Texas migrants send $3 billion home

Latin American immigrants in Texas will send more than $3 billion back home this year to feed their families while helping their homeland economies stay afloat, according to a new study released Monday.

The Inter-American Development Bank reported immigrants across the country will send $30.1 billion to Latin America in what it called the first state-by-state report on migrant remittances.

For many smaller countries, such U.S. money transfers are larger than the amounts they receive in foreign aid, the report concluded.

Texas ranked third overall, behind California's $9.6 billion infusion and New York, with $3.6 billion.

Mexico received 91 percent of the Texas contributions, while the rest was split among El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua and Cuba.

The study used 2002 U.S. census figures to conduct a survey of 3,802 households in 37 states and the District of Columbia between January and April.

It determined about 10 million of the country's estimated 16.7 million Latin American-born adults send money back home, typically to the poorest towns and villages where they once lived.

The report also estimates Latin American immigrants pump about $450 billion into the U.S. economy.

"It's a river of gold that flows from the United States to Latin America," said Sergio Bendixen, a Miami-based pollster who ran the survey. "Now we're able to identify all the tributaries."

Bendixen said the survey confirmed states with large migrant populations such as Texas are the biggest senders.

But the remittances now also flow from other states that only recently have started seeing a large influx of immigrants, he pointed out.

Reflecting demographic shifts identified by census statistics, the new survey identified states such as Georgia, North Carolina and Minnesota as places where thousands of migrants dispatch millions of dollars back home.

Migrants in these states also send money more consistently than in locations with large, established immigrant communities.

In fact, the immigrant populations of North Carolina and Virginia have the largest proportions of money-senders. In those states, 84 percent of migrants dutifully send money home, the report shows. In contrast, only 43 percent in Texas contribute.

"In Texas, you're talking about people that have been there more than 20 years," Bendixen said. "In most cases, they'll send for 10 to 15 years and then stop. They get assimilated to the U.S., even bring their families over here."

Bendixen said states with smaller Latin American migrant populations didn't send enough money from which to sample data. But he noted that a decade from now, even northern New England will have enough migrants to be in the survey.

Most migrants reported sending money home about once a month, usually between $150 and $250. Most also still prefer to use local money-transfer services or couriers, while a smaller percentage used banks and credit unions.

Thirty-nine percent of survey respondents said they are permanent legal residents, while 32 percent said they had no documents and 24 percent reported being U.S. citizens.

Though the financial significance of remittances to his country is not new, Roberto Rosas said the new report proves the interdependency between immigrant labor and the U.S. economy is growing.

Rosas, a law professor at St. Mary's University and a member of the Mexican government's Institute of Mexicans Living Abroad, said "social chaos" would be the outcome if the remittances were suddenly cut.

Likewise, he said, if Mexicans disappeared, the U.S. economy would be left limping.

That's a fact Rebecca Flores always knew but found hard to prove. The new survey takes care of that concern, she said.

Flores, an advocate for immigrants as director of the San Antonio office of the United Farm Workers union, was surprised at the financial bounty that immigrants generate, especially considering their typical low-wage earnings.

"We've always known how hard they work," she said. "I just never knew to what extent — we're talking billions. They literally hold on their backs the economies of so many countries, including ours."

The Inter-American Development Bank had been studying migrant remittances since 2000, trying to understand their socioeconomic impact.

The international lending institution is trying to get Latin American banks and credit unions to tap into the remittance market by linking directly with U.S. banks, which are increasingly getting into the act.

Mass Immigration Cost American Taxpayers $69 Billion Net and 2 Million Jobs in 1997
Study by Dr. Donald Huddle Reports Legal Immigration of over 1 Million Per Year Accounts for over 62% of Costs
State Costs to Taxpayers are Also Soaring (1996 Net Costs % up from 1992):

California: $28 billion up 35%

New York: $14 billion up 29%

Texas: $7 billion up 37%

Florida: $6 billion up 77%

The first study of the net cost of immigration to American taxpayers in 1997 conducted by Dr. Donald Huddle, Professor Emeritus of Economics at Rice University, found that:

The nearly 26 million legal and illegal immigrants settling in the United States since 1970 cost taxpayers a net $69 billion in 1997 alone, in excess of taxes those immigrants paid. This represents a cost of $260 in additional taxes paid by each U.S. resident or $1,030 in additional taxes paid by each family of four. This cost is a substantial increase over the net immigration costs of $65 billion ins 1996, $51 billion ins 1994, $44 billion in 1993, and $43 billion in 1992.

Over 62% of the net national cost of immigration in 1996, $40.6 billion, was attributable to legal and legalized (amnesty) immigrants. Illegal immigration generates about 38%, $24 billion of the total net cost. Legal immigration levels are over one million per year, and rising.

During 1996, approximately 2.3 million predominantly low-skill American workers were displaced from their jobs due to the continued heavy influx of immigrant workers since 1970. Taxpayers paid more than $15.2 billion in public assistance for those displaced workers in 1996, including Medicaid, Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), unemployment compensation, and food stamps.

A net deficit of $8.5 billion dollars to the Social Security system in 1996 is attributable to the economic impact of the foreign-born population. Continued mass immigration threatens the solvency of the Social Security system.

Net cumulative costs for the 1998-2007 decade are projected to reach $932 billion, an average of $93.2 billion per year, even with recent changes in welfare and immigration policies and a prosperous economy, if current mass immigration trends are allowed to continue.

Breakdown for 1997 Costs of Legal Immigration
Public Schools (Primary, Secondary, Higher, etc) $22.5 billion

Bilingual Education, ESOL, ESL Education $ 3.3 billion

Medicaid $12.8 billion

AFDC (for legal and illegal immigrant's offspring) $ 2.4 billion

Social Security $24.8 billion

Supplemental Security Income $ 2.9 billion

Housing Assistance $ 2.6 billion

Criminal Justice $ 2.6 billion

Jobs Lost by Americans $10.8 billion

Other Programs $51.4 billion

1997 Total Costs for LEGAL Immigration: $136 billion

Add 1997 total costs for illegal immigration of $41 billion and subtract an estimated $108 billion in taxes paid by all immigrants (legal and illegal) in 1997 to obtain the overall net figure of $69 billion charged to you, and other American taxpayers.

Other key facts regarding immigration are:

1.) If current immigration trends continue, the current U.S. population of

274 million will nearly double to over 500,000,000 by 2050. (The U.S. was 135 million at the end of WWII.)

2.) Harvard Professor George Borjas demonstrated that mass immigration costs American workers $133 billion per year in wage depression and job loss.

3.) The prestigious National Research Council found at the state and local levels (which bear most of the burden for K-12 education) the net fiscal burden of the average immigrant-headed household (i.e., after subtracting state and local taxes the household paid) was:

$1,484 per immigrant-headed household in New Jersey (in the 1989-1990 fiscal year); and $3,463 in California (in 1994-1995)(p. 276-277)

Why should we continue to allow our own working poor, homeless, and unemployed to continue to suffer from the job loss, wage depression, and other burdens imposed by mass immigration?

http://www.carryingcapacity.org/huddlenr.html

WHY A 100,000 LIMIT ON IMMIGRATION IS REALISTIC AND NECESSARY
Currently, the United States' population is on trend to reach the 500 million mark by 2050. Our population is not just growing- it is growing rapidly. Some states, like Florida and California are growing more rapidly than many Third World nations. This explosive growth has put immense strain on our natural resources, cities and environmental health. There are many problems associated with immense population growth, such as heavy traffic, air pollution, water and energy shortages, overcrowded schools, declines in purchasing power and quality of life, tax increases, and soil erosion. Yet the average American citizen's birthrate is at replacement level. What many people don't realize is that over 70% of the U.S.'s growth is due to mass- immigration generated population growth.

The problems associated with this unprecedented growth become unsolvable in the face of waves of over one million new immigrants a year.

That is why CCN believes the U.S. needs a time-out on mass-immigration perhaps more than anything else. An all-inclusive cap on legal immigration would dramatically cut down on both current immigration and future chain migration. It would give the U.S. time to stabilize the population, to address the problems created by over-stressed city infrastructures and poverty, and to shape an environmental policy to protect strained natural resources. A moratorium would lend time for new immigrants and poor citizens alike to attain greater opportunities through higher wages and better educational opportunities.

The United States now accepts over one million legal immigrants each year, which is more than all of the other industrialized nations in the world, combined. The sheer number of immigrants has simply overwhelmed our country's ability to continue to provide for newcomers and natives alike, and in many cases has only added to America's problems. We need to focus attention on the fact that legal immigration is three times as great as illegal immigration and accounts for 55%-75% of the multibillion dollar annual costs. The most current data show that his wave of legal immigrants is far more likely to use welfare, receive higher direct cash assistance, and use taxpayer funded social services. Our country is already burdened by underfunded schools, overcrowded prisons, persistent unemployment, increasingly violent crime, accelerating resource depletion, an ever-growing budget deficit and a rapidly decreasing quality of life. Adding over one million immigrants to our country each year only makes there problems much more difficult to solve.

Given that the projected net cost to taxpayers of legal immigration alone will be $932 billion over the next ten years, at an average of $70 billion a year, a moratorium on immigration in excess of 100,000 per year is essential to cut the budget deficit. There is widespread agreement that reducing federal deficits and balancing the budget are crucial steps in ensuring the future economic well-being of the United States. America is now the world's greatest debtor nation. If immigration levels remain at the same or greater rate, most of these multibillion dollar costs would continue to be borne by taxpayers.

While setting levels of legal immigration, enforcing immigration law, and controlling U.S. borders are at the discretion of the federal government, state and local taxpayers end up paying the majority of the costs. For instance, in 1996 legal immigration alone cost Floridians $6 billion, up 77% from 1992. Legal immigration cost Texans $7 billion, New Yorkers $14 billion and Californians an amazing $28 billion. These are the compounded costs of Public Schools, Bilingual Education, Medicaid, AFDC, Social Security, Supplemental Security Income, Housing Assistance, Criminal Justice, as well as job loss by Americans and other programs, for a total cost to American taxpayers of $136 billion dollars. These costs will continue to rise as long as immigrations remains at these levels. A five-year immigration moratorium would temporarily curb these costs and give state governments time to work with the federal government to establish a more responsible long-term immigration policy.

American workers suffer $133 billion in wage losses resulting mainly from immigrant competition. Blacks and other minorities, including other recent immigrants, are historically the most adversely impacted by current high levels of immigration. Beyond the millions of workers who have been displaced by immigrants, countless other Americans are bing affected by declines in working conditions and depressed wages due to immigrant competition in the labor market. Unfortunately, the enormous numbers of low-wage, low-skill immigrants are displacing many American workers, with a disproportionately negative effect on America's native-born Blacks. It has been estimated that 2.35 million American workers were displaced from their jobs as a direct result of immigration in 1993 alone, with these displaced workers requiring public assistance at a cost of $11.92 billion.

A five-year moratorium is politically realistic. Poll after poll suggests that an increasing number of U.S. citizens of all ethnic backgrounds want to see substantial reductions in immigration. For example, in November, 1994 a Times/Mirror Center Poll indicated that 82% of Americans think that the United States should restrict immigration. A September, 1994 CBS/New York Times poll showed that 63% of those surveyed favor reduction in legal immigration, with political affiliation as follows: Republicans 66%, Democrats 60%, and independents 64%. The 1992 Latino National Political Survey, the largest poll of Latinos in the United States, indicated that more than 7 out of 10 Latinos felt there were too many immigrants.

The proposed reduction from 1,200,000 to 100,000 legal immigrants per year is not an arbitrary number. Further reduction of legal immigration into the United States below 100,000 would be undesirable because 100,000 represents a reasonable balance between reducing cost and honoring our humanitarian concerns. We would not want to further delay immigration of spouses and minor children of U.S. citizens, nor would we want to stop accepting at least some refugees and priority workers each year. Although the 100,000 limit is a number solidly grounded in the urgent reality of our current situation, some might consider it too "idealistic" to support in the face of tough opposition. But, the admission of any number of immigrants in excess of 100,000 poses additional severe, and demonstrably unacceptable burdens on American taxpayers, minorities, and the poor, homeless, and unemployed as indicated elsewhere in this document. A higher than 100,000 limit would also result in increased pressure to continue the momentum of chain migration, which results in ever-increasing numbers of immigrants. Since immigration is a discretionary policy, the burden of proof is on those advocating more than 100,000 immigrants per year for five years to justify their position.

Americans should not feel obligated to reunify all the world's families who separated at their own volition. With the possible exception of certain immigrants with a genuine fear for their own safety, families could also be reunified if they returned to their country of origin or attempted to settle in a third country. An additional option during separation could also include visits on temporary visas. Given the gravity of America's budgetary, social, resource, and other problems, preference for the limited number of newcomers we can sustainably accept each year should go to the spouses and minor children of U.S. citizens. It simply does not follow that because someone chooses to leave their country of origin (thus voluntarily splintering their family) to come to the United States (among their several destination options) that the United States is obligated to accept all of those who desire to come here and eventually often admit and support many of their additional family members.

Immigration is the driving force behind U.S. population growth, presently accounting for half of total net population increase. Our population growth, which at three million per year is the highest in the developed world, is a root cause of many of the United States' problems and presents a serious threat to our limited natural resources such as topsoil, forests, clean air and water, and healthy ecosystems. If present trends of topsoil loss continue, for example, only 0.6 acres of arable land per person will be available by 2050, whereas more than 1.2 acres per person is needed to provide a diverse diet (and 1.8 acres of arable land per person is available currently). The U.S. total fertility rate has been below replacement level since the early 1970s. If it were not for immigration, U.S. population would be stabilizing in the first half of the next century. It should be noted that respected demographers Ahlburg and Vaupel have projected that if current trends continue, the U.S. population will double in size to half a billion people by the year 2050. If Congress does nothing to reduce immigration, 90% of all U.S. population growth between 1993 and 2050 will be due to immigrants and their descendants.

Establishing an immigration moratorium is in the national interest. A moratorium would provide the breathing space necessary to develop a long-term immigration policy that truly serves the national interest by recognizing the limits to government spending, ordering spending priorities around the needs of American citizens and immigrants already living in the United States, and establishing realistic limits on the number of immigrants that the U.S. economy, society, and environment can sustain. At a time when initial efforts to reduce spending and balance the budget have already resulted in painful cuts in public services for many American citizens, the United States simply cannot afford to continue to accept almost half of the world's immigrants.

http://www.carryingcapacity.org/100000.html

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.