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.
Perry can easily defend himself on the instate tuition for illegals but calling those who oppose as “heartless” was the dumb part.
My state has prohibited in-state tuition for illegal immigrants (Virginia). So we are one of the few where it actually IS illegal. As you said, most states practice a don’t ask, don’t tell policy. Texas by an overwhelming vote of their legislature decided to just make it above-board so they could control it.
And note that a lower percentage of illegals can get in-state tuition in Texas than can get it in those other 38 states. Because Texas, by legalizing it for illegals who made it through 3 years of high school with a B average, prohibits it for kids who are brought here illegally closer to college age, or who didn’t perform well in school.
That minimizes the change that people would bring their kids here just to get cheaper college. If you have a 17-year-old, and decide to sneak into this country to get an education, you will sneak into one of the 38 states that have no laws checking illegal status. You won’t go to Texas, because you won’t meet the law’s 3-year high school attendance requirement.
I don’t support in-state tuition for illegals, so I guess I’m heartless, but Texas is better than 38 other states, and it’s their own money and their own problem.
Never was a fan of Guliani due to his stance on the slaughter of our unborn American citizens. . . . But he'd've been far superior to the lame-brain that happens to reside in our White House.
But Cain would be better all around . . . and I can imagine how great it would be to have him toss Obambi around in a debate. Perry? Who's he?
You need a LEGAL student visa in order to enter the country.
It is given to only those who are admitted to a accredited place of learning by the government. And those foreign students are treated on equal basis as students from out of state. If there is student aid available to out of state students then it is probably available to the foreign students.
No nothing about on-line students. But they can not enter the country.
How about sealing the border and letting guest workers come in legally?
That law doesn’t apply to the Texas law, or the California law, because they aren’t based on residence, they are based on high school attendance.
And yes, ANY kid who attends 3 years of high school in Texas gets in-state tuition, and YES, there are out-of-state residents who meet that requirement and get in-state tuition.
That law would theoretically stop illegals in other states, except you have to actively check for illegal status, and most states do not, so the illegals slip through like they slip through for jobs.
Are you telling me Palin is running, fine the more the better, where is the news link. Otherwise, she said that when she ran with McCain and she lost.
I can't imagine how you can easily defend giving illegal aliens any kind of treatment other than removal from our borders. Doesn't the word illegal mean anything to you? I can't get past that word . . . illegal
Silly: he said that we don’t care about the sound of their names. You should not put quotes around the phrase that is not a quote.
The Governor is more of a fiscal conservative than any other candidate. He has a proven pro-life, pro-marriage, pro-business and pro-individual and -State’s rights record than any other candidate or might-be-candidate.
You should hear him speak about life and marriage. He knows what he’s talking about, even on esoteric subjects like cloning and embryonic stem cells. He regularly shows up and is the keynote speaker at pro-life, pro-marriage and pro-freedom of religion events.
“How about sealing the border and letting guest workers come in legally?”
I’m all for sealing the border but Perry wants them open.
“President Fox’s vision for an open border is a vision I embrace, as long as we demonstrate the will to address the obstacles to it. An open border means poverty has given way to opportunity, and Mexico’s citizens do not feel compelled to cross the border to find that opportunity.”
http://governor.state.tx.us/news/speech/10688/
Many other states have adopted the same legislation.
What he is saying is that, in many states, the state asks for RESIDENCE Information, but not for papers. So if a kid’s parents are illegal, but have lived in the state, they can prove residency, and the kid gets in-state tuition.
I can’t find any good web pages that provide information on how many illegals are getting in-state tuition in each of the states. Maryland was reported to have some number of illegals, during the debate to pass a law making it legal, but I can’t find anything to verify that claim (like a study done by someone who didn’t support the law).
There is a reason that states are passing laws prohibiting in-state tuition for illegals. If your assertion was correct, no state would have to pass such a law. We passed the law in Virginia, so that people had to prove their legal status. Until we passed that law, illegals WERE getting in-state tuition in our colleges.
You don't really care what Perry has done to enforce illegal immigration. You'd rather be disruptive for your own means. Since you say you went to college on the GI bill, I believe you could express yourself in a more constructive way.
I don't care how old they have to be . . . are they illegal or not? . . . If so, why the holy hell are they not being rounded up and deported? What's the argument?
Americans have much easier residency requirements than illegals
Well, of course . . . they're American citizens!
“You need a LEGAL student visa in order to enter the country.”
yes, it was just an informational request. I wanted to know if there was also a requirement to show your visa in order to attend college or do they just assume you already had one since you needed it just to enter the country?
That statement is telling me Perry was telling Fox "hey, an open border is great, we have one with Canada but not at the expense of you flooding us with your impoverished citizenry."
I think you just helped Perry with that post. Thanks.
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.