Texas Official's Report Ignites a New Border Conflict
By Darryl Fears
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, December 15, 2006; A02
It is a Texas showdown, a war of words over illegal immigration at the border.
State Comptroller Carole Keeton Strayhorn fired the first shot with a recent report that, for some, says the unthinkable: Illegal immigrants not only pay their fair share in taxes, but they are also good for the economy.
"The absence of 1.4 million undocumented immigrants in Texas . . .would have been a loss to our gross state product of $17.7 billion," Strayhorn said in a statement. Overall, the report said, illegal immigrants put about $420 million more into state coffers than they take out.
Strayhorn billed the report as the first ever by a state finance official, a crucial step forward. But for Texans who believe hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants are overrunning their state, the report is a misstep.
State Rep. Leo Berman (R-Tyler), who introduced legislation that would bar Texas from recognizing children born to illegal immigrants in American hospitals as U.S. citizens, called the report "outrageous."
Dan Stein, a spokesman for the Washington-based Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), which supports measures to deter illegal immigration, ripped the report as a composite of "design flaws, assumptions and conclusions in direct contrast to our years of exhaustive studies on this issue, and to our most recent Texas report, which shows illegal aliens cost Texas taxpayers $3.7 billion annually."
In these times of tough proposals against illegal immigration in Congress and huge protest marches by illegal immigrant workers and their supporters, it is not surprising that the comptroller's report caused a stir.
An official state document that contradicts the idea that immigrants are a financial burden can carry considerable weight as Democrats take control of Congress, and as potential candidates consider their options in the 2008 presidential election.
Supporters of illegal immigrants embraced the report. John Trasviña, president of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, said it "confirms what MALDEF and immigration experts have long known -- we all benefit from the contributions of immigrants."
The Texas study may be the first by a state, but it is hardly the first of its kind. Previous studies on the financial impact of illegal immigrants have been undertaken by a number of groups, including the nonpartisan Urban Institute and the Center for Immigration Studies.
Undocumented workers in the Washington area, according to the Urban Institute, pay a hefty share of taxes, but they contribute less than they should because many are paid off the books and do not file yearly tax forms. A report by the Center for Immigration Studies, which favors reduced immigration, said that illegal-immigrant households imposed $26 billion in costs on the federal government while paying $16 billion in taxes. This week, Immigration and Customs Enforcement authorities raided meatpacking plants in six states in search of illegal immigrants they said were using illegally obtained Social Security numbers.
Early in the year, the House tried to crack down on the immigration problem with a tough proposal that would have turned about 12 million illegal immigrants in the country into instant felons.
Opponents said they went too far, and millions of illegal immigrants and their supporters marched in Dallas, Los Angeles, Chicago, Washington, Phoenix and other cities.
That is the environment that Strayhorn stepped into with her report and its bold introduction: "The Comptroller's report estimates that undocumented immigrants in Texas generate more taxes and other revenue than the state spends on them."
Drawing on estimates from a report by the Pew Hispanic Center in Washington, the report said 1.4 million to 1.6 million illegal immigrants live in Texas, about 14 percent of the U.S. total.
Texas has no state income tax, so immigrants pay sales and property taxes, along with various state fees. "Undocumented immigrants produced $1.58 billion in state revenues, which exceeded the $1.16 billion in state services they received," Strayhorn reported.
Strayhorn, an unsuccessful candidate for governor in the last election, favors a guest-worker program, prompting criticism from opponents who say her report was motivated by politics.
FAIR said the report plays down the impact of illegal immigration by not counting the children of illegal immigrants who had become U.S. citizens. In a previous report, FAIR estimated that Texas schools paid more than $1.7 billion to educate illegal immigrants and the legal children of illegal immigrants in 2003-2004.
"This report is a slap in the face to anyone with common sense," Stein said.
Berman deferred to more conservative reports, such as one from the Lone Star Foundation in Austin. It says illegal immigrants drain $4.5 billion from the Texas economy, mostly in health-care costs.
"Parkland Hospital in Dallas, and the public hospital in Houston, has a 70 percent birth rate from illegal aliens," Berman said.
Trasviña of MALDEF said he hopes Strayhorn's report will compel other politicians to "reject divisive legislation" by Berman and others "aimed at forcing undocumented immigrants further into the shadows."
(Such temporary programs should pay the prevailing wage for whatever area however.)
Foxfyre wrote:This is a canard, from your side of the argument. Prevailing wage is determined by the laws of supply and demand. The trick is to get over thinking some humans shouldn't be allowed to influence it, because they were born on the wrong side of an arbitrary line in the sand.(Such temporary programs should pay the prevailing wage for whatever area however.)
OCCOM BILL wrote:Foxfyre wrote:This is a canard, from your side of the argument. Prevailing wage is determined by the laws of supply and demand. The trick is to get over thinking some humans shouldn't be allowed to influence it, because they were born on the wrong side of an arbitrary line in the sand.(Such temporary programs should pay the prevailing wage for whatever area however.)
That is a valid argument from your perspective and I don't deny the truth of it except for some additional considerations.
In normal circumstances, prevailing wage is determined by whatever it costs to attract and hire competent people to do the job. Why should we make it easy for somebody to bring in cheap temporary labor so that they can underbid employers who provide permanent jobs and a living wage for people?
I am a strong supporter of the law of supply of demand unless the supply is artificially increased for the specific purpose of undercutting one's competition. I have been told by more than one employer that they would provide help with health plans, profit sharing, 401K contributions, etc. for their employees, but they are having a tough time being competitive as it is. If they don't get the jobs, nobody works. I can't believe these are isolated anomalies.
Foxfyre wrote:That's your plan, via work permits and such, not mine. The legislation you propose would make it "easier". Absense of same merely maintains the status quo.OCCOM BILL wrote:Foxfyre wrote:This is a canard, from your side of the argument. Prevailing wage is determined by the laws of supply and demand. The trick is to get over thinking some humans shouldn't be allowed to influence it, because they were born on the wrong side of an arbitrary line in the sand.(Such temporary programs should pay the prevailing wage for whatever area however.)
That is a valid argument from your perspective and I don't deny the truth of it except for some additional considerations.
In normal circumstances, prevailing wage is determined by whatever it costs to attract and hire competent people to do the job. Why should we make it easy for somebody to bring in cheap temporary labor so that they can underbid employers who provide permanent jobs and a living wage for people?
Foxfyre wrote:There is nothing artificial about the family born on the wrong side of the line in the sand. They need to eat too.I am a strong supporter of the law of supply of demand unless the supply is artificially increased for the specific purpose of undercutting one's competition. I have been told by more than one employer that they would provide help with health plans, profit sharing, 401K contributions, etc. for their employees, but they are having a tough time being competitive as it is. If they don't get the jobs, nobody works. I can't believe these are isolated anomalies.
The Law of Supply and Demand is only part of the picture. Survival of the Fittest plays a deciding role as well. You can not accurately lay a lack of benefit packages at the feet of immigration (legal or otherwise). Employers weigh the cost of employee benefits against their own benefit, regardless of who constitutes the work force. The employer's benefits to offering such, include: incentive to higher caliber employees (reduces man/hours), increased loyalty (savings in Human Resources) and a better reputation (increases customer loyalty). The downside is, of course, the expense. This is the employer's true dilemma. In my experience, certain positions can't justify the expense of benefits (from a business standpoint), because the expense of offering such exceeds the rewards for doing so. This is especially true in positions typically staffed by younger (not as likely to need or benefit from benefits), single (not as expensive to not have benefits), and (sorry) dumber (one requires the capacity to understand the true value of benefits) employees. Among this pool of employees; a higher wage is frequently the more cost effective incentive for employers to offer.
This, of course, brings us back to the Law of Supply and Demand. Can you increase the employer's incentive to offer benefits and/or a higher wage by eliminating the pool of illegal labor from Mexico? Of course. But you can not do so by providing a legal alternative to hiring them illegally. So, insofar as your desire to encourage employers to offer benefits; legalizing the illegal workforce accomplishes nothing to that end.
That doesn't mean it can't be done. If you want the government to legislate incentives to employers for providing employee benefits; why not try a tact that doesn't rely on discrimination against this group or that. (Consider for a moment: Limiting Blacks or Women's rights to work would provide the same stimulus as limiting Mexican labor. This idea is ridiculous, of course, because there is no arbitrary line in the sand separating the blacks or women so there is no justification for discriminating against those humans.)
For instance; legislation could be passed that increases "Time and Half" for hours over 40 worked to "Double Time". This would:
A) Create an incentive to spread the available hours to more people, thereby magnifying the effect of Supply and Demand.
B) Increase the incentive to provide benefits by making it comparatively more cost effective to employers than wage increases.
C) Unlike the misguided solution that mandates "benefits for full-time employees" (effects larger companies), would provide no incentive to slashing employee's hours to part-time.
D) If it included a provision that mandated benefits to salaried employees; it would eliminate the loophole that makes it easy for employers who currently duck "Time and a Half" by creating salaried positions that require longer than 40 hour work weeks sans benefits.
E) Theoretically, would decrease the number of hours worked by the average Joe.
What it wouldn't do; is discriminate against anyone for wanting to work or limit the business man's ability to weigh his own options. Nor would it require additional bureaucratic oversight from our obscenely wasteful government.
The bottom line is; legalizing the illegal workforce does nothing to entice employers to offer benefits. Nothing.
OCCOM BILL wrote:That's your plan, via work permits and such, not mine. The legislation you propose would make it "easier". Absence of same merely maintains the status quo.
How would it make it easier? An employer applies for and receives a permit to bring in X number of temporary workers and is instructed on what the minimum wage will be. The employer is free as a bird to pay more if he wishes, but he is not able to intentionally undercut the existing permanent work force and drive it out of business. He of course could do the same with U.S. citizens and it does happen, but it is much more difficult to exploit Americans when he can just send the poor Mexicans home when he's done with them.
I could easily be missing something here
OCCOM BILL wrote:Yes they do. But so do billions of other people in the world. Far better to lower our trade barriers and encourage human rights and good honest capitalism so they can raise their standard of living where they are instead of trashing the U.S. system of laws, checks, and balances. If you haven't noticed, I am NOT anti-immigrant in any form or fashion. If there's a job that needs to be filled, by all means lets get folks here to fill them. But do it legally.There is nothing artificial about the family born on the wrong side of the line in the sand. They need to eat too.
I think you missed what I was saying, Obill. The employers themselves want to provide their employees benefits. The law of supply and demand will be quite enough encouragement for good employers who want and need competent employees to provide the benefits that will attract them.
What I was saying is that I talk to employers who WANT to provide benefits but they can't compete against the contractors, etc. who are presumably hiring illegals who will work for whatever they can get, don't ask or expect benefits, and can't complain if they are shorted on pay for the work they do or paid sub-standard wages through piece work. You make those same workers legal, however, and show them what their rights are, and that unscrupulous employer can't get away with that stuff any more.
I don't believe it is your motive in your argument here, but many unscrupulous employers vigorously use the same kinds of arguments you are using because it is so easy to exploit and even abuse an illegal worker who doesn't dare complain, and it definitely does give them a leg up when they're bidding jobs.
A restaurant business isn't quite the same thing. Unless you are doing a lot of catering or your main business is banquets, etc., you are most likely competing against other restaurants with ambiance, great food, quality of service etc. more than you are competing with price. That isn't the case with your average produce dealer or dry wall contractor.
Why do you so much resist strengthening our immigration laws to a) stop illegals we don't want here from coming here
b) make it easier for immigrants we do need and want to come here? Why doesn't that satisfy your humanitarian instincts to feed the poor, etc.?
Why is nobody reporting the latest info on the government rounding up illegals, and chargine fines to employers found giving jobs to illegals? Some are even talking about jail time if they can prove conspiracy. It's a start.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- A day after federal agents netted 1,300 meat-plant workers in the largest immigration sweep in U.S. history, federal officials pledged Wednesday to continue their crackdown on illegal workers and identity theft.
"This is going to be a deterrent to illegal workers ... We're going to try to make it inhospitable to break the law here," Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said.
You are absolutely right. We don't agree. You seem to think that illegal's have studied our history and determined that Carter and Reagan cried wolf, yadda, yadda, yadda, so they chose to thumb their nose at the law and go to the great carnival known as the United States. NONSENSE. They studied their own problems and determined that desperate times call for desperate measures. So, they risked their lives in hopes that even a life of evading American Law would be better than their current lot in life. Typically, this involved living like sardines and working their tails off trying to put a little away, while sending substantial portions of their incomes home to feed their families. This is not the fairytale fantasy of winning the immigration lottery to get here legally where winners get to participate in a myriad of programs designed to make the transition as easy as possible. For instance; are you aware of the tax breaks given to legal immigrants who start a business here?
No these people didn't follow our arcane rules and they didn't wait their turn in hopes of winning that lottery. They paid their dues in different, sometimes even deadly, ways. Those who survived the journey typically got substandard work and lived in substandard conditions and worked twice as hard as those around them to earn their way forward. I wouldn't consider it so much an amnesty as a sentence of "time served".
The part of the equation you continue to ignore is poverty. Have you visited other countries and seen for yourself the shanty-villes people live in while trying to survive on few dollars a day?... or the tiny apartments providing shelter for 4 generations who collectively bust their asses in hopes of getting enough to eat to sustain such an existence? I'd like to think I'd have the courage to do whatever necessary to extract my family from the perils of that hopeless existence that so many are born into. I'll not look down my nose at those who do. Nor will I support any legislation designed to punish these people for their courageous plight, or send them back to the hell from which they came.
Poverty in the United States, while not as bad, is no picnic either. What percentage of Americans do you think could afford to leave their job and the country, for a week, let alone an undetermined period of time? Is it safe to assume most illegal immigrants don't fall into that category? Your solution would only force the poorest of immigrants to further break the law. And for what? So you can sleep at night believing that some hungry bastard with a hungry baby is gonna give a rat's ass if America is going to get serious about deporting illegal immigrants in the future? Sorry to burst your bubble; but he isn't any more than you or I would. When he's considering his options of which evil to choose; that is never going to enter his mind. IMO, the average illegal immigrant has paid his dues and then some. Further punishment serves only as revenge for an inferred wrong that was committed against no one. The vast majority have even purchased fake ID and pay taxes just like everyone else accept they usually don't get the tax returns they'd have coming if they were legal.
The complaint that many who do follow the rules will be skipped over is somewhat valid. I see no amicable solution for those who feel slighted by the line jumpers, other than assurances that the illegal's amnesty will in no way slow their ascent. This is true, btw: The illegals didn't actually get in line in front of them, so there is no actual harm done. If I see someone jump the fence at the local fair, that doesn't mean the line I'm in to pay admission got longer, does it?
I'm sorry Fox, but I view your objections as a desire to punish poor people for having been born on the wrong side of an arbitrary line in the sand and having the courage to try and get a leg up the only way they could think of. Even real criminals enjoy a statute of limitations, so why shouldn't people who's only offense was a crime against no one in a perilous attempt to feed their families? Amnesty for a crime committed against no one is not such a horrible thing.
I'm pretty sure O'bill is socialist.
dyslexia wrote:I'm pretty sure O'bill is socialist.
That is VERY alarming news.
Did somebody infect him, do you think?
