Posted on 04/11/2005 5:25:04 PM PDT by fight_truth_decay
Analysis of the latest Census data indicates Texas’s illegal immigrant population is costing the state’s taxpayers more than $4.7 billion per year for education, medical care and incarceration. Even if the estimated tax contributions of illegal immigrant workers are subtracted, net outlays still amount to more than $3.7 billion per year. The annual fiscal burden amounts to about $725 per Texas household headed by a native-born resident.
This analysis looks specifically at the costs to the state for education, health care and incarceration resulting from illegal immigration. These three are the largest cost areas, and they are the same three areas analyzed in a 1994 study conducted by the Urban Institute, which provides a useful baseline for comparison ten years later. Other studies have been conducted in the interim, showing trends that support the conclusions of this report.
Other significant costs associated with illegal immigration exist, and these too should be taken into account by federal and state officials. Even without accounting for all of the numerous areas in which costs associated with illegal immigration are being incurred by Texas taxpayers, the program areas analyzed in this study indicate that the burden is substantial and that the costs are rapidly increasing.
The more than $4.7 billion in costs incurred by Texas taxpayers annually result from outlays in the following areas:
Education. Based on estimates of the illegal immigrant population in Texas and documented costs of K-12 schooling, Texans spend more than $4 billion annually on education for illegal immigrant children and for their U.S.-born siblings. About 11.9 percent of the K-12 public school students in Texas are children of illegal aliens.
Health Care. Taxpayer-funded medical outlays for health care provided to the state’s illegal alien population amount to about $520 million a year.
Incarceration. The uncompensated cost of incarcerating illegal aliens in Texas’s state and county prisons amounts to about $150 million a year (not including local jail detention costs or related law enforcement and judicial expenditures or the monetary costs of the crimes that led to their incarceration). State and local taxes paid by the unauthorized immigrant population go toward offsetting these costs, but they do not come near to matching the expenses. The total of such payments can generously be estimated at slightly less than $1 billion per year.
The fiscal costs of illegal immigration do not end with these three major cost areas. The total costs of illegal immigration to the state’s taxpayers would be considerably higher if other cost areas such as special English instruction, welfare programs used by the U.S.-born children of illegal aliens, or welfare benefits for American workers displaced by illegal alien workers were also calculated.
While the primary responsibility for combating illegal immigration rests with the federal government, there are many measures that state and local governments can take to combat the problem. Texans should not be expected to assume this already large and growing burden from illegal immigration simply because local businesses or other special interests benefit from being able to employ lower cost workers. The state could adopt measures to systematically collect information on illegal alien use of taxpayer-funded services and on where they are employed. Policies could then be pursued to hold employers financially accountable.
The state could also enter into a cooperative agreement with the federal government for training local law enforcement personnel in immigration law so illegal immigrants apprehended for breaking the law can be expeditiously turned over to the immigration authorities for removal from the country. Similarly, local officials who have adopted “sanctuary” measures that shield illegal aliens from being reported to the immigration authorities should be urged to repeal them.
Texas has also voluntarily adopted policies that add to the cost burdens of illegal immigration. While all states are compelled under a 1982 U.S. Supreme Court decision to provide a free K-12 education to all children, irrespective of their immigration status, they are under no obligation to subsidize education beyond that point. Nevertheless, the Texas legislature and Governor Perry have decided to grant in-state tuition benefits at public colleges and universities to illegal aliens.
It is unreasonable for a state to expect federal assistance to compensate for the fiscal burden of illegal immigration if it is pursuing policies that encourage illegal aliens to come and remain in the state.
The full report is available in html and pdf
April 2005
As bad as she may be, at least she understands fundamental custodial rights of parents. If you have children, maybe you'd understand too?
"Too bad even Fidel disagrees."
Could you expound on that comment?
Sorry ClintonBeGone, I just read section 8 and there is nothing in that section that would prohibit a state with respect to how they handle illegals and their tuition rates. Nice try.
Also, is it your belief that illegals, mostly working a minimum wage, come close to contributing even a fraction of what they receive upon entering this country?
As I have posted in the past, the Economist magazine estimated that it was worth nearly $400,000 for a Third Worlder to just step foot in the US.
Upon entering the US, he and his family receive the benefits of our costly infrastructure: paved roads, parks, sewage, clean running water, schools at a cost of about $8,000 - $9000 per pupil per year, hospitals with the best medical care in the world, police and fire protection.
He and family can receive welfare benefits: food stamps, welfare, and SSI.
And as this article points out: in-state tuition for college, something our own children cannot receive as citizens if we send them to another state.
Let's not forget the other impacts that illegals have on our society: higher rates of crime and illegitimacy, and the overcrowding of our cities and suburbs.
Tolerating illegal immigration in any form is a big net loser for the average American citizen. We need to press our officials to end this problem.
Talk about a dishonest point. All these things are fixed costs. They're expenses that have or will be paid regardless of who lives here. In fact, you could argue that for every new person that steps into this country, the average cost per person for these expenses actually decreases.
Nice try, BUT---
A 1996 federal law addressing illegal immigration included a provision affecting state residency requirements for in-state tuition rates, traditionally a matter of state law. Now, states are prohibited from offering in-state tuition rates to unauthorized immigrant students unless other U.S. citizens are eligible for the same rate. Since 2001, more than 20 states have introduced bills addressing in-state tuition for undocumented immigrants. Seven states have established new residency standards allowing unauthorized immigrant students to receive in-state tuition under certain conditions. Students without legal immigrant status continue to be ineligible for federal financial aid, although states are required to provide K-12 public education as a result of a 1982 Supreme Court decision.
Certainly. Fidel does not support the concept of family. In his country, the state comes first and is the only 'family' that matters.
Sure, just like she did in Waco when she burned a bunch of them. Are those yours and Janet Reno's family values.
California's cost is more than twice that.
My entire point has been that the state is prohibited from even asking for one's immigration status. That's not to say it can't be asked for on a FEDERAL student aid application, but if you live in Texas and apply to a Texas university, you pay in state tuition and your residency status IN THE USA, is irrelevant.
Not trying to be illogical, but doesn't that put everyone who was against Gonzales' reunification with his dad casting their lots with Castro?
I didn't claim to agree with every action Reno took, didn't even claim to like her. This Gonzales case just happened to be the broken clock's turn to be right.
It was impossible to return Elian to his father, because Fidel stands in loco parenti, so how could keeping Elian in the USA be siding with Castro?
So how was it Reno was right in returning Elian and wrong about gassing and burning kids at Waco? The result is essentially the same - wasted innocent lives.
I don't mean this to be inflamatory, but would you support returning a child to a single parent home where that parent was a child molester?
Gonzales had petitioned for his son's return. With no diplomatic means of redress, he (Gonzales) had to request his government's assistance. Anyone would have done the same for a chance in the return of their child - no matter how corrupt or despicable the government.
Those who would let politics or government divide that father/son relationship do as you have claimed for Castro, "the state comes first".
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
Well, right off the top of my head, I'd say Elian wasn't with his legal custodian - his father. Those kids at Waco were with their family.
To the second part, of course not. Where was it ever alleged Gonzales was a child molester? I don't recall that, and if he was - that would certainly change my opinion if it were a proven fact.
Elian's parents had split. His mother took him to America. She died along the way, he was rescued. So he was with his custodial parent at the time of her death.
Careful. I never said anyone involved in the Elian case WAS a child molester, but I used that as an example. Returning Elian to his father visa vi Castro, was just as damaging to the boy as it would be if you returned him to someone that would continue to do him physical harm.
And the state court held a family court hearing and allowed Elian to apply for asylum, based on his mother's wishes, not his father, who was a stooge for Castro.
And he is that because he requested Castro's help to get his son back? His assylum petition was made by distant family members in the U.S., not by Elian. A living parent is given precident in stateside adoption cases where a claim for reunification is made, why is this any different?
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.