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.
That is it in the nutshell.
I just moved Santorum 2 notched down on my list. He was on Hannity’s TV show and was attacking Perry for subsidized in-state tuition to illegals.
So Hannity asked Santorum if illegals should be even allowed to be enrolled in our colleges. Santorum said “sure, we have people from all over the world enrolled in our colleges”.
Is Santorum really that ignorant? I can’t believe he does not know that EVERY single foreign student enrolled is on a LEGAL student visa here? And is he further ignorant of the fact that foreign students do NOT get in-state tuition? So, according to Santorum, it is just fine and dandy that ILLEGALS can take advantage of our tax payer supported colleges.
So the governor and the state cannot do anything about the texas sanctuary cities, is that federal as well. Nonsense!
"They [the children of illegals] are being educated, right up to and through high school.Where did it come to pass that if you're here illegally, you have a right to a college education, let alone the right to have it subsidized, when all Americans do NOT have their college educations subsidized?
I mean, this is perverse, to be honest with you.
And it is also the position of the Bush family. And I think…if I'm wrong, I stand corrected…it's the position of some of our "inside-the-beltway" publications.
But it is not the position of the American people, who have to pay this bill, endlessly."
No kidding!
Here's how bad it is: My sister was a big Guliani fan. Thought he would be great because he was, afterall, America's mayor. Even she won't vote for Perry! She's Cain all the way, baby!
He lost her completely after the debate.
Nice try.
Texas: 7.0% illegal
I’m sure he’s going to want to bring that up in a debate, huh?
If illegals are attracted to jobs then he should favor punishing employers who hire illegals. He’s opposed to e-verify but didn’t give an alternative.
They do not have the right to go to ANY school. Do you not understand that, or do you choose to continue to distort and repeat the distorted facts?!
Thank you. As nagdt said, a moment of sanity.
I’ve never seen so much chickens running around with their heads cut off behavior, trying to distract from the truth.
Well, that IS the latest attack on Perry, that by promoting jobs for his state, he just encouraged Illegal AND legal immigrants to flock to his state. Thus, they got a lot of those jobs. Apparently, the RIGHT thing to do is to destroy the jobs in your state, so you don't attract the illegal immigrants looking for work.....
The poster said that if the states had not made it illegal it was legal, try reading the whole thing.
How do illegals pay for tuition? Do they get student loans? Are these student loans getting repaid? What is the default rate? It is my understanding that federal law prohibits employment by businesses to undocumented aliens.
Baloney - you sure do offend easily. Thomas Sowell http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2783967/posts said that the Governor’s motives were “decent” and “humane.” Do you truly believe that Sowell meant that you, personally, are indecent or inhumane?
Or do what New York does and drive business to other states -- I'm sure that would be revenue enhancing and fill the state's coffers. /s
“Is Santorum really that ignorant? I can’t believe he does not know that EVERY single foreign student enrolled is on a LEGAL student visa here? And is he further ignorant of the fact that foreign students do NOT get in-state tuition? So, according to Santorum, it is just fine and dandy that ILLEGALS can take advantage of our tax payer supported colleges.”
Taxpayer is something else but are you saying that you need a visa in order to attend a college (no financial aid)? What about an online college?
And interestingly, NONE of the current presidential candidates, ALL of whom seem to be attacking Perry for offering in-state tuition and claiming it attracts illegals, have called for overturning THAT law.
If we really believe that educating the children that are brought here illegally by their parents just attracts illegals, shouldn’t we be fighting to repeal THAT law, which IS a federal responsibility since it is a federal law, rather than attacking the people of Texas for a choice they made that effects them and uses THEIR tax dollars, not ours?
Why is it that nobody is fighting the education mandate for illegals?
Palin Position on Immigration
• According to Palin there are 12 million illegal immigrants in the US and deporting them is not possible economically as well as it is not a humane way of dealing with the issue. They should be made to follow rules and made to understand that legal immigrants should have the first preference of opportunities provided by this great country. If they follow the rules they can be treated fairly and equally in the country.
• Not having expressed her views on illegal immigration often, Sarah supports citizenship for illegal immigrants but feels there is no amnesty for the illegal immigrants. Priority should be given to the legal immigrants before granting opportunities to the illegal ones.
• She has reached out to the illegal immigrants requesting their needs. She feels that they require more vocational training, the end of gang violence, assistance to seniors and mostly outreach and communication within their communities. Palin insists on a diversity task force.
“Or do what New York does and drive business to other states — I’m sure that would be revenue enhancing and fill the state’s coffers. /s”
ah yes the fallacy of false dilemma. How about low taxes AND punish employers who hire illegals?
Palin Position on Immigration
• According to Palin there are 12 million illegal immigrants in the US and deporting them is not possible economically as well as it is not a humane way of dealing with the issue. They should be made to follow rules and made to understand that legal immigrants should have the first preference of opportunities provided by this great country. If they follow the rules they can be treated fairly and equally in the country.
• Not having expressed her views on illegal immigration often, Sarah supports citizenship for illegal immigrants but feels there is no amnesty for the illegal immigrants. Priority should be given to the legal immigrants before granting opportunities to the illegal ones.
• She has reached out to the illegal immigrants requesting their needs. She feels that they require more vocational training, the end of gang violence, assistance to seniors and mostly outreach and communication within their communities. Palin insists on a diversity task force.
Texans voted on this. Do you understand THAT.
It is a State issue. NO FEDERAL Funds are involved.
Senate Bill 1528 (passed by the 79th Texas Legislature, Regular Session, in 2005) amended the provisions of House Bill 1403 so that they applied to all individuals who had lived in Texas a significant part of their lives. Citizens, Permanent Residents and certain non-immigrant students can establish a claim to residency following its provisions. To qualify, the individual must have:
o lived in Texas the 3 years leading up to high school graduation or the receipt of a GED; and
o resided in Texas the year prior to enrollment in an institution of higher education (which could overlap the 3-year period).
In addition, if the student is not a U.S. Citizen or Permanent Resident, he/she has to file an affidavit with his/her institution, indicating an intent to apply for Permanent Resident status as soon as able to do so.
The bill passed and was codified as TEC 54.052 through 54.056.
Americans have much easier residency requirements than illegals: they have to live here only 1 (one) year, not 3, and they have no restrictions on where they went to high school:
The children of illegals must have been brought here before 16 years old, and are required to have finished the last 3 years of school in a Texas High School and to have graduated from a Texas High School.
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.