforcement juggernaut has far from reached it's end.

So we must now ask ourselves ... when in fact will the border ever be "secure" enough?

We have long heard about the failures of 1986 and how if only the laws were enforced, then we could start to look at reforming the dysfunctional and broken system that only feeds the growing prison-industrial complex.

Well, the laws have been enforced.

There's been a nearly 1000% increase in immigration prosecutions since 1990. In 2009 alone, the U.S. government had held over 440,000 people in immigration custody – more than triple the number of people in detention just ten years ago - and deported 387,000 immigrant workers, the highest recorded number in U.S. history.

So, how much longer are the "sins" of 1986 to hang over everyone's heads? Is there some secret magic number that needs to be reached? Is it a 2000% or 3000% increase in prosecutions? One Million in detention or deported?

How large a price must be paid by immigrant communities before there is a remedy? How many more mothers must be separated from their children? How many families torn apart? Communities terrorized? How many more lives destroyed and futures taken away?

When will the down payment paid in suffering and sorrow be acknowledge ... and the promise of reform finally be honored.?

I think it's fair to say ...NOW!!!!!!

Read More...

Summary only...

Study Released About New Demographic Powerhouse.

Much has been made of Barack Obama's mixed-race heritage. For better or worse, more ink and pixels have been expended during this campaign discussing race than perhaps any other topic. We've seen both overt and covert attempts to appeal to voter's baser instincts by some, and insightful and thought provoking analysis of our emerging multi-racial and multi-cultural nation by others.

Only those living under rock for the past year would not be familiar with Obama's family history. The son of a black father and white mother who married young then divorced, he lived in Indonesia as a child with his stepfather, then returned to Hawaii to be raised by his maternal grandparents.

While it's well know that Obama's father was Kenyan, little is made of the fact that he is the child of an immigrant …. Yet, this makes him part of one of the fastest growing, and politically important demographics in the nation.

Today in California, half of all teens have at least one immigrant parent, and throughout the nation the number of 18-25 year olds who can trace their ancestry in this country back no further than their parents grows daily. Among all Latinos, 40% have immigrant parents, and Asians, 90%.

Obama, in a way, represents the leading edge of a demographic boom of children born of immigrant parents who will continue to come of age far into the future with ramifications politically, socially, and culturally, that could be monumental.

A new study, released today by the Immigration Policy Center, entitled, "The New American Electorate: The Growing Political Power of Immigrants and Their Children", looks not only at the growing power of this demographic, but the vast numbers of newly naturalized citizens, and the Latino and Asian communities from which they come.

At a time when federal, state, and local elections are often decided by small voting margins—with candidates frequently locked in ferocious competition for the ballots of those “voting blocs” that might turn the electoral tide in their favor—one large and growing bloc of voters has been consistently overlooked and politically underestimated: New Americans. This group of voters and potential voters includes not only immigrants who have become U.S. citizens (Naturalized Americans), but also the U.S.-born children of immigrants who were raised during the current era of large-scale immigration from Latin America and Asia which began in 1965 (the Post-1965 Children of Immigrants).

These immigrants and their children have a powerful and highly personal connection to the modern immigrant experience that most other Americans do not. It’s one thing to hear family stories about a grandfather or great-grandfather coming to the United States during the much-romanticized “Ellis Island” era of immigration from Europe that ended decades ago. It’s quite another to belong to a family that is experiencing first-hand the political and economic realities of immigration today. The ranks of registered voters who are New Americans, or Latino or Asian, have been growing rapidly this decade and are likely to play an increasingly pivotal role in elections at all levels in the years to come, particularly in battleground states like Florida, Colorado, Nevada, and New Mexico. As recent public opinion polls reveal, anti-immigrant political rhetoric is likely to motivate many New Americans to cast ballots in November, but is unlikely to win many votes for candidates perceived as anti-immigrant.

Link(pdf)

To get some idea of the current size of this population and the growing political potential in holds, one need only look at a few key statistics.

• New Americans were 8.6 Percent of All Registered Voters in 2006
  - 7.6 million were Naturalized Americans, accounting for 5.6 percent of registered voters.
  - 4.1 million were Post-1965 Children of Immigrants, accounting for 3.0 percent of registered voters.


• Latinos and Asians Accounted for 9.3 Percent of All Registered Voters in 2006
  - 9.3 million Latinos comprised 6.8 percent of registered voters.
  - 3.3 million Asians accounted for 2.5 percent of registered voters.

In the past two years, an additional 3 mil new naturalized citizens have become eligible to vote, and conservative estimates put the number of currently registered Latino voters at 11.7 million. Each month, nationally, 40,000 Latino teens turn 18 and become eligible to vote. Obviously, when all these groups with immigrant family ties; New immigrants, their children, Latinos and Asians are looked at on whole, their growing numbers and growing political power makes them a key demographic not only in 2008, but for the future.

New Americans (including both naturalized citizens and the children born to immigrants in the United States since 1965), Latinos, and Asians are increasingly important to the outcome of elections at the federal, state, and local level in the United States. Yet immigration and the ongoing racial and ethnic diversification of the American electorate have received relatively little attention from pundits and analysts discussing the 2008 vote and the electoral outlook for future elections. However, as naturalized citizens and their families grow into sizable portions of the electorate, political candidates who fail to recognize the growing importance of New American, Latino, and Asian voters increasingly undermine their own campaigns.

The U.S.-born children of immigrants in particular are increasingly important in the voting booth. These children occupy a unique position in U.S. society in that they have watched one or both of their parents navigate a new society and culture. As a result, they are personally connected to the struggles of immigrants and to the ways in which U.S. society reacts to and treats immigrants. There were nearly four million of these Post-1965 Children of Immigrants registered to vote in 2006.

Immigrants who have become U.S. citizens (Naturalized Americans) and the U.S.-born children of immigrants are closely connected to, and many are a part of, the Latino and Asian communities in the United States. Latinos and Asians include not only immigrants and their children, but also families that have lived here for many generations. In general, Latinos and Asians have a close connection to the immigrant experience because they are immigrants themselves, or their parents were immigrants, or they live in neighborhoods where friends and extended-family members are immigrants.

Apart from sheer growth in their numbers, two key factors are transforming New American, Asian, and Latino voters into a potent electoral force which is changing the nature of elections and political campaigns nationwide.

First, immigrant communities can now be found throughout the United States. No longer concentrated in just a few states like California, Florida, New York, and Texas, immigrants are becoming a sizable portion of the population in states like Nevada, Washington, and North Carolina. Second, contemporary elections are often won by very thin voting margins. In 2004, for example, President Bush carried Ohio by just 119,000 votes, or 2 percent of all registered voters, while Senator John Kerry won Michigan by a margin equaling 3 percent of registered voters.

The combination of wide geographic dispersion and increasingly close elections means that New American, Latino, and Asian voters can play a crucial role in elections taking place in “battleground” states where neither the Democratic Party nor the Republican Party has a decisive edge.

Link(pdf)

“The campaigns, pundits and press have spent this entire election cycle searching for a new and weighty voting bloc." said Angela Kelley, Director of the Immigration Policy Center, speaking on the release of the report. "Their search is over. Step aside Soccer Moms and NASCAR Dads. New Americans are ready to vote. This group has been decades in the making and they are certain to flex their voting muscles this year”

And for any of those with doubts about the pivotal role immigration reform, and how politicians deal with it, plays in motivating this growing and politically active demographic, one simple statistic should end them: In 2006, 45% of all Latino voters between the ages of 18 and 24 either took part in, or had close family members take part in, the large-scale immigration marches that took place throughout the nation. ….Giving new meaning to the slogan, "Today We March – Tomorrow We Vote".

READ COMPLETE STUDY HERE(pdf)

READ MORE about "The New American Electorate: The Growing Political Power of Immigrants and Their Children" from Henry Fernandez at Think Progress

WATCH VIDEO of IPC panel discussion of report on C-Span HERE

Read More...

Summary only...

New study shows undocumented immigrants good for Arizona economy

We can now add Arizona to the long list of states in which recent studies prove that the current influx of immigrants, both legal and undocumented, have contributed far more in taxes than they receive in government services.

Joining studies from California, Texas, Florida, New Mexico, Washington DC, and Long Island, NY, a new report from Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy at The University of Arizona looks at the contributions and costs of Arizona's immigrant population and finds not only an overall net gain for the state, but that the loss of this population would likely cause long term economic problems.

At a time when states like Georgia, Oklahoma and Colorado, and municipalities large and small all over the country, are passing harsh legislation intended to drive off their immigrant populations, this Arizona study concludes that, in the long run, these restrictionist tactics will end up creating economic disaster for certain segments of the economy and an overall loss for all residents. These finding don't bode well for the state which already has some of the toughest anti-immigrant laws in the nation.

The study is also unique in that it breaks out the non-citizen population from the rest of the immigrant population and still comes to the same overall conclusions.

This is a important development, since one of the restrictionsts chief weapons in their war of misinformation has been the lack of information on the contributions of the undocumented versus the larger immigrant population.

This has allowed them to wrongly discount or discredit many of the previous studies by claiming that undocumented are somehow different than the broader immigrant population in their use of services or contributions.

Based on this study, the total state tax revenue attributable to immigrant workers was an estimated $2.4 billion, of which about $1.5 billion came from for non-citizens. Balanced against estimated fiscal costs of $1.4 billion (for education, health care, and law enforcement), the net 2004 fiscal impact of immigrants in Arizona was positive by about $940 million.

The 2004 total economic output attributable to immigrant workers was about $44 billion, $29 billion of that coming from non-citizens. This output included $20 billion in labor and other income and resulted in approximately 400,000 full-time-equivalent jobs.

The study also looks at what impact the removal of as little as 10-15% of the immigrant workforce would have on the state's economy. Over $.5 billion in tax revenues would be lost, 125,000 jobs and $13.5 billion of lost economic output.

Clearly, lawmakers from statehouses to city councils across the country should examine this study before they begin to contemplate the adoption of restrictionist tactics and harsh legislation when addressing this issue. …..like the old saying goes:
"Be careful what you wish for … or you just might get it."

Immigrants in Arizona: Fiscal and Economic Impacts
by Judith Gans
Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy at The University of Arizona.

Preface
Arizona’s foreign-born population has grown dramatically since 1990 when there were about 268,700 foreign-born persons in the state. By 2004, the foreign-born population had grown to 830,900. This is more than a 200 percent increase. The vast majority of these new immigrants are in the non-citizen category, which went from 163,300 to about 619,800, an increase of almost 280 percent. Most immigrants are of working age and have come to the United States seeking employment. This fact is central to their impacts in Arizona.

The likelihood that many of Arizona’s non-citizens are undocumented immigrants has fueled anger over lawlessness and made discussion of immigration in Arizona politically contentious. But Arizona’s experience is a specific case of a national problem, one that exists because large economic incentives in today’s global economy are overwhelming the U.S. immigration system – a system that is widely understood to be in need of reform. Public discourse that equates immigration and illegal immigration is narrowly focused and risks overlooking broader dimensions of the role of immigrants in the economy.

It is not the purpose of this study to address the myriad issues surrounding illegal immigration or to imply in any way that illegal immigration is not a problem. Rather, the objective of this study is to suspend, for the moment, discussion of this narrow topic and focus instead on a broader examination of all immigrants’ impacts on Arizona’s economic and fiscal health. By so doing, we hope to create a more thorough understanding of the economic costs and benefits of immigration and of the tradeoffs involved in setting and enforcing immigration policy.

In Brief

Arizona’s proximity to Mexico, the growth of its immigrant population, and the proportion of immigrants that are in the United States illegally have made immigration a contentious issue. This study is intended to step back from debates over illegal immigration and deepen our understanding of the costs and contributions of immigrants to Arizona’s economy.

Executive Summary

This report examines the costs and benefits of immigration in Arizona. It provides estimates of the of incremental fiscal cost associated with immigrants – education, health care, and law enforcement – and measures their contributions to Arizona’s economy both as consumers and as workers. The two categories of immigrants (naturalized citizens and non-citizens) are examined separately in order to disentangle the economic costs and benefits associated with each.

The bottom line

Based on this study, the total state tax revenue attributable to immigrant workers was an estimated $2.4 billion (about $860 million for naturalized citizens plus about $1.5 billion for non-citizens). Balanced against estimated fiscal costs of $1.4 billion (for education, health care, and law enforcement), the net 2004 fiscal impact of immigrants in Arizona was positive by about $940 million.

The 2004 total economic output attributable to immigrant workers was about $44 billion ($15 billion for naturalized citizens and $29 billion for non-citizens). This output included $20 billion in labor and other income and resulted in approximately 400,000 full-time-equivalent jobs.

Fiscal costs of immigration

Estimates of the incremental fiscal costs of immigration were derived from a variety of sources. In summary:

• Education: For this analysis, English Language Learner (ELL) enrollment was used as a proxy for the number of immigrant children in Arizona’s public schools. The 2004 cost of ELL education in Arizona was about $540 million of which about $350 million (65 percent) was incurred in Maricopa County.



• Health care: Total uncompensated care costs (reported as bad debt) for hospitals in Arizona was about $420 million, of which an estimated $150 million (32 percent) was incurred by immigrants. Of the $150 million in uncompensated care costs associated with immigrants, nearly $140 million was incurred by non-citizens.
  
  The total cost in 2004 of Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System (AHCCCS), Arizona’s Medicaid program, was $4.3 billion, of which an estimated $640 million was incurred by immigrants. Of the $640 million in AHCCCS costs associated with immigrants, about $480 million was incurred by non-citizens.



• Law enforcement: In the area of law enforcement, the cost to the Arizona Department of Corrections of incarcerating immigrants in 2004 was $91 million, of which $89 million was for non-citizens.

Immigrants as consumers

As consumers, immigrants bring considerable spending power to Arizona’s economy. This spending contributes to Arizona’s overall economic performance, and, in turn, generates tax revenues for the state.

• Jobs and income: Consumer spending in 2004 by naturalized citizen households in Arizona was an estimated $6.1 billion. Approximately 39,000 full-time equivalent jobs can be attributed to this spending along with $5.9 billion of output in the state’s economy.
  
  This output included labor income of $1.2 billion, and other income (defined as rents, royalties, dividends, and corporate profits) of $900 million.
  
  Consumer spending in 2004 by non-citizen households in Arizona was an estimated $4.4 billion. Approximately 28,000 full-time equivalent jobs can be attributed to this spending along with $4.3 billion of output in the state’s economy. This output included labor income of about $930 million, and other income (defined as rents, royalties, dividends, and corporate profits) of $560 million.



• Tax revenues: Consumer spending in 2004 by Arizona’s naturalized citizens generated tax revenues of approximately $460 million, consisting of personal taxes of about $49 million, sales taxes of about $210 million, and business taxes of $190 million.
  
  Consumer spending in 2004 by Arizona’s non-citizens generated tax revenues of approximately $320 million, consisting of personal taxes of nearly $36 million, sales taxes of $150 million, and business taxes of about $130 million.
  Immigrants as workers
  
  Immigrants in 2004 were 14 percent of Arizona’s workforce, and were a larger proportion of low-skilled labor in agriculture, construction, manufacturing, and certain service industries. High-skilled immigrants were a large percent of the workers in specific areas of medicine and science.

In low-skilled occupations in Arizona:

• Agriculture: Immigrants were 59 percent of the workforce in farming occupations and 22 percent of the workforce in food-preparation-and-serving occupations.


• Construction: Immigrants were between 35 percent and 41 percent of the workforce in certain construction trades such as brick masons, flooring installers, and cement masons. They were 27 percent of the workforce in all construction trades.


• Manufacturing: Immigrants were 35 percent of the workforce in food-related manufacturing, 46 percent of the workforce in textile-related manufacturing, and 22 percent of the workforce in metal-working manufacturing.


• Service industries: Immigrants were 34 percent of the workforce in occupations providing services to buildings, 51 percent of the workforce in landscaping-services occupations, and 38 percent of the workforce in building-and-grounds maintenance. Immigrants were 26 percent of the workforce in traveler-accommodations occupations, 23 percent of the workforce in restaurant-and-food-serving occupations, and 33 percent of the workforce in private-household help.

In high-skilled occupations in Arizona:

• Medicine: Immigrants were 38 percent of medical scientists and 19 percent of physicians and surgeons.


• Science: Immigrants were 36 percent of astronomers and physicists, 16 percent of computer-hardware engineers, 18 percent of computer-software engineers, and 17 percent of electrical and electronics engineers. Immigrants were 15 percent of economists.

Economic contributions of immigrant labor

Approximately $15 billion, or four percent, of the state’s output can be attributed to naturalized citizen workers, resulting in about 120,000 full-time-equivalent jobs. This output included $4.9 billion in labor income and $1.9 billion of other income in the state. State tax revenues resulting from this economic activity were approximately $860 million.

Non-citizens, for their part, contributed about $29 billion, or eight percent of Arizona’s economic output, resulting in about 280,000 full-time-equivalent jobs. Their output included $10 billion in labor income, and $3.3 billion in other property income. The state tax revenues resulting from this economic activity were approximately $1.5 billion.

The role of immigrants as workers can be further understood by analyzing the potential consequences of this source of labor not being available. In other words, what would be the impacts if immigrant labor were removed from the economy?

To this end, this study used a series of computer simulations to examine the impacts of reduced immigrant labor on the industries that employ relatively large numbers of immigrants. The study focused on industries employing low-skilled, non-citizen workers because this is where recent growth in Arizona’s immigrant population has occurred and because we know that significant numbers of these workers are in the country without authorization. Thus, the simulations are designed to estimate the economic consequences of eliminating this segment of the workforce.

• Agriculture: A 15-percent, immigrant-workforce reduction in the agriculture sector would result in direct losses of 3,300 full-time-equivalent jobs, and losses of about $600 million in output including lost labor income of about $200 million, and lost other income of about $110 million. The lost direct state tax revenue would be approximately $25 million.


• Construction: A 15-percent, immigrant-workforce reduction in the construction sector would result in direct losses of about 56,000 full-time-equivalent jobs, and about $6.6 billion in output including lost labor income of about $2.6 billion and some $450 million in lost other income. The direct lost state tax revenue would be approximately $270 million.


• Manufacturing: A ten-percent reduction in immigrants in the manufacturing workforce would result in direct losses of about 12,000 full-time-equivalent jobs, and about $3.8 billion in output including lost labor income of about $740 million, and lost other income of nearly $290 million. The lost direct state tax revenue would be approximately $100 million.


• Service industries: In the service sectors analyzed, a 16-percent reduction in the immigrant labor force would translate to direct losses of 54,000 full-time-equivalent jobs, and lost output of $2.5 billion including reduced labor income of about $900 million, and reductions in other income of about $270 million. The lost direct state tax revenue would be nearly $160 million.

Net fiscal impacts of immigrants

Total state tax revenue attributable to immigrant workers was estimated to be about $2.4 billion ($860 million for naturalized citizens plus $1.5 billion for non-citizens). Balanced against estimated incremental fiscal costs of $1.4 billion, the net 2004 fiscal impact of immigrants in Arizona was positive, by approximately $940 million.

As 14 percent of the workforce, immigrants make significant contributions to Arizona’s economy. There are also specific fiscal costs associated with immigrants. But, by virtue of their contributions as workers to Arizona’s economic output, their overall contribution to the state’s fiscal health is positive. Certainly, these impacts are changing over time, but looking at data for one year provides a snapshot of the extent and magnitude of the role of immigrants in Arizona’s economy.

Note: We have estimated the incremental (marginal) costs of immigrants as individuals. If the immigrants were not present in Arizona, these costs would disappear. Immigrants’ impacts on costs of social services, such as fire and public safety protection, are not estimated because it is not possible to measure the incremental costs attributable to immigrants for these services.

Read complete report

UPDATE: 10/16/07: 7:30 EDT

Some questions have been raised at various other sites about two aspects of this study. One is the standard question about breaking down the numbers for just the undocumented population as oppossed to the non-citizen population as a whole.

The other questioning the extrapolations made about the economic costs of losing a portion of the undocumented workforce and the possible replacement of those workers with US-born workers.

the study answers both those questions:

How much of Arizona's immigrant population is here illegally?

We do not know. The U.S. Census does not ascertain legal presence in the United States when conducting its surveys and so the non-citizen category includes both legal and illegal non-citizen immigrants. However, there are reasonable, statistically derived estimates. Research by Jeffrey Passel at the Pew Hispanic Center indicates that, in 2002, there were between 250,000 and 350,000 unauthorized immigrants in Arizona, most of whom came from Mexico, and that by 2005 their numbers had increased to as many as 500,000.

Given these numbers it's statistically safe to estimate that somewhere around 80% of the non-citizen population is in fact undocumented in Arizona. This allows us to extrapolate the statistics given on the "non-citizen" population to see what's occurring with just the undocumented portion of that population.

As to the extrapolations made about the effects of the removal of the undocumented population on the economy and the likelihood that US-born workers would step up to fill the gap:

Our analysis to this point has focused on measuring the portion of Arizona's economic activity attributable to immigrants in its workforce. This raises the following question: would the jobs filled by immigrants be taken instead by native-born workers if immigrants were not part of the labor force in Arizona? The answer to this question is complex but largely depends on the availability of native-born workers with skills similar to Educational attainment data, both for Arizona and for the United States, indicate that immigrants and native-born workers tend to have different skills, with immigrants filling specific gaps in the native-born workforce by providing needed low-skilled and high-skilled workers. Immigrants in Arizona are an important source of low-skilled labor and of specific high-skilled labor that is relatively scarce in the native-born population and thus are vital to the total output of the industries that employ them. It is difficult to make the case that all or even most jobs filled by immigrants would, instead, be filled by native-born workers if immigrant workers were not available.

Read More...

Summary only...

New Report Looks at Growth of Nativism in Congress

A new report from Building Democracy Initiative examines the growing role of nativism in national politics. Chronicling the rise of the House Immigration Reform Caucus, the BDI report, Nativism in the House: A Report on the House Immigration Reform Caucus examines not only the growing influence of nativist and xenophobic philosophies in national politics, but the concerted effort of the far-right to bring their extreme ideological agenda to the forefront .

The "report tells us much regarding the shape that "immigration politics" and public policy is likely to take in the foreseeable future. The Caucus's extreme ideological agenda, long-standing ties to anti-immigrant groups, and cohesion in a fractured House of Representatives makes it a noxious ingredient in the melting pot of America. It has drawn even well-intentioned immigration reform proposals down into an abyss of nativism and xenophobia."

Nativism in the House: A Report on the House Immigration Reform Caucus

In the ebb and flow of nativist politics, the House Immigration Reform Caucus has been one of the most powerful and significant forces on Capitol Hill. With 110 congressmen and women as of this report, its members constitute fully one quarter of the House of Representatives. Members have introduced some of the most punitive legislation proposed during the last two House sessions. Their past chairman, Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.), is now running for president and participating in national debates. Their current chairman, Rep. Brian Bilbray (R-Calif.), is a former lobbyist for the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). Some of its members have helped legitimize vigilante organizations such as the Minutemen. While voters tend to view their representatives as individuals or by party affiliation, the members of the House Caucus have acted as a bloc. Collectively, they have stood athwart the legislative process, preventing the emergence of meaningful and humane policy choices. And they have gone all the while virtually unnoticed.

In this report, the Center for New Community's Building Democracy Initiative examines the House Immigration Reform Caucus.

The Anti-Immigrant Movement Sets the Stage

From the emergence of a new nativist movement in the late 1970s, groups such as the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) have sought influence inside Washington D.C….

…Today, a dozen anti-immigrant organizations maintain national profiles. These groups have combined annual budgets of over twelve million dollars, and an active donor base of between six hundred thousand and seven hundred fifty thousand. As these national groups have expanded their influence, the number of state and local organizations has jumped up. Between January of 2005 and January of 2007, such groups have increased in number by 600 percent.

Formation of the Congressional Immigration Reform Caucus and Rep. Tom Tancredo

…Tom Tancredo founded the Congressional Immigration Reform Caucus (hereinafter the Caucus or HIRC) in May 1999, soon after he began his first term as a Republican congressman from Colorado's Sixth District. During its first years, the Caucus had few members and served largely as a platform for Tancredo's views on immigration….

On August 1, 2001—five weeks before the events of 9-11—Tancredo introduced H.R. 2712, a bill intended to begin a moratorium on legal immigration, according to the Library of Congress' THOMAS website. Much of the recent public discussion on immigration policy has been voiced about "illegal" immigration. The particulars of this bill, however, demonstrate that opposition to legal entry remains an integral part of so-called immigration reform. This initial proposal would have cut the number of visas issued for family-sponsored immigrants to zero. And it would have cut the visas for "priority workers" to zero. The bill was referred to committee, however, and went nowhere. Undeterred, Tancredo introduced H.R. 3222 on November 1, 2001 with the intention of sharply reducing the number of H1-B visas issued to high-tech professionals. That bill also was referred and died in a subcommittee.

It is useful to remember that questions related to immigration have always been intertwined with questions of national identity. As Rep. Tancredo told one interviewer, "…if we don't control immigration, legal and illegal, we will eventually reach the point where it won't be what kind of a nation we are, balkanized or united, we will have to face the fact that we are no longer a nation at all…" His is a sentiment which has been oft repeated by members of the HIRC….

The year 2005 was a watershed year for the anti-immigrant movement. In April, the Minuteman organization was launched with an armed civilian "border watch" in Arizona. Although President Bush described the Minutemen as "vigilantes," the HIRC defended and praised the group in a "Field Report" entitled "Results and Implications of the Minuteman Project." In a separate statement, Caucus member Phil Gingrey (R-Ga.) said, "The Minuteman Project is a shining example of how community initiative and involvement can help make America a safer, better place to live." The sentiment was echoed by the eight other congressmen cited in the press release.

Also in 2005, Tancredo personally introduced a resolution proposing that the Constitution be amended to establish English as the "official language," another resolution "recognizing the importance of Western civilization," legislation to enhance border enforcement and curtail H1-B visas, as well as several amendments aimed at changing federal enforcement policies. He introduced eleven different measures in all, none of which succeeded. But Tancredo had raised the flag of the anti-immigrant movement within Congress. By August, the Caucus registry had grown to 82 members of the House.

By December of that year, the House passed H.R. 4437, known popularly as the "Sensenbrenner Bill." James Sensenbrenner, a Republican from Wisconsin's 5th District, was first elected to congress in 1978, and was chairman of the House Judiciary Committee at the time. He was not then, and is not now, a member of Tancredo's Immigration Reform Caucus. Nevertheless, H.R. 4437 was widely regarded by both immigrant rights activists and moderates as an unnecessarily harsh bill that was unlikely to pass in the Senate. It would have turned undocumented immigrants into felons (current law considers this violation a misdemeanor) and thus make them ineligible for citizenship in the future. It would have also criminalized anyone who gave them assistance of any kind, including providing them with simple social welfare or routine medical services. The bill also called for the construction of 700 miles of fencing on the southern border.

The debate in Congress became so vicious that even conservatives were forced to comment on its racism. "Some anti-immigrant Republicans are guilty of demagoguery and racism," one Republican governor, Mike Huckabee from Arkansas, told the press.

Read the complete report; Nativism in the House: A Report on the House Immigration Reform Caucus

Read More...

Summary only...

MPI releases data on merit based point systems for immigration

The Migration Policy Institute, a non-profit think tanks that studies global migration and refugee policies , has released a report that sheds some additional light on the proposed "merit system" contained in the compromise immigration reform legislation now being debated in the Senate.

The report, authored by the Institute's President, Demetrios Papademetriou, who is viewed as a leading expert on the use of point systems internationally and has advised more than 20 countries on their immigration policies, looks at how point systems work in general, and more importantly examines recent US immigration trends to see how various immigrant groups from around the world would be effected by the new proposal.

The MPI backgrounder titled, "Proposed Points System and Its Likely Impact on Prospective Immigrants", looks at the current demographic data on the foreign born in the United States as it relates to the immigrant selection criteria expected to be part of "merit system" proposal. These include age, educational attainment, occupation, English proficiency, and labor force participation.

In the report, Papademetriou sets four criteria by which to judge the effectiveness of any point based system:

Things To Watch For

At the end of the day, points selection systems are a bit like government budgets: They tell the reader where a government and a society’s priorities lie. The following are the things to watch for in that regard:

1. The “pass mark,” that is, the points total one would have to earn in order to be admitted to the United States. Setting a high pass mark would likely disqualify applicants with fewer formal skills and less education  but skills which may nonetheless be essential. If the pass mark is allowed to fluctuate (the term of art is “float”) those with the highest formal qualifications and degrees will crowd out all others.

2. The overall number of visas allocated to points selected immigrants. The supply of visas would always be lower than the demand for them by people eager to come to the United States. However, if the number of visas allocated and the difficultly of obtaining sufficient points for entry are not aligned, and not all who earn enough points to qualify for visas can obtain them, the immigration system would once again become clogged by large and growing backlogs.

3. The internal distribution of points—both the categories chosen but, more importantly, the weight distribution within each category. Allocating many points for education but few for employment in high-demand occupations such as carpenters and home health aides, for example, would skew the immigration system toward the high-skilled. Allocating many points for age (youth) or for participation in a proposed apprenticeship program but fewer for employment in a specialty occupation requiring a college degree would skew immigration toward the low skilled. Small changes in the allocation of points could have very large ramifications for the composition of immigrants granted entry through a merit-based system.

4. Mechanisms for revising or adjusting the system. Many of the current problems in the US immigration system – visa supply being out of line with labor force supply and demand, high rates of illegal immigration, persistent backlogs, and systemic delays  all have roots in the inflexibility of the current immigration system. Revisions to the immigration system can happen more quickly and with less national anguish if flexibility is built into the statute and Congress does not need to revisit immigration law on a regular basis in order to update laws to match constantly changing social, economic, and demographic realities. The qualifications desired of immigrants in 2009 may not be the qualifications desired in 2012 or 2020, so the ability to review the points system and revise as needed/desired would become crucial.

Proposed Points System and Its Likely Impact on Prospective Immigrants, Immigration Policy Institute

In light of MPI's criteria for effective point systems, we must look at exactly what has been proposes in the current legislation.

The proposed merit system is intended to replace the current "employment based" system for allotting green cards which has relied on employer sponsorship as well as other criteria for determining eligibility. Under the proposed legislation the current number of employment based green cards of 140,000 would be replaced as follows:

Merit worldwide ceiling: Sets 3 different worldwide ceiling levels.

First five fiscal years post-enactment will be set at the level made available during FY05 ( 247K).

• 10K set aside for exceptional Y guestworker visa holders (although Y program won’t be up and running for at least 18 months – 2 years)


• 90K set aside for reduction of employment-based backlog existing on date of enactment


Next 3 or 4 fiscal years (until first undocumented Z visas can start adjusting), sets level at 140K

• 10K set aside for exceptional Y visa holders


• 90K set aside for employment-based reduction of backlog existing on date of enactment


Once undocumented start adjusting (outside the worldwide ceilings), sets level at 380K

• 10K set aside for exceptional Y visa holders

These future green cards would then be issued using the following merit based point criteria:

Section 502. Merit-Based Evaluation System for Immigrants

Eliminates employment preference categories 1, 2, and 3 and replaces it with a merit-based preference system.

Eliminates the labor certification process. Maintains the special immigrant and EB-5 categories but cuts their numbers (total of 7,000 available annually).

Merit points are initially assigned as follows with a total of 100 points that could be earned:

Employment: 47 maximum total points can be earned for:

• U.S. employment in a specialty occupation (20 points)


• U.S. employment in a high demand occupation (16 points)


• U.S. employment in a science, technology, engineering, mathematics (STEM) or health-related field, current for at least one year (8 points)


• From employer willing to pay 50% of LPR application fee: U.S. job offer or U.S. employer attestation for current employee (6 points)


• U.S. work experience (2 points per year/10 points max)


• Age of worker between 25-39 (3 points)

Education: 28 maximum total points can be earned for:

• Advanced Graduate degree (20 points)


• Bachelor’s degree (16 points)


• Associate’s degree (10 points)


• High School diploma/GED (6 points)


• Certified vocational degree (5 points)


• DOL registered apprenticeship (8 points)


• Associate’s degree or above in STEM field (8 points)

English/Civics: 15 total points can be earned for:

• Native English speaker or TOEFL score 75 or above (15 points)


• TOEFL score 60-75 (10 points)


• Pass USCIS Citizenship test in English and civics (6 points)

Extended Family: for those with total of 55 or above in above categories, 10 total points can be earned for:

• Adult (21 or over) child of USC (8 points)


• Adult (21 or over) child of LPR (6 points)


• Sibling of USC or LPR (4 points)


• Visa application in any category above after May 1, 2005 (2 points)

In addition, the following allocation has been set aside for the new Z visa category:

Agricultural Work: 25 total points can be earned for:

• Agricultural work for 3 years, 150 days/year (21 points)


• Agricultural work for 4 years, 150 days for 3 years, plus 100 days for 1 year (23points)


• Agricultural work for 5 years, 100 days per year (25 points)

U.S. Employment: 15 total points can be earned for:

• 1 point per year of lawful U.S. employment

Home Ownership: 5 total points can be earned for:

• 1 point per year of ownership of place of residence in U.S.

Medical Insurance: 5 points total can be earned for:

• Current medical insurance for entire family (5 points)

Gives DHS authority to establish regulations regarding petition process for merit-based system and creates a standing commission on immigration and labor markets for evaluating the relative weighting and selection criteria included in the point system. Petitions that have not been granted within a 3 year period are deemed denied.

Section-by-Section Summary of the Senate “Grand Bargain” Bill , AILA

Given the details as presented thus far in the legislation it has obviously not met MPI's first test. The legislation makes no mention whatsoever of a "pass mark" or how these points are to be evaluated. Are the top 140,000 applicants in a given fiscal year to be accepted? Is there a minimum "grade" that must be attained? Will the "pass mark" float? These are all questions that should be answered in the legislation before any serious consideration of this proposal can be made.

So just how will this merit system effect future immigration patterns?

MPI looked at the demographic data from recent immigration and found that the merit system as written will favor certain immigrant groups while making it much more dificult for others to enter.

Some Initial Observations From The Data

The question everyone is trying to answer can be posed most simply (and directly) as follows: In applying the new admissions’ criteria to those who entered during the past 15 years, what would the impacts be on groups with different skill and education mixes?

Immigrants from many Asian countries would likely fare well under a points system as it is currently being described.

• Two-fifths of all recent Asian immigrants to the United States (i.e., those who entered since 1990), and at least one-third from the top five Asian sending countries are in the age range (25-39) that would garner points under the proposed system.

• Over half of recent immigrants from China, the Philippines, and Korea, and 76 percent from India have a bachelor’s or higher degree. If we add those with associates’ degrees, the strong educational advantage of a points system for Asians widens further. (Vietnam is the only significant exception in this regard.)

• The majority of recent immigrants from the Philippines and India report speaking English “very well” and would fare well under a points system.

• About half of recent immigrants from India work in IT, science and engineering, or healthcare occupations, while another 20 percent work in other professional occupations. About one-quarter of recent immigrants from the Philippines work in healthcare occupations. Employment within each of these occupations is preferred under the proposed points system. About one-quarter of recent immigrants from China work in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics occupations, while another quarter work in other professional occupations.

Immigrants from Latin American countries will likely face more difficulties in obtaining entry through the points system, depending on how categories are weighted. Age and occupational characteristics may benefit immigrants from this area, while formal educational attainment and English ability may become barriers.

• More than two-fifths of recent Central American/Caribbean and South American immigrants are in the preferred age range of 25-39. Forty-eight percent of recent Mexican immigrants and 53 percent of recent Salvadoran immigrants are 25 to 39 years of age, as are 48 percent of recent immigrants from both Brazil and Ecuador.

• The vast majority of recent immigrants from South America have at least a high school diploma, and 31 percent have a bachelor’s or higher degree. However, just 45 percent of recent immigrants from Central America and the Caribbean have a high school diploma or higher. Cuban and Dominican immigrants are exceptions in this regard, with high relative rates of college education compared to other countries in the region.

• The vast majority (about 80 percent) of Central American/Caribbean recent immigrants and a strong majority (about 60 percent) of South American recent immigrants lack English proficiency. The trend holds true for the top five sending countries from both areas, with the exception of immigrants from Venezuela, 44 percent of whom report that they are proficient in English. Only 15 percent of recent Mexican immigrants are proficient in English.

• The occupations common among Central American and Caribbean immigrants may earn points under the “high demand” occupation category. Most of the occupations expected to experience the highest job growth over the next ten years require only on-the-job training. The majority of Central American/Caribbean immigrants work in such lowerskill, high-growth occupations as construction, extraction, transportation, service, manufacturing, and installation. Extremely small shares of immigrants from the largest sending countries in the region work in preferred science, engineering, or health occupations.

• The occupations of South American immigrants follow a similar trend to those for Central American and Caribbean immigrants, though slightly higher shares of South Americans work in mid-level or high-skill occupations.

While the United States has received relatively few immigrants from Africa, those who have entered have language, age, and educational characteristics that could help them earn points for entry.

• As with the other world regions examined, about two-fifths of recent African immigrants fall in the preferred age range of 25-39.

• Recent African immigrants tend to be well educated. Thirty-eight percent of all recent African immigrants have a bachelor’s or higher degree, and fully two-thirds have some college education. Those from Nigeria, Egypt, and South Africa have the highest levels of educational attainment among the top African sending countries: over half from each have a bachelor’s or higher degree. Fewer Ethiopian immigrants have bachelor’s degrees – under a quarter – but 60 percent do have some college education.

• English proficiency tends to vary by country but is high overall. Eighty-seven percent of recent Nigerian immigrants, and 96 percent of South African immigrants are English proficient, while just over half from Ethiopia and Egypt are English proficient. Looking at all recent African immigrants, two-thirds are English proficient.

• About 15 percent of African immigrants work in preferred health occupations (27 percent of Nigerian immigrants do so) while the great majority of African immigrants work in low-skill occupations. Very small shares work in science or engineering occupations, though those from South Africa have higher rates of professional occupations than immigrants from other parts of Africa.

Proposed Points System and Its Likely Impact on Prospective Immigrants, Immigration Policy Institute

While there will certainly be intense debate over this hotly contested issue in Washington, we can only hope that those trying to craft this legislation do so not solely with an eye to the next election cycle, or the local polls in their state or district... but with the best interests of both the American people and those who will be future Americans in mind.

Related:

Annual Immigration to the United States: The Real Numbers, MPI, May, 2007

Selecting Economic Stream Immigrants through Points Systems, MPI, May, 2007

A "high demand occupation" as defined in the legislation is one listed on the Bureau of Labor Statistics top 30 projected 10 year growth occupations:

BLS Occupations with the largest job growth, 2004–14

41-2031Retail salesperson
29-111 Registered nurses
25-1000 Postsecondary teachers
43-4051 Customer service representative
37-2011 Janitors and cleaners, except maids and housekeeping cleaners
35-3031 Waiters and waitresses
35-3021 Combined food preparation and serving workers, including fast food
31-1011 Home health aids
31-1012 Nursing aids, orderlies and attendants
11-1021 General and operations managers experienced
39-9021 Personal and home aides
25-2021 Elementary school teachers, except special education
13-2011 Accountants and auditors
43-9061 Office clerks, general
53-3032 Laborers and freight stock, and material movers, hand
43-4171 Receptionists and information clerks
37-3011 Landscaping and groundskeeping workers
53-3032 Truck drivers, heavy and tractor trailer
15-1031 Computer software engineers, applications
49-9042 Maintenance and repair workers, general
31-9092 Medical assistants
43-6011 Executive secretaries and administrative assistants
41-4012 Sales representatives, wholesale and manufacturing, except technical and scientific products
47-2031 Carpenters
25-9041 Teachers assistants
39-9011 Child care workers
35-2021 food preparation workers
37-2012 Maids and housekeeping cleaners
53-3033 Truck driver light or delivery services
15-1051 Computer systems analysts

Occupational employment
projections to 2014, table #3 Bureau of Labor Statistics

Read More...

Summary only...

New study: Immigrants little effect on jobs of US high school dropouts

One of the most contentious arguments in the debate over the economic effects of immigration has been whether the influx new immigrants has had an adverse effect on the wages of native-born workers with the lowest levels of education. It has been widely accepted that for those native workers at the higher levels education and job skills, immigrants generally provide economic benefits, but the debate over how they effect those who labor at low-skill jobs or jobs requiring less educational attainment has fostered debate.

A new study from Giovanni Peri of the University of California, Davis and Chad Sparber of Colgate University has tackled this thorny issue and found that foreign and native-born workers with similarly low educational attainment in fact compliment each other in the workforce rather than compete.

This idea of "complimentary skills" is not a new one and has been examined not only by Professor Peri before, but numerous other economists. This study differs from those in that it contains forty years of data and looked at the actual tasks performed by each class of workers to see what jobs were being done by native-born workers as opposed to foreign born workers.

The study found that foreign born workers perform more manual and physical tasks, while native-born workers do tasks that are more language-intensive and interactive, and that native-born workers benefit from this specialization.

The study also examines the work of economist George Borjas that claimed that immigrant labor decreased the overall wages of less educated native workers by 8%. Peri and Sparber found that overall, the negative effects of foreign workers was only 0.7%.

Documented and undocumented immigration has significantly affected US labor supply during the last few decades, though the economic effects of this immigration remain subject to debate. The most contentious issue is whether the particularly large inflow of immigrants with low levels of schooling has decreased the wage of native-born workers with similarly low educational attainment. If workers’ skills are differentiated only by their level of educational attainment, and workers of different skill levels are imperfectly substitutable, then a large flow of immigrants with limited schooling should reward more educated natives and hurt less educated ones.

This intuitive approach receives support in papers by George Borjas (2003, 2006) and George Borjas and Larry Katz (2005), which argue that immigration reduced real wages paid to native-born workers with no high school degree by four to five percent between 1980 and 2000. In contrast, Card (2001) and Lewis and Card (2005) employ city and state level data and find almost no effect of immigration on the relative wages of less educated workers. Moreover, their results are robust to the migration decisions of native-born workers, as they find that natives do not choose to move to areas with fewer immigrants. Thus, the relationship between immigration and wages appears to be more nuanced.

Ottaviano and Peri (2006) note that the effect of immigration depends crucially on the degree of substitution between native and foreign-born workers within each education group. That is, workers’ skills may be differentiated by more than traditional measurable characteristics such as educational attainment (and experience level). Native and foreign-born workers may have quite different skills, leading them to specialize in different productive tasks. For example, immigrants — particularly those with low levels of formal schooling — are likely to have inadequate language skills, imperfect knowledge of productive networks, and only limited awareness of social norms and intricacies of productive interactions. However, they have manual and physical skills similar to those of native-born workers. Therefore, foreign-born workers have a comparative advantage in occupations performing manual labor intensive tasks. On the other hand, native workers with little education will have a much better mastering of the language, local norms, rules, and networks. Thus, they have an advantage in performing interactive and coordination tasks. If less educated immigrants work in occupations that mostly perform manual tasks, natives move to occupations requiring more interactive tasks, and the two types of tasks are complements in production, then native workers can protect themselves against wage competition and benefit from immigration through specialization.

Though the assumptions in Ottaviano and Peri (2006) seem reasonable and are supported by anecdotal evidence, they require empirical verification. This paper employs US data for all 50 states (plus the District of Columbia) from 1960 to 2000 to determine whether task-specialization among native and foreign-born workers truly occurs.

…snip…

The data strongly support three key implications of our theory, which we formalize in a simple model in the first section of the paper. In states with large inflows of less educated immigrants: i) less educated native-born workers shifted their supply towards interactive tasks; ii) the total supply of manual relative to interactive skills increased at a faster rate than in states with low immigration and iii) the wage paid to manual relative to interactive tasks decreased. Less educated natives have responded to immigration by upgrading their occupations. That is, they leave manual task-intensive occupations for interaction-intensive ones. Given the positive wage effect of specializing in interactive skills, this shift augmented real wages paid to native-born workers.

..snip…

Finally, we use the structure of our model and our empirical results to calculate the effect of immigration and the related adjustment in task supply on average wages paid to native-born workers with a high school degree or less. Task complementarities and changes in native-born task supply together imply that the wage impact of immigration is quite small. These findings agree with those of Card (2001), Card and Lewis (2006), and Ottaviano and Peri (2006). At the same time they enrich the structural framework to analyze the effect of immigration first proposed by Borjas (2003) and then used in Borjas and Katz (2005), Ottaviano and Peri (2006), and Peri (2007).

…snip…

Our empirical analysis employed a dataset developed by Autor, Levy, and Murnane (2003) that measures the task-content of occupations in the United States between 1960 and 2000. We find strong evidence supporting three implications of our theoretical model:

i) On average, less educated immigrants supplied more manual relative to interactive tasks than natives
supplied. This tendency became stronger during the 1980s and 1990s.

ii) In states with large immigration among the less educated labor force, native workers shifted to occupations
intensive in interactive tasks, thereby reducing native workers’ relative supply of manual tasks. In states with
low immigration, native-born workers maintained a higher relative supply of manual tasks.

iii) In states with large immigration among the less educated labor force, there is a larger relative supply
of manual production tasks than in states with low levels of immigration. This implies that immigrants more
than compensate for the reduced manual skill supply among natives, and it ensures that manual task-intensive
occupations earn lower wages.

Since native-born workers respond to inflows of immigrant labor by specializing in interactive tasks, wage losses associated with immigration are minimal. Immigration caused wages paid to native-born workers with less than a high school degree to drop by just 0.7% between 1990 and 2000.

Comparative Advantages and Gains from Immigration Giovanni Peri (University of California, Davis and NBER), Chad Sparber (Colgate University) April, 2007
alternative link

Read More...

Summary only...

New study looks at Hispanic immigration impact on Long Island

When talk turns to immigration and immigration reform more often than not the discussion will revolve around the border states or California with its large Latino population, or even the southeast where the recent influx of new immigrants has sparked backlash and controversy. But rarely do people think of traditional immigrant gateways like New York. Yet, every year New York is in the top three states for the number of foreign born residents both legal and illegal, and as anyone with even a cursory knowledge of the state can figure out, the bulk of those immigrants live in and around the NYC area.

Over the past 25 years, one region that has seen the greatest increase in immigrant population, and particularly in Latino immigrant population, has been Long Island. Originally a prototype for the mostly white, middle and working-class, suburban communities that sprung up in post-war America, Long Island has matured over time into a much more diverse, multi-ethnic, immigrant gateway. Today it is home to one of the fastest growing Latino populations in the nation made up of both new immigrants and native born.

A new study from the Horace Hagedorn Foundation and Adelphi University takes an in-depth look at over twenty five years of Latino immigration to Long Island and it's effects on the economic growth of the region.

In 1980, fewer than one out of every twenty Long Islanders was Hispanic. Today, the proportion is nearly one in eight. This rapid demographic change has resulted in increased ethnic tension and anti-immigrant sentiment. Suffolk County Executive Steve Levy recently made national headlines by sponsoring legislation that would make it illegal for businesses with contracts with the county to employ undocumented immigrants. Congressional Representative Peter King, one of the nation's most vocal opponents to immigration reform, co-sponsored last years House immigration bill, H.R. 4437, that sparked protests throughout the country.

While King and Levy pander to the lowest impulses of human nature, the new study, "The Economic Impact Of The Hispanic Population On Long Island, New York" from Mariano Torras, Ph.D.,of Adelphi University and economist Curtis Skinner, Ph.D. shows that rather than lowering the quality of life for Long Islanders, over 25 years of Latino immigration has brought great benefits.

The study takes a comprehensive look at how continuing immigration effects a mature “immigrant gateway”, focusing on the demographics and economic effects of Latino immigration in the area.

Executive Summary

Long Island’s Hispanic population has grown dramatically in recent years, led by new immigration from Latin America. Indeed, Hispanics have emerged as the major source of demographic growth for the region—excluding new Hispanic residents, Long Island would have lost, rather than gained, people since 1980. The new Hispanic presence is visible both in cities and villages with established Hispanic populations and in smaller and more remote communities, especially in Suffolk County.

As workers, consumers, entrepreneurs and taxpayers, Hispanics make important contributions to the Long Island economy. Hispanic residents add nearly $5.7 billion to total Long Island output as a result of their consumer spending. Hispanic employment continues to grow very rapidly—increasing by almost one third from 2000 to 2004 alone—and Hispanic workers are an important presence in diverse regional industries, including Manufacturing, Accommodation and Food Services, Landscaping Services and Construction. Hispanic-owned business is also booming in the region, posting almost $2 billion in sales in 2002. In addition, Long Island Hispanic residents contribute positively to local government budgets. This study finds that Hispanics contribute $614 more per resident to local revenues than they receive in local expenditures on education, health care and corrections.

The importance of Hispanic Long Islanders to the regional economy will only deepen as this population continues to grow in the years ahead. This study documents the extraordinary recent changes in the region’s Hispanic residents and describes the key demographic characteristics of this population. It then quantifies the Hispanic population’s contributions to production, employment and new business creation on Long Island. The report concludes by analyzing the Hispanic contribution to local government revenues and costs.

Among the study’s major findings:

Demographics: The Long Island Hispanic population tripled to nearly 330,000 residents since 1980, and it now represents approximately 12 percent of the general population.

• The rate of increase was far greater than that for the Long Island population as a whole and significantly more rapid than the Hispanic population growth rate nationwide.



• Immigrants from Central America, the Caribbean, and South America accounted for almost half of the growth in Long Island’s Hispanic population since 1980.



• Sixty-five percent of Nassau County’s Hispanics lived in Hempstead town in the year 2000, while 68 percent of Hispanics in Suffolk lived in either Brookhaven or Islip.



• Almost half of all Long Island Hispanics are in the “prime working age” category of 18 to 44, compared to only a little more than one third of all Long Islanders.

Entrepreneurship: From 1997 to 2002, the number of Hispanic-owned businesses in Long Island rose by almost 35%, and total sales and receipts by 21%.

• Growth was especially strong in Suffolk County, where the number of firms increased by 51% and sales by 39%.



• Long Island Hispanic-owned businesses earned almost $2 billion in sales and receipts, and employed an estimated 25,000 people.

Economic Impact: Long Island’s Hispanic population contributed an average of $614 more per resident than it received in local expenditures on education, health care and corrections.

• The buying power of Long Island Hispanics in 2004 amounted to $4.4 billion. Hispanic spending produced an economic impact of nearly $5.7 billion—of which more than $3.2 billion was in Suffolk County—and created more than 52,000 jobs.



• In 2004 Hispanics contributed about $925 million in taxes and other government revenues (directly and indirectly), while costing Nassau and Suffolk local governments (counties, towns/cities, villages and school districts) about $723 million for K-12 education ($520 million), health care ($158 million), and corrections ($45 million). The net benefit to Long Island was about $202 million.

The Economic Impact Of The Hispanic Population On Long Island, New York, Horace Hagedorn Foundation

Read More...

Summary only...

New report from CRS casts doubts on immigration restrictionists claims.

One often wonders when listening to various politicians pontificate about immigration reform, exactly what information they are basing their policies and positions on. Given the conflicting information coming from both partisan and academic sources, it would appear a daunting task to get reliable, non-biased information about the issue. A recently released report from the Congressional Research Service provides a unique glimpse into what our legislators are reading about the issue. "Unauthorized Aliens in the United States: Estimates Since 1986", compiled by the legislative branch's own research agency, not only looks at the increase in unauthorized migration during the period between 1986 and 2004, but analyzes some of the reasons for it.

Additionally, the report critiques some immigration policies, past, present and proposed, to determine their effectiveness. Not surprisingly, some of the most often advocated policies have failed in the past and show no sign of succeeding in the future.

So why do certain politicians continue to advocate for them?

In recent months, at the urging of immigration restrictionists, the administration has launched a series of workplace raids leading to numerous arrests and deportations. The rationale behind the crack-down being that the ready availability of jobs and employers willing to skirt the law, are major factors in drawing undocumented immigrants to the US. But the CRS finds that this theory is hard to backup with any hard empirical data.

The research points to a constellation of factors that have contributed to the increase in unauthorized resident aliens. Historically, unauthorized migration is generally attributed to the “push-pull” of prosperity-fueled job opportunities in the United States in contrast to limited or nonexistent job opportunities in the sending countries. Some observers maintain that lax enforcement of employer sanctions for hiring unauthorized aliens has facilitated this “push-pull,” but it is difficult to empirically demonstrate this element. Political instability or civil unrest at home is another element that traditionally has induced people to risk unauthorized migration, but the motives for such migrations are sometimes mixed with the economic hardships that are often correlated with political upheaval.

CRS also looks at the cornerstone of immigration restrictionist policy; tighter border control. With constant calls for increased spending on enforcement, the building of walls, and militarization of the border, the CRS found that contrary to stemming the tide of undocumented migrants, these policies have in fact increased the population of unauthorized residents.

Although most policy makers have assumed that tighter border enforcement would reduce unauthorized migration, some researchers are now suggesting that the strengthening of the immigration enforcement provisions, most notably by the enactment of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA), may have inadvertently increased the population of unauthorized resident aliens. This perspective argues that IIRIRA’s increased penalties for illegal entry coupled with increased resources for border enforcement stymied what had been a rather fluid movement of migratory workers along the southern border; this in turn raised the stakes in crossing the border illegally and created an incentive for those who succeed in entering the United States to stay.

The report notes that the number of unauthorized residents remained relatively flat during the first ten years following the passage of the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986. Except for a dip to 1.9 million immediately following IRCA's legalization program, the number hovered at a little under 3.5 million until the stricter enforcement measures of the IIRIRA were implemented in 1996. Since then the numbers have only continued to climb.

(Editors note: It's interesting to note that although not mentioned in the report, the increase also coincides with the enactment of NAFTA)



Many of the restrictionists other assertions, mainly those revolving around a lack of enforcement, often claimed to be contributing factors to increased numbers of unauthorized residents are deemed "elusive factors" that are difficult to measure and prove.

Some observers point to more elusive factors — such as shifts in immigration enforcement priorities away from illegal entry to removing suspected terrorists and criminal aliens or discussions of possible “amnesty” legislation — when they assess the increase of unauthorized resident aliens. Others argue that border security measures enacted in recent years have not received adequate funding to be effective against unauthorized migration, and some maintain that state and local law enforcement officers have not been sufficiently involved in apprehending illegal aliens. Some would make illegal presence an aggravated felony. Still others assert that there has not been sufficient funding and staffing for enforcement of immigration laws in the interior of the country. It is difficult to measure whether, or to what extent, these other phenomena have contributed to the increase in unauthorized resident aliens

The report also examines a factor that has led to increasing numbers of unauthorized residents that's rarely discussed by politicians and pundits: The glaring flaws in the way the immigration system is administered.

Another contributing factor — best represented by the “quasi-legal” aliens discussed above — is the wait-times for immigrant petitions to be processed and visas to become available to legally come to the United States. There are statutory ceilings that limit the number of immigrant visas issued each year. There are also significant backlogs in processing petitions due to the high volume of aliens eligible to immigrate to the United States and the large number eligible to become U.S. citizens. Of the pending cases, reportedly almost 2 million are immediate relative and family preference petitions. Many observe that these family members sometimes risk residing without legal status with their family in the United States while they wait for the petitions to be processed or visas to become available.

These findings come not from a partisan think tank or advocacy group, but rather the agency tasked by congress to gather unbiased information for the purpose of enacting informed legislation. The CRS website explains their mission:

The Congressional Research Service is the public policy research arm of the United States Congress. As a legislative branch agency within the Library of Congress, CRS works exclusively and directly for Members of Congress, their Committees and staff on a confidential, nonpartisan basis.

History and Mission

Congress created CRS in order to have its own source of nonpartisan, objective analysis and research on all legislative issues. Indeed, the sole mission of CRS is to serve the United States Congress. CRS has been carrying out this mission since 1914, when it was first established as the Legislative Reference Service. Renamed the Congressional Research Service by the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970, CRS is committed to providing the Congress, throughout the legislative process, comprehensive and reliable analysis, research and information services that are timely, objective, nonpartisan, and confidential, thereby contributing to an informed national legislature.
CRS

Given that tax payers dollars are spent to provide Congress with reliable and non-partisan information on the pressing issues of the day in hopes that legislators make informed and knowledgeable decisions regarding public policy, why is it that so many of our current legislators chose to ignore their own research in favor of flawed and biased information that will certainly lead to unsound policies doomed to fail before even enacted? Mr. Tancredo…are you listening?

tags: immigration, CRS , reports, effects of immigration

Read More...

Summary only...

Southern Poverty Law Center finds guest worker program close to slavery

There is no more divisive issue for advocates of progressive immigration reform than the policy of temporary guest workers. As a cornerstone the President's proposed immigration policy, it's been viewed with intense suspicion by many on the left. Some immigration rights advocates, such as Cecilia Muñoz, head of National Council of La Raza see Bush's guest worker program as the best hope to allow future immigrants to enter the country legally and eventually be put on a path to citizenship. Other's see it as dangerous policy, ripe with opportunities for abuse.

Even amongst organize labor, which generally supports legalization of all current undocumented workers and other progressive reforms, there is a divide when it comes to guest workers. The Service Employees International Union (SEIU) has strongly advocated for a modified guest worker program, while the AFL-CIO opposes one.

The Southern Poverty Law Center now weights in on the debate with a report that examines the current H2 visa program which brought approximately 121,000 guestworkers into the United States in 2005. The report released this week called; "Close to Slavery" found widespread abuse and exploitation of the program.

Back in January, Andy Stern, head of the Service Employees International Union, sent a letter to Sen. Ted Kennedy, who is working to craft a new immigration reform bill for this legislative session, laying out his union's position on immigration reform and recommendations for any future guestworker program:

SEIU recognizes the need for new workers in the low-wage sector of our expanding economy. However, any new worker program must include worker protections including: portability of visas so that workers can change jobs, the right to join unions and have full labor rights, the right to bring their families with them, and the ability to self-petition for permanent residency and citizenship. SEIU

But according to the SPLC, without carefully written protections and strict enforcement of labor standards any new guest worker program will be ripe for the same kind of exploitation that's prevalent in the current system. Based on interviews with thousands of guestworkers, the report found a pattern or widespread exploitation, deplorable living conditions, and a system that amounts to little more than indentured servitude.

… the United States already has a guestworker program for unskilled laborers — one that is largely hidden from view because the workers are typically socially and geographically isolated. Before we expand this system in the name of immigration reform, we should carefully examine how it operates.

Under the current system, called the H-2 program, employers brought about 121,000 guestworkers into the United States in 2005 — approximately 32,000 for agricultural work and another 89,000 for jobs in forestry, seafood processing, landscaping, construction and other non-agricultural industries.

These workers, though, are not treated like "guests." Rather, they are systematically exploited and abused. Unlike U.S. citizens, guestworkers do not enjoy the most fundamental protection of a competitive labor market — the ability to change jobs if they are mistreated. Instead, they are bound to the employers who "import" them. If guestworkers complain about abuses, they face deportation, blacklisting or other retaliation.

Federal law and U.S. Department of Labor regulations provide some basic protections to H-2 guestworkers — but they exist mainly on paper. Government enforcement of their rights is almost non-existent. Private attorneys typically won't take up their cause.

Bound to a single employer and without access to legal resources, guestworkers are:

• routinely cheated out of wages


• forced to mortgage their futures to obtain low-wage, temporary jobs


• held virtually captive by employers or labor brokers who seize their documents


• forced to live in squalid conditions


• denied medical benefits for on-the-job injuries.

Close to Slavery; Guestworker Programs in the United States SPLC (HTML)

After carefully documenting the failures of the current guestworker program, the 48 page report goes on to list recommendations to make any future program more fair and effective.

As this report shows, the H-2 guestworker program is fundamentally flawed. Because guestworkers are tied to a single employer and have little or no ability to enforce their rights, they are routinely exploited. The guestworker program should not be expanded or used as a model for immigration reform. If this program is permitted to continue at all, it should be radically altered to address the vast disparity in power between guestworkers and their employers.

I. Federal laws and regulations protecting guestworkers from abuse must be strengthened:

• Guestworkers should be able to obtain visas that do not tie them to a specific employer. The current restriction denies guestworkers the most fundamental protection of a free labor market and is at the heart of many abuses they face.


• Congress should provide a process allowing guestworkers to gain permanent residency, with their families, over time. Large-scale, long-term guestworker programs that treat workers as short-term commodities are inconsistent with our society's core values of democracy and fairness.


• Employers should be required to bear all the costs of recruiting and transporting guestworkers to this country. Federal regulations should be consistent with the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Arriaga v. Florida Pacific Farms. Requiring guestworkers to pay these fees encourages the over-recruitment of guestworkers and puts them in a position of debt peonage that leads to abuse.


• Entities acting as labor brokers for employers that actually use the guestworkers should not be allowed to obtain certification from the Department of Labor to bring them in. Allowing these middlemen to obtain certification shields the true employer from responsibility for the mistreatment of guestworkers.


• Congress should require the Department of Labor to promulgate labor regulations for H-2B workers that are comparable to the H-2A regulations. It is unconscionable that H-2B workers do not have even the minimal protections available to H-2A workers.


• Congress should require employers to pay at least the "adverse effect wage rate" in all guestworker programs to protect against the downward pressure on wages. Guestworker programs should not be a mechanism to drive wages down to the minimum wage.


• Congress should eliminate the barriers that prevent guestworkers from receiving workers' compensation benefits. Workers currently must navigate a bewildering state-by-state system that effectively blocks many injured workers from obtaining benefits.
• Guestworkers should be protected from discrimination on the same terms as workers hired in the United States. Permitting employers to "shop" for workers with certain characteristics outside of the United States is offensive to our system of justice and nondiscrimination.

II. Federal agency enforcement of guestworker protections must be strengthened:

• Congress should require that all employers report to the Department of Labor, at the conclusion of a guestworker's term of employment and under penalty of perjury, on their compliance with the terms of the law and the guestworker's contract. There currently is no mechanism allowing the government to ensure that employers comply with guestworker contracts.


• Employers using guestworkers should be required to post a bond that is at least sufficient in value to cover the workers' legal wages. A system should be created to permit workers to make claims against the bond. Guestworkers, who must return to their country when their visas expire, typically have no way of recovering earned wages that are not paid by employers.


• There should be a massive increase in funding for federal agency enforcement of guestworker protections. Guestworkers are the most vulnerable workers in this country, but there is scant government enforcement of their rights.


• The Department of Labor should be authorized to enforce all guestworker agreements. The DOL takes the position that it does not have legal authority to enforce H-2B guestworker contracts.


• The Department of Labor should create a streamlined process to deny guestworker applications from employers that have violated the rights of guestworkers. Employers who abuse guestworkers continue to be granted certification by the DOL to bring in new workers.

III. Congress must provide guestworkers with meaningful access to the courts:

• Congress should make all guestworkers eligible for federally funded legal services. H-2B workers are currently not eligible for legal aid services.


• Because of the unique challenges faced by guestworkers, the restriction on federally funded legal services that prohibits class action representation should be lifted.


• Congress should provide a civil cause of action and criminal penalties for employers or persons who confiscate or hold guestworker documents. This common tactic is designed to hold guestworkers hostage.


• Congress should provide a federal cause of action allowing all guestworkers to enforce their contracts.

These reforms are overdue. For too long, our country has benefited from the labor provided by guestworkers but has failed to provide a fair system that respects their human rights and upholds the most basic values of our democracy. The time has come for Congress to overhaul our shamefully abusive guestworker system.
Close To Slavery; Guestworker Programs in the United States SPLC (PDF)

This new report, along with its recommendations, will certainly add a new dimension to the debate over any new temporary guest worker proposal. By documenting and examining what has happened when, as President Bush likes to claim, "willing foreign workers (are matched) with willing American employers, when no Americans can be found to fill the jobs," the Southern Poverty Law Center has provided valuable insight into the problems and pitfalls of such programs.

tags: immigration, guest workers , H2 Visa, SPLC

Read More...

Summary only...