Fiscal Implications of Illegal Immigration

Unlike a few years ago, there has been relatively little talk about illegal immigration in the last two years. With both presidential candidates holding similar views, there was rarely a mention during the recent campaign. In 2008, Jeffrey Passel, a senior demographer at the non-partisan research organization, Pew Hispanic Center (PHC), reported that there has been virtually no growth in the illegal immigration population to the United States since 2006. The reason is likely because of the recession and the lack of jobs in the United States. While the poor economy is currently thwarting illegal immigrants from entering the U.S., there are still critical fiscal problems caused by illegal immigration that cannot be totally ignored.

The Issue

The PHC estimates that there to be about 12 million illegal immigrants residing in the United States.  In 2004, 49% of illegal immigrants were high school dropouts as opposed to 21% for legal immigrants and 11% for natives.  Low education often leads to low-skill jobs and low pay and thus an inability to climb the economic ladder of success and pay a higher share of taxes.

In addition, legal taxpayers are paying for many illegal immigrants health care bills. Since many illegal immigrants are below the federal poverty line, they often have to rely on social services such as uncompensated health care which is predominantly funded by cost-shifting to legal taxpayers with insurance. In Texas, the state controller estimated that illegal immigrants cost hospitals $1.3 billion in 2006. In California, a 2004 study by the Federation for American Immigration Reform put the state’s annual cost at $1.4 billion. In Colorado and Minnesota for 2005, the costs were estimated to be $31 million and $17 million respectively.

Although some illegal immigrants do pay taxes to the government, the Census Bureau found in 2002 that households headed by illegal immigrants used $10 billion more in government services than they paid in taxes.  According to the Federation for American Immigration Reform, the total K-12 school costs for illegal immigrants costs the nation nearly $12 billion annually, and when the children born to illegal immigrants were added, the costs go up to $28.6 billion.  This is problematic at a time when states are cutting public school budgets and laying off teachers, students are often overcrowded in classrooms, and some schools are even thinking of changing the five day school week to four days due to lack of funds.

Possible Solutions

One possible solution to decrease illegal immigration is to make it simpler to enter and stay in the U.S. legally. Currently, the estimated waiting period to get a Permanent Residency Card is three years. On average, a person has to stand in government lines for a total of 45 hours to obtain a Permanent Residency card.  There either has to be less paperwork or more people need to be hired to move the paperwork in the process.

In order to stop the flow of illegal immigration, it must be physically impossible for illegals to enter the U.S. And in order for that to happen, the borders must be secured with precision. All United States borders must be secured with manpower trained to inspect and detect illegal immigrants. The government must make it a priority for the safety of its citizens to secure all borders. As such, there needs to be more funding and training for Homeland Security.

Additionally, anyone applying for a visa should be screened for criminal history in their native country before receiving a visa. Foreigners with temporary visas should be fingerprinted, with the information saved in computers, to be checked if they are overstaying their permitted time period. Once an illegal immigrant is identified, deportation must be carried out in an efficient, yet fair manner. It is therefore necessary for better cooperation between federal and state government agencies. In addition, foreign diplomacy must be culturally sensitive and humane.

For those illegal immigrants who have entered the U.S. and are identified, there should be a priority list of who gets deported first based upon criteria such as knowledge of the English language, whether there is an economic need for their services, how long they have lived in the U.S., and how many family members are currently citizens.

Amnesty should be granted to some illegal immigrants because of the fiscal and logistical constraints to mass deportation. If it saves time, resources, and money to keep many illegal immigrants in the U.S. as opposed to deporting them,  then they should be permitted to stay in the U.S. These illegal immigrants would be given temporary amnesty and the opportunity to file for legal permanent residency as long as they met a certain predefined set of rules. In Britain, the Institute for Public Policy Research found that it would save Britain $4.7 billion pounds in deportation costs and raise $1 billion pounds in taxes if they did not deport their illegal immigrant population (assuming they had the ability to do so).  The Center for American Progress estimates that it would cost $41 billion to deport the over 10 million illegal residents in the U.S.

The U.S. needs to make it a priority to prevent illegal immigration and encourage legal immigration. In order to do this, the government must increase intelligence, border security, investigation, outreach, and interstate and foreign diplomacy. It must be evident that coming to the U.S. illegally is a disadvantage and that entering the U.S. legally makes one deserving of public benefits. By doing so, the U.S. will improve its fiscal status during times of economic hardship for all its legal citizens who are currently not receiving the full benefits of their hard earned fiscal contributions to their country.

Lone Star Rumblings: So Goes the Party

Top to bottom, the GOP in Texas seems to be foundering in a sea of disillusionment and infighting. Not just nationally, but in the Lone Star State as well, the Republican flock that gave rise to the Bush dynasty seems to have lost its faith.

The State of the Electorate

If a recent poll from Hill Research Consultants, entitled “Beyond Bush: Texas Republicans in an Obama Era,” is to be believed, Texas voters suffer from “Bush fatigue,” believe that the GOP is “arrogant, racist, corrupt, and unwelcoming” when compared to its Democrat counterparts. A generic R vs. D gubernatorial ballot gives Democrats a clear advantage at both the state representative and gubernatorial levels.

Generic Ballot Preferences	Republicans	Democrats
Governor	31%	44%
State Representative	31%	45%

Other points of interest note that “multiple deceased Democrats handily beat still living Republican office-holders in favorability,” and “Republicans are also failing to connect with younger voters and the Hispanic community.” Considering the state of Texas is growing younger and more Hispanic by the day, the Texas GOP seems to be on the wrong side of demographic trends.

So goes the opinion of the electorate in Texas, once the bread and butter of the Republican Party. They seem disillusioned and wavering in their support of the GOP and its direction. Hill, et al., warn that what happened in Colorado, a decidedly red state in 2000 whose governor, both chambers of the legislature, and both U.S. senators are now all Democratic, could happen in Texas. “The time to ring the alarm bell, if necessary, is now,” declares Hill.

Finally, it must be noted that the poll referenced in detail above was taken November 15-17^th, right on the heels of the general election. It’s not unreasonable to speculate that the voters surveyed were encircled by the “Obama halo,” a feel-good sentiment that seemed to wash over much of the country, proud of itself for electing its first African-American president. In general, polls taken in the weeks immediately after an election are not as reliable. Many moderate voters often have a confirmation bias toward the winning candidate or party. However, with that said, the Texas GOP should ignore the results of this poll at their own peril.

Gubernatorial and Senatorial Implications

With the laity in such disarray, it’s no surprise that the Republican Party leadership is struggling to maintain order within its own ranks. Two key Texas Republicans are looking vulnerable, and not necessarily just from Democratic vectors.

Sitting Governor Rick Perry, who won reelection in 2006 with only 39.3% of the vote, announced in April his intention to run again in 2010. Texas does not place limits on reelecting its governor, but a third term would be unprecedented and apparently not necessarily welcomed by some of the Republican elite.

On December 4^th,Kay Bailey Hutchison, the senior U.S. Senator from Texas, filed paperwork with the Texas Ethics Commission to form an exploratory committee for the office of governor. The filing was not revelatory, as she’s been dodgy for months about directly answering the “would she or wouldn’t she run” question, and noises were even made about her running against Perry in 2006 and 2002. What was surprising was the speed with which the two camps traded barbs after her filing.

Hutchison initially remarked that there’s “too much bitterness, too much anger, too little trust, too little consensus and too much infighting” in Austin. Mark Miner, a Perry spokesman, replied “Kay Bailout has been talking about running for governor and passing legislation for years, and neither has ever happened.”

It will be an interesting gubernatorial primary in 2010, indeed.

Other Political Rumblings

Hutchison’s U.S. Senate seat does not come up for re-election until 2012. Should she vacate the Senate before then (she doesn’t have to in order to run for state office), the governor has the power to appoint a replacement. The word around the campfire is that sitting Lt. Governor,David Dewhurst, would be at the top of Perry’s short list.

Third behind the governor and lieutenant governor in power, the Speaker of the Texas House is elected at the beginning of each new congressional session, the next one beginning January 13, 2009. Rep. Tom Craddick, R-Midland, whose leadership style has been likened to that of Vlad the Impaler, has held the Speakership since 2003.

He has caused controversy and consternation among both Democrats and Republicans by his heavy-handed use, some would say abuse, of the powers given him as speaker by the Texas Constitution. Not only has he refused to recognize representatives motioning for house rules changes that may challenge his power, he has even refused to allow direct votes to remove him from power brought before the House by half a dozen of his fellow Republicans at the end of the last session. He thought it would set a bad precedent.  Those who have challenged him from his own party have found themselves being passed over for desirable positions that their seniority may have given them dibs on.

No less than eleven representatives, seven of which are from his own party, will challenge Craddick for the Speakership for the next legislative session. On Friday, December 12^th, Rep. Dan Gattis, R-Georgetown, filed a constitutional proposition that would allow the removal of a speaker in mid-session with the approval of 100 of the 150 representatives. Obviously, Craddick is not a popular guy, even among his own people.

Overall Lone Star Outlook

With a core constituency that no longer seems to trust its leadership or the direction the party is taking, the GOP in Texas is a rudderless mess. Its captains can’t decide who should be at the helm, and Texas Democrats are eagerly waiting in the wings to stage a mutiny the scale of which would be rivaled only by the 1994 “Republican Revolution.” In 2010, it looks like they’ll have their chance.

10/31 Swing State Power Rankings

In honor of All Hallows Eve, today’s Swing State Power Rankings will focus on the five states Demockracy believes will be most likely to keep us up past the bewitching hour on Election Night with dirty tricks, hanging chads, and provisional spooks…

5. Pennsylvania

Unlike most swing states, Pennsylvania does not have early voting. Therefore, polls could be flooded. Long lines and dirty tricks may ensue.

4. Missouri

Missouri is known for Election Night chaos. In 2000, polls were held open for several hours to accommodate those who still hadn’t been able to vote. These problems resurfaced this February on Super Tuesday.

3. Colorado

As one of the top-tier tipping point states and one of the last competitive states to close its polls, Colorado has the potential to keep us up with fright! If the election is not decided by the time Colorado begins to tabulate their votes, expect all eyes to turn to the Rockies.

2. Ohio

After 2004, how could Ohio not be near the top of the list? A maldistribution of voting machines caused seven or eight hour lines in some areas. For instance, many students at Kenyon College didn’t get to vote until 2 am, AFTER Ohio had been called for George W. Bush. Why? There was one working voting machine for thousands of voters. Ohio has a new Secretary of State this year, but election irregularities would not be a surprise. Obama has called thousands of lawyers to the Buckeye State.

1. Florida.

2000. Hanging Chads. Supreme Court. December. Enough said…

10/29 Swing State Power Rankings

Today’s Power Rankings will be based solely on early voting numbers. So far the top states in terms of percentage of 2008 early voters divided by total 2004 voters are:

5. Florida

Over 2 million voters, or 27% of 2004 total voters, have voted so far in the Sunshine State. Democratic early voters outnumber Republican early voters 45%-40%. This is significant because Republican early voters far outnumbered Democratic early voters here in 2000 and 2004.

4. Georgia

Over 1.2 million voters, or 36.4% of 2004 total voters, have voted so far in the Peach State. African Americans make up 35.4% of early voters.

3. Colorado

Over 800,000 voters, or 37.9% of 2004 total voters, have voted so far in Colorado. Democrats and Republicans are virtually even in the number of ballots requested, and the large majority of early votes have come from absentee voting (80%).

2. North Carolina

Over 1.4 million voters, or 39.7% of 2004 total voters, have voted so far in North Carolina. There have been nearly double the number of early Democratic voters compared to early Republican voters, and African American voters have made up 28% of early voters in the state.

1. Nevada

Nearly 350,000 voters, or 41.4% of 2004 total voters, have voted so far in Nevada. A large majority of early votes have come from Clark and Washoe counties. Similar to North Carolina, Democratic early voters in these two counties outnumber Republican early voters by a margin of nearly 2-1.

10/28 Swing State Power Rankings

Based on campaign visits, polls, and the visceral reactions of Demockracy writers, we’ll be doing state power rankings for the final week of the campaign. Here are the rankings for Monday, October 27:

5. Pennsylvania

Although not competitive in the polls, three out of the four presidential candidates visited here Monday. This alone guarantees the commonwealth a spot in the top five. However, because of recent polls, we can’t legitimize putting it any higher.

4. Colorado Over 100,000 showed up strong for Senator Obama in Denver on Sunday. Although Senator McCain has reportedly pulled some resources out of Colorado, it still remains relatively close. Obama was here in an attempt to seal the deal.

3. Florida

Florida appears to be trending back to McCain and is again a true tossup state in our eyes. Having 27 electoral votes, its sheer size keeps it near the top of the list. Joe Biden will making two stops in the sunshine state on Tuesday.

2. Virginia Virginia continues to lean heavily toward Senator Obama. With 13 electoral votes, it is the largest Bush state that looks very likely to turn blue this year. Senator Obama will be here on Tuesday to try to put this state away.

1. Ohio Ohio jumps to the top of our list day, largely because Obama launched his “closing argument’ speech/message in Canton, Ohio on Monday. This fact, combined with relatively tight polls that are trending slightly in Senator Obama’s favor, give Ohio the top spot for today. We believe that all the signs are on the wall for Ohio to be one of Obama’s final stops next Sunday or Monday.

John King: McCain Pulling Out of Colorado

CNN’s keeper of the election board, John King, is reporting tonight that McCain will be pulling out of Colorado, New Mexico, and Iowa. Apparently he will re-divert resources for an all out push for Pennsylvania and Florida. New Mexico and Iowa are not surprises. However, Colorado does come as somewhat of a surprise.  Does McCain really think that he has a better chance in Pennsylvania than in Colorado? Either their internal polling is very different from independent national polling, or they only have the resources to go on the offensive in one state. Since Pennsylvania has the most electoral votes (21) of any Kerry state that is even moderately competitive, it may simply be McCain’s best worst option.

What If? The 269-269 Scenario

Lurking behind the event-driven noise of this unusually noisy election, the routine business of state-by-state polling has continued apace. Few people are looking, of course, but the state-level polls have actually shown unexpected strengths for both candidates in unusual places. For Mr. Obama, both Indiana and North Carolina have polled improbably well, while Mr. McCain does well in both Pennsylvania and New Hampshire.

Assuming for the moment that Obama holds Pennsylvania and McCain ultimately carries Indiana and North Carolina, along with other swing states such as Ohio, Florida, and Virginia, a wide assortment of 269-269 scenarios involving a possible flip of New Hampshire (4) have emerged. Notably, if Mr. Obama wins all of the Kerry states besides New Hampshire (248 electoral votes), plus Iowa (7), New Mexico (5), and Colorado (9), where he is comfortably ahead, Mr. Obama and Mr. McCain would both end up with 269 electoral votes. So what happens if the electoral vote is tied?

On one level, the answer is known and is obvious: the race “goes to the House.” Most tenth graders know this much, of course–but many fewer people understand what this expression precisely means, and just how much chaos might well ensue if it should happen for the first time in modern history.

Most of us assume that each House member gets a single vote, but in fact it is each state that gets a single vote, based on internal negotiations for which there are no preset rules. At the moment a casual “whip count” from assembling all of the close House races would seem to be suggest that Democratic majorities are likely in anything from 22 to 27 of the delegations, while the Republicans can only count on 14 solid votes when the time comes. Even if the Republicans win all of their solids, all 6 of those currently leaning their way, and all 3 of the truly up for grabs, their count would still fall two votes short, 23-27. To make a 26-vote majority outright, the Republicans would probably need to win back control, something few experts are prepared to grant as even an outside possibility this year.

The complicating factor is that several states are expected to have Democratic majorities in Congress, but with popular-vote majorities for McCain (in some cases quite large majorities at that). Of the Democrat’s projected 27 state majority in the voting, two states (North and South Dakota) are represented by single Democratic congresspersons and will almost certainly go hard-red on election night, while a third (Mississippi) is only represented by four House members, one almost certain to be Republican.

Naturally all Democratic congresspersons in such a position would be lobbied aggressively by both campaigns–particularly if Mr. McCain were to win the national popular vote. McCain would promise electoral vengeance for anyone daring to buck the will of the people, and Obama would reply with promises of cushy jobs in the Administration for anyone who suffered this fate.

If in consequence, the House simply fails to arrive at a 26-vote consensus, the job falls to the Senate, which elects the Vice President (one-man, one-vote), deciding the Presidency by default after the House’s decision to leave the top job vacant.  This raises the bizarre spectacle of a President Joe Biden. (Many pundits have suggested that Biden would pick Obama to be his Vice President and then resign, but he is under no constitutional obligation to do so.)

After the events of the past two days, this sort of bedlam seems increasingly possible, if not downright foreordained. The real question is what each of us will do about it, in our capacities as letter-writing, protest-organizing, rank-and-file citizenry.  Will the galvanized voters of the extreme right-wing prevail, as they did in 2000, on the basis of having stronger and longer lasting will? Or does the incumbent party always have the harder sell for four more years?

Mercifully, that aspect of the larger question is always, always, always left to each of us to decide for ourselves–regardless of who carries the single electoral vote that goes with winning the Omaha suburbs,* which could (even more bizarrely) decide the outcome of the entire election.

*Nebraska and Maine award electoral votes by congressional district. A candidate wins two electoral votes for carrying the state and one electoral vote for each congressional district

Pre-VP and Convention Presidential Forecast

State of the Race—8/16

Safe Obama (183)—CA, CT, DE, DC, HA, IL, ME, MY, MA, NJ, NY, RI, VT, WA.

Likely Obama (48)—MN, OR, PA, WI

Lean Obama (33)—IA, MI, NH, NM

Safe McCain (136)—AL, AR, AZ, ID, KA, KY, LA, MS, NE, OK, SC, TN, TX, UT, WV, WY.

Likely McCain (18)—GA, SD

Lean McCain (70)—AK, FL IN, MO, NC, ND

Toss-up States (with Electoral Votes and with Pollster.com and 538 Average)

Ohio (20 Electoral Votes)—Obama +1.9

Colorado (9 Electoral Votes)—Obama +0.9

Montana (3 Electoral Votes)—Obama +0.25

Virginia (13 Electoral Votes)—McCain +.1

Nevada (5 Electoral Votes)—McCain +2.35

Including leaners, it is Obama 264-McCain 224. Of the big three toss-up states (Ohio, Virginia, and Colorado), McCain must win all three. Of all toss-up states, McCain has two winning scenarios, both of which include winning the four largest toss-up states:

1. NV, MT, VA, CO, and OH
2. NV, VA, CO, and OH

Obama currently has at least five winning scenarios from the toss-up states. If he wins any one of the big three toss-up states, he is the outright winner. Also, a win in Nevada will lead to an Electoral College tie*, which is essentially an Obama win. Finally, an outright Obama win is possible with victories in Nevada and Montana.

1. OH
2. CO
3. VA
4. NV*
5. NV and MT

Bottom Line:

2000 was Florida, Florida, Florida. 2004 was Ohio, Ohio, Ohio. 2008, as of this moment, is Ohio, Colorado, Virginia, and Nevada. McCain needs all four states to win, while Obama only must win one out of these states to become President. Therefore, while the race is still wide open, our overall election forecast going into the vice presidential selections and conventions is LEAN OBAMA.