Demographics
Can Arizona Afford to Implement S.B. 1070?
Apr 23rd
As the deadline for signing/vetoing Arizona’s immigration enforcement law (S.B. 1070) draws near, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer has more than just the moral and ethical implications of the law to consider. The proposed “Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act,” a bill that makes it a misdemeanor to fail to carry proper immigration documents and requires police to determine a person’s immigration status, could come with heftier price tag than people may realize. While the Arizona legislature has not yet determined the costs associated with S.B. 1070 (the state legislature failed to attribute a cost in their attached fiscal note), several economic indicators reveal the potential cost of implementation to Arizona taxpayers and the residual consequences of driving unauthorized immigrations out of Arizona.
Gov. Brewer touts a $10 million investment in local law enforcement—federal stimulus money the state received from American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. But $10 million is nothing when it comes to the actual cost of implementation—which includes processing fees, jail costs, attorney and staff fees and the additional detention facilities that would need to be built to accommodate the additional inmate flow. In response to a similar Arizona enforcement bill in 2006 (which then Gov. Janet Napolitano vetoed), Yuma County Sheriff Ralph Ogden produced a fact sheet which shows the staggering potential cost to law enforcement agencies in Yuma County.
According to the fact sheet:
- Law-enforcement agencies would spend between $775,880 and $1,163,820 in processing expenses;
- Jail costs would be between $21,195,600 and $96,086,720;
- Attorney and staff fees would be $810,067 – $1,620,134;
- Additional detention facilities would have to be built at unknown costs.
And that’s just in Yuma County alone. Yuma County has a population of 200,000 and is only one of fifteen counties in Arizona. The above implementation cost could reasonably be magnified to consider the cost for all Arizona counties.
In addition to implementation costs, Gov. Brewer should also consider the costs of defending the state against potential lawsuits on behalf of legal immigrants and native-born Latinos who feel they have been unjustly targeted. For example, the city of Farmers Branch, TX, passed an ordinance in 2006 (now overturned) which required landlords to verify potential renters’ immigration status. To date, the city has spent $3.2 million in legal fees defending itself since September 2006—and the bill is expected to exceed $5 million by the end of fiscal year 2010. Hazelton, PA, is also engaged in a similar fight over rental ordinances.
This is to say nothing, of course, of the number of immigrants and Latinos who would potentially leave the state due to the new law—taking with them their tax dollars, businesses and purchasing power. Arizona’s budget is already in the hole by more than $3 billion.
According to an Immigration Policy Center (IPC) fact sheet:
- The total economic output attributable to Arizona’s immigrant workers was $44 billion in 2004, which sustained roughly 400,000 full-time jobs.
- Over 35,000 businesses in Arizona are Latino-owned and had sales and receipts of $4.3 billion and employed 39,363 people in 2002.
- The Perryman Group estimates that if all unauthorized immigrants were removed from Arizona, the state would lose $26.4 billion in economic activity, $11.7 billion in gross state product, and approximately 140,324 jobs, even accounting for adequate market adjustment time.
Clearly, implementing S.B. 1070 comes with both large economic and political price tags. But just as Gov. Brewer should consider the economic and political implications of signing this law, so should Congress consider their responsibility in moving forward with immigration reform. At a naturalization ceremony at the White House this morning, President Obama remarked that all Americans will foot bill for our failure to reform our broken immigration system. Arizona’s new law is just the latest reminder of that failure.
Indeed, our failure to act responsibly at the federal level will only open the door to irresponsibility by others. And that includes, for example, the recent efforts in Arizona, which threatened to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans, as well as the trust between police and their communities that is so crucial to keeping us safe.
In fact, I’ve instructed members of my administration to closely monitor the situation and examine the civil rights and other implications of this legislation. But if we continue to fail to act at a federal level, we will continue to see misguided efforts opening up around the country.
Photo by aresauburn™.
Supporting Immigration Reform in Nevada is More Pragmatic than Political
Apr 19th
In Sunday’s local Las Vegas newspaper, the Review Journal, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid reiterated his support for immigration reform and pushed back on the paper’s editorial staff who have long rallied against fixing our broken immigration system. Senator Reid’s reiterated support came on the heels of a speech he gave a week earlier in Nevada where he called for immigration reform to be completed this year and a later comment stating a timeframe for moving legislation. There is, however, more to Senator Reid’s recent support for immigration reform than mere political gains.
Senator Reid wrote:
If we truly want to fix our broken immigration system, and not just score political points, we need comprehensive immigration reform that is tough on lawbreakers, fair to taxpayers and practical to implement … Immigration reform will help us safeguard the rights and wages of American workers and force unscrupulous employers to get on the right side of the law. So long as immigrants working illegally are afraid to report being underpaid, exploited and abused for fear of deportation, American workers will be undercut. We need to require these workers to apply for legal status and become hard-working taxpayers.
Also on Sunday, a poll conducted by the same newspaper cited a statistical split on the issue of whether or not likely Nevada voters supported a path towards citizenship—a split which flies in the face of said editorial staff’s characterization of immigration reform as an “unwanted reform.” Harry Reid didn’t accept the 50-50 split, noting that had the pollsters posed the question in a way that truly characterized his proposal, support would have been higher.
Semantics aside, however, why is Harry Reid rallying for immigration reform now? Is this just a ploy to excite the Democratic base in Nevada—a group he needs to turn out for him in November? Aside from the fact that Reid has always been a strong supporter of immigration reform, he is a pragmatist. He has an understanding of who his constituents are and how they can move the political dial in his state. One might even say he has a better memory than the Democratic administration who was helped over the finish line by the Latino vote last November—particularly Nevada’s Latino vote. Obama defeated McCain among Latino voters by 76% to 22% in Nevada, where 11.6% of the state’s electorate is Latino. Nevada also had one of the greatest increases in the Latino vote in 2008 growing by over 65% (or 47,000 additional voters).
Nevada is a states where the growing political and economic clout of immigrants, Latinos, and Asians is also clear as the desert sky. Immigrants now make up nearly 20% (497,821 people) of Nevada’s population, and 38% of them are naturalized U.S. citizens who are eligible to vote. Immigrants and the children of immigrants now account for nearly 15% of all registered voters in the state.
From an economic standpoint, Latinos account for one-quarter of all Nevadans and wield over $14 billion in consumer purchasing power. At last count, the sales and receipts of businesses owned by Latinos and Asians totaled $3.6 billion and employed more than 25,000 people.
Harry Reid may hope that these communities turn out for him at the polls but he also knows immigrant, Latino, and Asian workers, consumers, and entrepreneurs are integral to Nevada’s economy and tax base. His position on immigration reform, however, is less political than pragmatic. He knows immigrants support job creation and are a strong part of his state’s labor force. While Reid’s supportive stance on the issues they care about is smart politics, it is also good for the long term economic recovery of his home state.
Photo by the Center for American Progress Action Fund.
Immigration Reform and a Younger Generation of Voters
Apr 13th
Age isn’t just a number anymore—it’s also a number that turns out at the voting booth en masse. The same generation that brought you hope and change now hopes to change the way our country responds to our broken immigration system. A recent article in the L.A. Times examined a new poll which found that California voters are almost evenly split when it comes to proposals that deny public services to unauthorized immigrants—a far cry from Proposition 187 which passed in California with almost 60% of the vote in 1994 (and was later found to be unconstitutional). So who’s responsible for the shift in public sentiment on immigration? Voters, age 18 to 29—and they don’t want to stop there.
A recent Los Angeles Times/USC College of Letters poll found that 47% of California voters oppose the denial of public services (such as public school and health care) to unauthorized immigrants, while 45% remain in support. While this doesn’t exactly seem like a public outcry, the poll results “represent a marked shift in public opinion with ramifications for both state and national politics and policy reform efforts.”
Why? After breaking down the demographics, the poll found that age has more to do with the public shift than ethnicity. While more Latino and Asian American voters opposed denial of social services to unauthorized immigrants than did white or African American voters, California voters aged 18 to 29 represented the majority of those who opposed the denial of services across all ethnic groups by a margin of nearly 30 points.
Although young voters in California are disproportionately Latino or Asian American compared with older voters, it appears that a broader dynamic is at work here as well. Attitudes among white voters between 18 and 29 on the question of services to illegal immigrants were almost identical to those of the entire age group.
The poll also revealed that the majority of California voters under the age of 45 believe that unauthorized immigrants are a net benefit to the state and “indicated strong support for a legalization process.” Rightfully so considering a 2010 study from the University of Southern California estimates that “unauthorized Latino immigrants in California…missed out on approximately $2.2 billion in wages and salary income last year alone due solely to their legal status, and the state lost out on the multiplied impacts of that potential income and spending, suggesting a total potential gain of $3.25 billion annually from authorization.”
The broader implication here, however, is that young California voters age 18 to 29 are indicative of a larger swath of young American voters who, according to the poll, identify priorities more by age than ethnic background. The L.A. Times points out that as immigrant, Latino and Asian populations continue to grow (in both California and the rest of the United States), so does young voters’ exposure to diversity—an exposure which “has brought familiarity, which has in turn brought tolerance.” While comparing young California voters’ immigration priorities to young American voters at large may seem like a jump, voters age 18 to 29 as a movement have proven their ability to change elections—and with them, the legislative priorities of our nation.
Photo by jek in the box.
New Report on the Benefits of Legalization Comes Up Short
Apr 9th
A new report released by the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) this week attempts to assess the economic benefits of a legalization program on immigrants and native born workers. The report, Immigrant Legalization: Assessing the Labor Market Effects, however, falls short on research and methodology. While the report accurately concludes that legalization would not have a negative impact on native workers’ wages and employment, the report takes a myopic approach to legalization’s impact on wages and mobility of the newly legalized. A wide range of economic studies—studies which consider legalization’s impact in both the long term and in context to comprehensive immigration reform—conclude that legalization does in fact benefit both native-born and immigrants alike.
With broad and sweeping strokes, the PPIC report inaccurately concludes that immigrants who receive legal status do not experience significant upward mobility in their occupation or wages. The problem with this conclusion is that it’s based on the short term impacts of legalization—in the first 3 to 14 months after legalization only—which is far too short a time to witness the sort of upward socioeconomic mobility that legalization would facilitate. The report also relies on a relatively narrow sample set from the New Immigrant Survey (NIS), which consists of individuals who acquired legal permanent resident (LPR) status between May and November 2003 and are not indicative of the overall undocumented population.
According to Dr. Raúl Hinojosa Ojeda of the School of Public Policy and Social Research at the University of California:
The PPIC sample only looks at wages “soon” after legalization, rather than over a short number of years (3-4), let alone over the long term. All the studies which look at medium to long term see significant differences in earnings potentials. Because of its limited database and scope, the PPIC report is not designed to measure the overall economy-wide, multi sector, or longer term impact of Comprehensive Immigration Reform.
The database they use focuses on a narrow group of new LPRs with the very unusual experience of having received legal status during these months due to unusual circumstances. These LPRS are the lucky ones who could obtain legal status within the current restrictive law. Most of them already had a spouse or other relative as US citizen and were thus in highly privileged position with many bright prospects and support networks. They are obviously not a representative sample. Their sample thus does not capture the bulk of undocumented who have been in their repressed status for years and which thus have a greater way to go to realize their earning and productivity potentials.
A report by Manuel Pastor out of the University of Southern California looks at the economic effects of legal status both on unauthorized immigrants and the state of California. Pastor finds “unauthorized Latino immigrants in California…missed out on approximately $2.2 billion in wages and salary income last year alone due solely to their legal status, and the state lost out on the multiplied impacts of that potential income and spending, suggesting a total potential gain of $3.25 billion annually from authorization.”
A recent report from the Immigration Policy Center and Center for American Progress concludes that, in the first three years after legalization, the higher earning power of newly legalized workers would translate “into an increase in net personal income of $30 to $36 billion, which would generate $4.5 to $5.4 billion in additional net tax revenue.” This is a significant increase that reflects upward mobility among legalized workers which takes years, not months, to achieve.
Although the PPIC report is right that a new legalization program for unauthorized immigrants poses no danger to native-born workers and taxpayers, it vastly underestimates the significant economic benefits that would likely flow from legalization. This stems in part from the report’s questionable assumption that roughly 90 percent of all unauthorized immigrants already pay taxes and that legalization therefore would bring few new taxpayers into the system. Most other authoritative estimates suggest that around half of unauthorized immigrants currently pay taxes. Legalization would bring more people into the tax system that PPIC assumes, and would yield increasing tax revenue over time as the wages of newly legalized workers rise.
Photo by me and the sysop.
Obama Finds his Box in Census 2010
Apr 2nd
The New York Times reports that Obama has officially declared himself the nation’s first Black president, via the census form:
The president, who was born in Hawaii and raised there and in Indonesia,
had more than a dozen options in responding to Question 9, about race.
He chose “Black, African Am., or Negro.” (The anachronistic “Negro” was
retained on the 2010 form because the Census
Bureau believes that some older blacks still refer to themselves
that way.)
Mr. Obama could have checked white, checked both black and white, or
checked the last category on the form, “some other race,” which he would
then have been asked to identify in writing.
There is no category specifically for mixed race or biracial.
Not exactly monumental news, but it does raise the question of how arbitrary these check boxes are, in light of the racial reality that many of us have grown up with, including one Barack Obama. Of course, the importance of being recognized and counted by the government should outweigh any frustration we may feel at the act of categorizing ourselves in this inherently imperfect taxonomy. But there’s something moving about how everyone in this country is mobilized to participate in the survey and wrestle with the same set of labels, from the head of state to the undocumented migrant. And it reminds us that whatever box we check, no one ever gets it quite right.
Urban Count in Census Lagging Again — So Far
originally posted by Kai Wright for RaceWire [click here]
Apr 2nd
If you live in a big city, particularly in a neighborhood full of people of color, you’ve likely been bombarded with Census advertising in recent weeks. Here’s why: Washington has spent a record $14 billion over the past decade in an effort to finally accurately count urban areas. So far, the results are mixed.
As of today, a familiar pattern had emerged. Small, white-dominated counties in the Plains and the Midwest were leading the way in share of households that had mailed in their Census questionnaires. Green township, Ohio, leads the nation with a 72 percent response rate. Sioux Falls city, S.D., is at 66 percent. Meanwhile, just a third of Brooklynites have replied; 26 percent in my neighborhood (really, y’all?). Cook County, which overlaps with Chicago, and Los Angeles County are both doing better at roughly 50 percent. The Census Bureau has a fun interactive map here, where you can check out response rates and drill all the way down to the neighborhood-level.
Next month Census workers will start going door-to-door to follow up. That’s when we’ll really find out how much progress the bureau has made in fixing the chronic urban undercount.
A Pew Hispanic Center survey suggests that the massive public awareness push from groups like the National Association of Latino Elected Officials and Leadership Conference on Civil Rights has at least shaped public opinion on participation. A remarkable 91 percent of foreign-born Latinos Pew surveyed last month said they planned to participate in the Census.
The challenge is multi-layered. There’s the obvious fact that many people in Black and immigrant neighborhoods have rightfully distrustful relationships with officialdom. Certainly, with deportations at record highs, any household with undocumented family members isn’t going to be eager to fill out a questionnaire for the federal government. But there’s also hard logistics: Dense urban areas are dynamic places, in which both the housing stock and residents are constantly in motion. A housing-based population count is challenging. The recession doesn’t help, as more and more people struggle to hold onto stable housing.
The stakes are high, though, and not just for national politics. Census data informs hundreds of billions of dollars in federal spending. A presidential review board following the 2000 Census predicted New York City’s undercount would cost it $847 million. States draw local electoral districts with Census data. Cities figure out the number and distribution of City Council seats. Schools, community centers, bus lines – all this stuff’s impacted by Census data. And, frankly, it’s about something deeper: Who we are as a nation. The 2010 Census, if everyone gets counted, will no doubt reflect a dramatically different future for America – a nation that’s browner and more urban than ever. We’ll be following the Census and its results closely over the next few months, so more to come on all of this.
How to Really Make Your Census Count
originally posted by Jamilah King for RaceWire [click here]
Apr 1st
We all know that the census doesn’t exactly take the most nuanced approach when it comes to labeling identities. But given its importance in everything from how many hospitals are built to what communities get which resources, you’ve just got to grit your teeth, bare with it, and deal.
Or do you?
Today’s the deadline to turn in your census form, but before you dig through your snail mail and try to send it in at the last minute, take a look at some communities are tweaking it to work for them.
There’s no explicit category for Persian-Americans, for instance. And there’s no question in the survey that asks about sexual identity.
“Check it right; you ain’t white!” is a campaign that urges Arab and Persian Americans to check the “other” box on their census forms and write in their true identity.
Queer the Census is an effort spearheaded by the National Gay and Lesbian Taskforce that’s asking folks to sign a petition to include a category for sexual identity on the next census.
American Names: The Census Top 30
originally posted by Michelle Chen for RaceWire [click here]
Mar 24th
Ever wonder why politicians and ordinary skeptics get all anxious when it’s time for the census? Numbers often say a lot more about the state of the country than we think. As the immigration battle kicks into high gear, who gets counted in the upcoming census will help shape how Americans see their demographic landscape. Here’s a telling factoid from Census 2000. The top 30 surnames in the nation, according to the feds:
- SMITH
- JOHNSON
- WILLIAMS
- BROWN
- JONES
- MILLER
- DAVIS
- GARCIA
- RODRIGUEZ
- WILSON
- MARTINEZ
- ANDERSON
- TAYLOR
- THOMAS
- HERNANDEZ
- MOORE
- MARTIN
- JACKSON
- THOMPSON
- WHITE
- LOPEZ
- LEE
- GONZALEZ
- HARRIS
- CLARK
- LEWIS
- ROBINSON
- WALKER
- PEREZ
- HALL
Quite a list. Note that Lewis and Clark appear to be ceding ground to Lopez and Lee. How do you think the top 30 names will shake out in 2010? Place your bets now.
Image: Tampa Bay Online
Marching Forward: Thousands Gather in Washington, D.C. to Demand Immigration Reform
originally posted by Seth Hoy for Immigration Impact [click here]
Mar 22nd
Yesterday, an estimated 200,000 from at least 35 states gathered in Washington, D.C. to raise their voices for comprehensive immigration reform—reform President Obama promised to address within his first year in office. The National Mall and surrounding streets were full of supporters carrying signs with messages such as “Family Unity,” “Reform Not Raids,” “Friends Keep Their Promises” and “$1.5 Trillion to the U.S. Economy.” Representing a broad coalition of supporters, the immigration rally came on the heels of a series of White House meetings on the issue as well as Sens. Schumer and Graham’s rough legislative blueprint of an reform bill expected later this year.
The broad coalition of immigration supporters included a slew of advocates, labor unions, faith and religious groups, as well as congressional members and African American leaders such as Ben Jealous, executive director of the NAACP, Rev. Jesse Jackson, executive director of the Rainbow PUSH coalition and Marc Morial, executive director of the National Urban League.
Congressional members—including Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL), Sen. Robert Menedez (D- NJ), Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-CA), Rep. Nydia Velazquez (D-NY) , Rep. Michael Honda (D-CA), Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-FL), Rep. Yvette Clark (D-NY), Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-AR), Rep. Judy Chu (D-CA)—were on hand to hold President Obama’s feet to the fire and demonstrate the urgency of fixing our broken immigration system.
According to Rep. Luis V. Gutierrez (D-IL), a long-time advocate for immigration reform and sponsor of the 2009 immigration bill CIR ASAP:
We’ve been patient long enough. We’ve listened quietly. We’ve asked politely. We’ve turned the other cheek so many times our heads are spinning. It’s time to let immigrants come out of the shadows into the light and for America to embrace them and protect them.
Fortunately, the White House is starting to listen. Today, several religious leaders met with Obama administration officials to discuss immigration reform from a faith-based perspective. At the rally yesterday, President Obama released a pre-recorded message reconfirming his pledge to immigration reform this year:
I pledge to everything in my power to forger a bipartisan consensus this year on this important issue. You know as well as I do that this won’t be easy and it won’t happen over night. But if we work together—across ethnic, state and party lines—we can build a future worthy of our history as a nation of immigrants and a nation of laws.
With the passage of the monumental health care bill late last night, supporters are hoping the White House now has the political momentum to raise the banner for immigration reform and tackle the issue this year.
According to Angela Kelly at the Center for American Progress:
We are trying to send a strong message that when health care is past us, this is the issue that needs to be up at bat. We’ve been in the bullpen for a long time, and now we want to show the strength of the team and the power of the issue.
Meanwhile, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) assured supporters last week that he is committed to bringing Senators Schumer and Graham’s bipartisan immigration bill to the floor when the bill is ready.
Video by White House.
The Economic and Political Stakes of an Accurate Census Count
originally posted by Walter Ewing for Immigration Impact [click here]
Mar 4th
This week, the U.S. Census Bureau began distribution of the questionnaires for the 2010 Census. The results of the Census will form the basis for the apportionment of congressional districts and the distribution of hundreds of billions of dollars in federal funds, as well as serving to guide community-planning decisions across the country. However, Census 2010 has not been without its share of controversy. In October of last year, for instance, Senator David Vitter (R-LA) proposed an amendment to the Commerce, Justice and State appropriations legislation which would cut off financing for the 2010 Census unless the survey includes questions about immigration status. Additionally, some pro-immigrant activists have suggested that immigrants sit out the Census this year to protest the federal government’s failure to enact comprehensive immigration reform. Yet this would be self-defeating given the high economic and political stakes of an accurate count, and that fact that immigrants are already among those demographic groups who are typically under-counted in the Census.
Anyone living in an area that suffers from a large under-count of immigrants stands to lose out on political representation and federal funds. For instance, an undercount of Latino immigrants would impact anyone living in a state such as California, New York, or Illinois that has a large population of Latino immigrants—meaning that everyone in those states stands to lose political representation and access to economic and educational opportunities if immigrant residents aren’t fully counted in 2010.
According to a 2009 research report from the Census Bureau, roughly $435.7 billion in federal grant and direct assistance money “was allocated based on Census Bureau data”—including “annual population estimates, Decennial Census data, and other Census Bureau sources”—in Fiscal Year (FY) 2007. The 10 federal programs accounting for 83.4 percent of all funding “allocated annually using population and/or income statistics,” as of FY 2007, were:
- Medical Assistance Program {Medicaid} ($203.5 billion)
- Unemployment Insurance ($35.9 billion)
- Highway Planning and Construction ($34.2 billion)
- Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program ($30.3 billion)
- Temporary Assistance for Needy Families ($16.5 billion)
- Federal Pell Grant Program ($13.7 billion)
- Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies ($12.8 billion)
- Special Education Grants to States ($10.8 billion)
- National School Lunch Program ($7.8 billion)
- Head Start ($6.9 billion)
As the National Research Council notes in a 2009 study, “historically, a key issue has been, and remains, the differential net undercount of blacks, Hispanics, and Native Americans, which has resulted in the repeated underrepresentation of areas in which those groups make up a large fraction of the residents. In particular, the differential net undercount of these groups has led to their receiving less than their share of federal funds and political representation.” In other words, because blacks, Latinos, and Native Americans tend to live in particular areas, everyone in those areas receives less political representation and federal funding if blacks, Latinos, and Native Americans are under-counted.
Photo by thomasclaveirole.