Posted on 09/09/2007 11:09:03 AM PDT by Pikamax
Report estimates county's illegal immigrant cost at $256 million in 2006
By: GIG CONAUGHTON - Staff Writer
SAN DIEGO ---- A county-commissioned study estimated that illegal immigrants directly cost the county of San Diego and taxpayers $101 million last year, and indirectly cost an additional $155 million in unpaid medical care.
However, the estimates in the $40,000 study, which the county Board of Supervisors voted to pursue in May 2006, were largely based on anecdotal information rather than hard statistics.
Supervisors sought the study in the hope of presenting federal officials with a bill for the costs of illegal immigration in the border county of San Diego. Horn and the rest of the board say local governments and taxpayers should not have to pay extra for a "failed federal immigration policy."
The study itself, compiled by San Diego State University professor John Weeks and former Chula Vista Police Department border studies expert David Eisenberg, said the study "must be viewed with a certain amount of caution" because its estimates were based on anecdotal evidence.
Weeks said there aren't many hard numbers about the costs of illegal immigration because most agencies don't track residency status. In some cases they are forbidden to do so by federal funding laws. Weeks said estimates in the report were largely formulated by multiplying the budgets for county departments by 10 percent ---- a figure county officials said was a "reasonable" measure of illegal immigrants' cost to their programs.
The report estimated that illegal immigrants cost the county roughly $75 million in criminal justice costs, such as jailing and prosecuting, and $26 million in health, social and other costs.
Horn, who pushed hard for the study to be done, said Friday that he planned to use the report to lobby the federal government, through Rep. Brian Bilbray, R-Solana Beach, for help. He also said he thought the $255 million figure was too low ---- in part because he thought it underestimated the illegal immigrant population and did not take education costs into account.
"The next step is to get Bilbray to change the rules and get the hard numbers," Horn said. "I think they're extremely conservative."
Bilbray, who campaigned for the study along with Horn when both were running for election in 2006, issued a written statement saying he was eager to work with Horn to get federal reimbursement.
"When it comes to illegal immigration," Bilbray said in his statement, "the federal government is the biggest deadbeat dad in America."
Bilbray retained his seat after a campaign based on fighting illegal immigration.
In 2001, county supervisors released a study compiled by researchers for the United States-Mexico Border Counties Coalition that said the county spent more than $50.3 million in 1999 on criminal justice and medical care for illegal immigrants.
But in 1994, a report by the Urban Institute suggested that immigrants generate an overall surplus of $25 million to $30 million in taxes.
The new study also looked just at what costs illegal immigrants create, and did not try to look for benefits that illegal immigrants might bring the county.
"I'm not even asking that question," Horn said. "I spend taxpayer money for taxpayer services. That's my charge. My issue with the federal and state government is that they're asking me to spend my taxpayer money on people who don't even belong here."
Pedro Rios, San Diego director of the American Friends Service Committee, a Quaker human rights organization, said he was afraid the study would be used to promote "anti-immigrant sentiment."
"Some of the more extreme groups, vigilantes and others, generally maintain a position that migrants harm the general society," Rios said.
Weeks, meanwhile, said he hoped others would try to study what benefits illegal immigrants provided to the community, and that it was a relevant calculation to the discussion of illegal-immigrant costs.
In his study, Weeks wrote that illegal immigrants obviously contribute in a variety of economic ways by spending money and providing services.
"My personal perspective is neither pro- or anti-immigration," Weeks said Friday. "The target audience for this report is the federal government ---- not to play into the arguments about whether immigration is good or bad, but to keep the need for some reasonable immigration reform legislation on the table."
bump
“Pedro Rios, San Diego director of the American Friends Service Committee, a Quaker human rights organization, said he was afraid the study would be used to promote “anti-immigrant sentiment.”
“Some of the more extreme groups, vigilantes and others, generally maintain a position that migrants harm the general society,” Rios said.”
WHAT vigilantes??
Estimates. Calculating the real human tragedies (equated to $’s if that is even possible) caused by these subversive invaders would end up in the billions.
This situation cannot be allowed to stand. Building the wall is important, but enforcing the law is far more important. The federal government should be taking exactly the opposite stance. Any state or local government that gives money to illegals should have their federal funding pulled. Instead, evidently, the money will be pulled if they try to ensure that it is spent legally.
The top priority is to stop pulling illegals into the country like a honey magnet. That means punishing employers who employ illegals, and punishing local governments who give welfare to illegals. Take those incentives away, and the problem will soon solve itself.
Costing the taxpayers moeny that Americans won’t cost.
The guy parses his words carefully. Note he says "migrants," lumping illegal aliens in there with the legal immigrants and then talking about extremes and vigilantes. Somebody ought to call him on it, and when they do, point out that there is already a huge "anti-immigrant sentiment" that has been caused by illegal aliens, and that he is a lying, manipulative POS with no loyalty to or concern whatsoever for his fellow American citizens, if he is one.
Hey, it's only money.
Where's the compassion to rid us of illegals by making them legal by the use of a pen? /sarc
/the NC Times is just as pro illegal aliens as the SD Union Tribune and in support of the c/ity of San Diego as a sanctuary city.
All three stink to high heaven!
Undpaid? It's paid for in the premiums and taxdollars from U.S. Citizens, while socialized medicine is touted as the "solution".
If you are not here legally, you should be found by the law to be "non-existent", and therefore, since you don't exist, you don't even deserve Emergency Room treatment.
The study covered only COUNTY of San Diego costs. There are a lot of other government agencies that have services/costs within the borders of San Diego County. So add in the costs of the Feds, the State, the City of San Diego, and all the other cities and towns within that county ... and I’ll bet the cost approaches one b-b-b-b-billion.
“Somebody ought to call him on it, and when they do, point out that there is already a huge “anti-immigrant sentiment” that has been caused by illegal aliens, and that he is a lying, manipulative POS with no loyalty to or concern whatsoever for his fellow American citizens, if he is one”
Methinks you just did : )
Immigration Counters (Real-Time Data Resource Center)
The High Cost of Cheap Labor - Illegal Immigration and the Federal Budget (2004 Study)
The Unpleasant FACTS ARE
>>Both studies found that immigrants used government services at a greater rate than native-born residents did. The New Jersey study found, for instance, that the typical immigrant family received about $4,044 annually in government services, about 11 percent higher than the average native-born family. At the same time, immigrant households paid about 8 percent less in taxes. The net result was that “the average native household generated an annual fiscal surplus of $232” to government, while “the typical foreign household was a net burden of $1,484.” The gap was even wider in California, where immigrant households produced a net deficit of $3,463 each, because so much of that state’s recent immigration had been in the form of low-wage, low-skill workers.
Though the study did not distinguish between legal and illegal immigrants, it did break down foreign-born households by the regions of the world from which they had come. In both states, the study found the steepest deficit in Latin American households, which in New Jersey consumed 26 percent more in government expenditures than the average native-born family, but paid 38 percent less in taxes. By contrast, immigrant households in New Jersey that hailed from Europe or Canada actually consumed, on average, less in government services than the typical native-born family, and paid nearly as much in taxes.<<
Source: http://www.city-journal.org/html/eon2007-08-29sm.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.