Immigration Reform

1. Its political
2. Politicians insist its too expensive. In fact is just about loosing voters.
3. It will save more money in the long run.

WASHINGTON (August 25, 2004) - A new study from the Center for Immigration Studies is one of the first to estimate the impact of illegal immigration on the federal budget. Based on Census Bureau data, the study estimates that households headed by illegal aliens used $10 billion more in government services than they paid in taxes in 2002. These figures are only for the federal government; costs at the state and local level are also likely to be significant. The study also finds that if illegals were given amnesty, the fiscal deficit at the federal level would grow to nearly $29 billion.

Among the findings:

*

Illegal alien households are estimated to use $2,700 a year more in services than they pay in taxes, creating a total fiscal burden of nearly $10.4 billion on the federal budget in 2002.
*

Among the largest federal costs: Medicaid ($2.5 billion); treatment for the uninsured ($2.2 billion); food assistance programs ($1.9 billion); the federal prison and court systems ($1.6 billion); and federal aid to schools ($1.4 billion).
*

If illegal aliens were legalized and began to pay taxes and use services like legal immigrants with the same education levels, the estimated annual fiscal deficit at the federal level would increase from $2,700 per household to nearly $7,700, for a total federal deficit of $29 billion.
*

With nearly two-third of illegals lacking a high school diploma, the primary reason they create a fiscal deficit is their low education levels and resulting low incomes and tax payments - not their legal status or their unwillingness to work.
*

Amnesty increases costs because illegals would still be largely unskilled, and thus their tax payments would continue to be very modest, but once legalized they would be able to access many more government services.
*

The fact that legal immigrants with little schooling are a fiscal drain on federal coffers does not mean that legal immigrants overall are a drain. Many legal immigrants are highly skilled.
*

Because many of the costs are due to their U.S.-born children, who are awarded U.S. citizenship at birth, barring illegals themselves from federal programs will not significantly reduce costs.
*

Although they create a net drain on the federal government, the average illegal household pays more than $4,200 a year in federal taxes, for a total of nearly $16 billion.
*

However, they impose annual costs of more than $26.3 billion, or about $6,950 per illegal household.
*

About 43 percent, or $7 billion, of the federal taxes illegals pay go to Social Security and Medicare.
*

Employers do not see the costs associated with less-educated immigrant workers because the costs are spread out among all taxpayers.

Why Legalization Is So Costly. Costs rise unavoidably because amnesty will not change the low education levels of illegal aliens or the fact that the American economy offers such workers very limited opportunities, regardless of legal status. The vast majority of illegal aliens will continue to have very low incomes, and make very modest tax payments. However, legal status would allow them to use many more programs. We know that costs would rise dramatically because legal immigrants with the same levels of education make extensive use of public services. Thus, even though we estimate that average tax payments would rise by 77 percent, we also find that costs would rise 117 percent. To understand why this happens, it is helpful to consider a program like the Earned Income Tax Credit, which pays cash to low-income workers. Illegals currently account for only 1.5 percent of the program's total costs, but if they were legalized their use of the program would grow tenfold because with legal status they would no longer need stolen or bogus Social Security numbers to get the credit. This dramatic rise in costs is not due to laziness on the part of immigrants. In fact, only those who work receive the EITC. The dramatic rise in costs simply reflects the low educational attainment of illegals and their resulting low incomes.

If Illegals Stay, So Will the Costs. To the extent that policy makers have considered the fiscal costs of illegal immigration, they have generally tried to reduce the costs while allowing illegals to remain. But this strategy has not been effective because the average illegal already receives less than half as much in services from the federal government as do other households. Moreover, many of the costs are due to their U.S.-born children, who are awarded American citizenship at birth under current law. Other programs are simply too politically sensitive to cut, such as the Women, Infants and Children nutrition program. And others costs are unavoidable, such as incarcerating illegals who have been convicted of crimes. Conversely, enforcing immigration laws is both popular with voters and administratively more feasible. There are really only two options: either we begin to enforce the law, significantly reducing the number of illegals in the country, or we accept the costs created by the presence of a large pool of unskilled workers.

Results Similar to Other Studies. A 1997 report by the National Research Council (NRC) on the fiscal impact of immigrants concluded that education levels and resulting income are the primary determinants of tax payments and service use, which is also a central finding of this report. The results of this study closely match the findings of a 1998 Urban Institute study. Our estimated average tax payment for illegal households in New York State is almost identical to that of the Urban Institute, when adjusted for inflation. The results of this study are also buttressed by an analysis of illegal alien tax returns done by the Inspector General's Office of the Department of Treasury in 2004, which found that about half had no federal income tax liability, very similar to our findings of 45 percent.

The panel discussion is open to the public. For more information, contact Steven Camarota at (202) 466-8185 or sac@cis.org.

The debate over illegal immigration took to the streets of downtown Lexington Saturday.
A large group protested in front of city hall nearly a week after the Mayor's Commission on Immigration made some recommendations about how illegal immigrants should be treated here.
Among those recommendations; giving anyone an i.d. card or drivers license regardless of immigration status.
Those protesting say that should 'not' happen in Lexington.
Meanwhile, immigration rights activist Freddie Peralta has praised the commission's recommendations saying he'll help lobby to change the drivers license law.

Controversial leader of the Minuteman Project Jim Gilchrist spoke about illegal immigration and tax reform in an address before the Mountain View Republican Club on Monday evening.

Mr. Gilchrist spoke about the problems associated with illegal immigration and cited figures to show its impact on the current budget crisis in California and across the nation.

He said that about 30 million people are living in the United States illegally. He believes that about $27 billion of California's $42 billion budget deficit is a direct result of illegal immigrants.

Mr. Gilchrist was highly critical of business owners who employ illegal immigrants rather legal residents of the country, calling them "21st Century slave traders." He also criticized the government for failing to enforce the laws.

"It's all about the rule of law," he said. "It's all about maintaining a healthy middle class productive society. It's all about preserving a civilized society."

He urged members to write and make phone calls to elected officials to ensure the illegal immigration debate remains a pressing issue. He also listed some politicians and candidates to vote in office who will take a strong stance against illegal immigration.

His goal is to get the government to triple the budget of the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which would help stem the "tsunami of illegal aliens flooding our country."

"We needs to enforce the law. It's as simple as that," he said. "Either we are a nation of laws or we are not. If we are not going to enforce the immigration laws, what's next?"

The speech was originally scheduled at Italian restaurant Buca Di Beppo but the threat of protests and negative publicity led to a last minute decision by the restaurant's corporate office to cancel. The Mountain View Republican Club was forced to relocate the speech to Hotel Claremont, causing members to complain about the protesters.

"Buca[Di Beppo] felt the political pressure from the colleges for giving extra credit to any student who would show up here and protest," said Donna Lowe, co-chair of programing for Mountain View. "... This is an infringement of our first amendment rights of freedom of speech, freedom to assemble and freedom of the press."

A group of about 40 protesters led by Pitzer College Professor Jose Calderon gathered outside to voice their objection to Mr. Gilchrist's appearance. In his address, Mr. Gilchrist criticized the protesters and called Dr. Calderon "as dumb as they come."

"On the left, you've got the Charlie Manson cultist mentalities; people who will kill you," Mr. Gilchrist said. "They will murder you if they think they can get away with it, to get their way. They are very uneducated. They're downright stupid, like most of these students who are out here. You can not carry out an intelligent conversation with them. And they're hailing themselves from the Claremont Colleges, give me a break."

After his address, Mr. Gilchrist fielded questions from the audience. Two students who were protesting before the address asked a series of questions, causing Mr. Gilchrist and some audience members to lash out.

Pomona College student Nathaniel Spielberg said that he was disheartened that Mr. Gilchrist "attempted to shout us down after complaining about a lack of willingness on our part to engage in civilized discourse and open dialogue."

After the address ended, the tension carried on as some of the Mountain View members clashed with students outside. They debated over the topics discussed during Mr. Gilchrist's address, but at times the converging views escalated into personal attacks.

The Mountain View Republican Club is hosting a series of speakers on the topic of illegal immigration over the next few months. Members come from 7 local cities including Claremont, LaVerne, Chino, Ontario, Pomona, San Dimas and Upland.

The Minuteman Project is an activist organization started in 2005 by private citizens to monitor the US-Mexican border for illegal immigration. Mr. Gilchrist has been accused by critics of espousing violent rhetoric and promoting racism against illegal immigrants.

View
My Stats