Posted on 09/27/2011 2:51:19 PM PDT by smoothsailing
Chuck DeVore
September 27, 2011
Last week’s Republican Presidential debate confirmed one thing: Texas Governor Rick Perry’s main challenge in winning the Republican nomination will be his ability to explain his record on illegal immigration as governor vs. what he proposes to do about it as President.
Perry’s opponents have hit him for signing in 2001 the nation’s first law allowing illegal immigrants to get the in-state tuition break that other Texans who attended high school in-state receive. Four lawmakers out of 181 voted against the bill, as Perry has pointed out, making the bill uncontroversial at the time. (Note: as a California lawmaker from 2004 to 2010, I consistently voted against expanding benefits to illegal immigrants.)
Today, 12,138 illegal immigrant students pay in-state tuition in Texas, about one percent of all Texas college students. By comparison, the Department of Homeland Security estimates that 7.0% of Texas residents are in the nation illegally.
Gov. Perry has pointed out more than once, and with a degree of exasperation, that Texas has spent $400 million of its own taxpayers’ money on border security, hiring additional Texas Rangers to better secure the border. Perry has also defended his insistence that a fence not be built along the entirety of Texas’ 1,969 mile border with Mexico, citing the fact that a river runs along the border through some very remote and rugged terrain that is best secured with “boots on the ground” and “aviation assets.” I have to agree with Perry on this one, building a fence along a river is costly while the river itself will constantly undermine the fence’s footings. In addition, Gov. Perry’s Texas has passed a law that requires a photo ID to vote (only 13 other states have photo ID laws on the books) and illegal immigrants cannot obtain a driver’s license in Texas (11 states issue driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants, including Sarah Palin’s Alaska).
Dismissing Texas’ own border security efforts, Perry’s opponents have focused on the in-state tuition, calling the law a magnet for illegal immigration. Theoretically, that’s true. But does it actually impact an illegal immigrant’s decision about what state they may decide to live in? I find it hard to believe a 22-year-old man from central Mexico is going to say to himself, “Hey, I’m going to move to California or Texas because, when my two children become college age in 17 years, I can save some tuition money.” Rather, the decision to break U.S. law more likely comes down to the availability of jobs and the seriousness with which the Federal government secures the border.
To test this proposition, it is instructive to see where illegal immigrants live in the U.S. According to the Department of Homeland Security, the largest illegal immigrant population by state in 2010 was:
California: 2,570,000
Texas: 1,770,000
Florida: 760,000
Illinois: 490,000
Arizona: 470,000
Georgia: 460,000
New York: 460,000
North Carolina: 390,000
New Jersey: 370,000
Nevada: 260,000
As one would expect, larger states have larger illegal immigrant populations, and larger states on the border with Mexico have an even larger illegal immigrant population.
But, how do these statistics compare to the size of the state? What percentage of the state’s population is composed of illegal immigrants?
Nevada: 9.6% illegal
Arizona: 7.4% illegal
Texas: 7.0% illegal
California: 6.9% illegal
Georgia: 4.7% illegal
New Jersey: 4.2% illegal
North Carolina: 4.1% illegal
Florida: 4.0% illegal
Illinois: 3.8% illegal
New York: 2.4% illegal
National average: 3.5% illegal
Next, let’s compare the state’s system of welfare benefits to illegal immigrants as well as the state’s in-state tuition policy.
Nevada: 9.6% illegal; low welfare, no in-state tuition
Arizona: 7.4% illegal; low welfare, no in-state tuition
Texas: 7.0% illegal; low welfare, in-state tuition
California: 6.9% illegal; high welfare, in-state tuition
Georgia: 4.7% illegal; low welfare, no in-state tuition
New Jersey: 4.2% illegal; high welfare, no in-state tuition
North Carolina: 4.1% illegal; low welfare, no in-state tuition
Florida: 4.0% illegal; low welfare, no in-state tuition
Illinois: 3.8% illegal; high welfare, in-state tuition
New York: 2.4% illegal; high welfare, in-state tuition
This analysis tells us that the states with the highest percentage of illegal immigrants, Nevada and Arizona, don’t use many state resources to assist them while Illinois, with an average number of illegal immigrants, and New York, with a below-average number of illegal immigrants, are the most generous. Thus, data suggests that state assistance to illegal immigrants isn’t much of a magnet. Other factors must be at work here.
Demand for labor is the driver, with illegal immigrants concentrating in the construction, hospitality, and agriculture sectors. Until recently, both Nevada and Arizona were experiencing housing booms and 27% of Nevada workers labor in the hospitality industry. On the other end of the ledger, both New York and Illinois experienced very little population growth; therefore, saw few construction jobs relative to other states.
Lastly, it’s interesting to compare these states’ tax policies to their illegal immigration populations:
The Tax Foundation’s 2011 State Business Tax Climate Index ranks the states with the largest illegal immigrant population as follows:
Nevada: 9.6% illegal; 4th most-competitive tax policy
Arizona: 7.4% illegal; 34th most-competitive tax policy
Texas: 7.0% illegal; 13th most-competitive tax policy
California: 6.9% illegal; 49th most-competitive tax policy
Georgia: 4.7% illegal; 25th most-competitive tax policy
New Jersey: 4.2% illegal; 48th most-competitive tax policy
North Carolina: 4.1%; 41st most-competitive tax policy
Florida: 4.0% illegal; 5th most-competitive tax policy
Illinois: 3.8% illegal; 23rd most-competitive tax policy
New York: 2.4% illegal; 50th most-competitive tax policy
Perhaps it isn’t a coincidence that Nevada, the state with the most attractive business tax policy on the list, has the highest percentage of illegal immigrants, while New York, the state with the worst tax policies in the entire nation, would have the fewest illegal immigrants as a percentage of its population.
It shouldn’t be a shock to conservatives that, just like the wealthy, illegal immigrants respond to state taxes and the impact those taxes have on the economy.
Perhaps if Governor Perry worked to pass a Texas state income tax, the illegal immigrant population there would plummet (of course, he’d have an even bigger challenge in winning the Republican nomination as a tax-hiker).
This brings us to a final observation. Other than raising taxes to the bone-crushing New York level, just how much can a state do in the realm of illegal immigration, a basic Federal responsibility? The answer appears to be not much, given Arizona’s high-profile efforts at curbing illegal immigration and given that Arizona’s per capita illegal immigrant population is greater than that of all states except Nevada.
Having served as a governor is excellent preparation for being President. That said, a governor has different responsibilities than does a President.
Rather than focusing on what education bill Perry signed into law in 2001, Republicans should be more concerned about what policies their prospective nominee has today on immigration, both legal and illegal. Do they approve of an amnesty on the scale of the 1986 amnesty that many Reagan Administration veterans later viewed as a huge error? Do they want to change an H-1B visa program that business sees as a way to keep technical labor costs down but that many highly-skilled American workers see as undermining their ability to earn a good living? How do they propose to better secure the border, and can they do it without eroding Americans’ liberty? These are proper questions for those who would be President and the sooner we can move beyond “gotcha” debate moments and into substantive policy discussion, the better.
*
IF you'd rather NOT be pinged FReepmail me.
IF you'd like to be added FReepmail me. Thanks.
*****************************************************************************************************************************************************
Great post Smoothsailing! Thank you for a moment of sanity.
“we can move beyond “gotcha” debate moments”
The suggestion that Perry called us heartless racists because he was caught by a “gotcha” question is idiotic, and a desperate attempt to rescue Rick Perry from the reality of who he is.
These were no “gaffes.” They were said clearly, deliberately, and with the aim of demonizing his conservative critics.
They were premeditated, rehearsed attacks, and they blew up in his face.
I’m glad he dropped the mask for all to see.
HEARTLESS!!!!! are we?????
Rick Perry on the US Mexico Border with Greta Part 1
Rick Perry on the US Mexico Border with Greta Part 2
There is a 1982 Federal law that says our schools are available to all from K-12...status doesn’t matter.
Thank you so much for all that data. Hopefully it finally get people to think rather than mislead.
That’s why 38 states have never pass any legislation on it. They have not legislated on the matter at all. What is not prohibited is allowed. So illegals in all these 38 states have in state tuition identical to regular legal American students.
Too late . . . he's already done it . . . He lost my vote . . . He can't possibly give me a good explanation for giving illegal aliens preferential treatment whereby American citizens from other states would have to pony up more money to go to Texas schools.
Game . . . set . . . match!
American citizens should NEVER take back seat to illegal aliens!
He played the race card as well as any liberal. Calling those who despise those who flout the law "heartless racists" has sunk his campaign as far as real conservatives are concerned and all he can do now is rely on his RINO cronies for financial and moral support.
8 U.S.C. § 1623 : US Code - Section 1623: Limitation on eligibility for preferential treatment of aliens not lawfully present on basis of residence for higher education benefits
a) In general
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, an alien who is not lawfully present in the United States shall not be eligible on the basis of residence within a State (or a political subdivision) for any postsecondary education benefit unless a citizen or national of the United States is eligible for such a benefit (in no less an amount, duration, and scope) without regard to whether the citizen or national is such a resident.
(b) Effective date
This section shall apply to benefits provided on or after July 1, 1998.
Thank you so much for this post. It is so nice to have all this information.
You are so right about politicians aversion to corrective action (just enforcing existing laws would give us some hope).
Perry had better think fast and talk slow on this one.
I love these looooooooooooooooooong campaigns!
Really and just HOW do you plan on him to do that?
since the FEDS Are in control of Immigration. Oh that’s right the Feds get a pass. Sell guns, refuse to deport illegals, give employers that hire illegals a pass.
This BS is getting old. You all seem to think Perry is GOD, and can do whatever he wants. Apparently the Obama model is ok with everyone.
Their behavior has turned more people off toward Sarah Palin which is a shame. I've had more people tell me this than you can imagine. So the saying of shooting yourself in the foot makes perfect sense.
Total Bull, there is not a state that does not define what is in state and out of state. Where in the hell did you pull such a stupid ideal out of. While perry was dancing with His pom poms I had to prove to the state, of choice, for my education that I had changed my home state while on active duty. Which was allowed for under the GI bill at the time. But you are saying that an illegal has the right to go to any school. BS.
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.