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.
I agree . . . can't see any reason to go out of state when each state has a bevy of adequate colleges. Of that, I'll never understand.
But he can sure give them in state tuition.
I kind of think a lot of people say they are all for 10th Amendment states’ rights until a state does something another state doesn’t like. Funny how that goes.
My thought on that is that our federal government has positioned itself into so much of our country and in our lives that we don’t even understand or appreciate states’ rights and liberty anymore.
And it wasn’t JUST Obama doing that, although he has certainly benefited from our desensitization of this Constitutional vision.
I heard a discussion today about American Students total lack of lack of knowledge of our founding and why we fought for independence.
Americans have turned over the edu of our students to the Dept of Edu and our children are downright stupid.
If you don’t know where you came from how do you know where you are going?
even the illegal students hopefully would gain a love for this country and WANT to be good Citizens.
We HAVE to end these dangerous (to our Freedom) depts. EPA, EDU etc.
The States MUST demand the Rights back that the Federal Government has stolen.
You claimed that illegals were getting “preferential” treatment. Of course, they’re not.
The reason they are not deported is because the federal courts have forbidden it.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12010798883027065807&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr
Back in 1982, the US Supreme Court ruled on attempts in Texas to either keep the children of illegals out of the schools or charge them tuition. The Supreme Court forbids all school districts from even noticing when a child is illegal. Every child is supposed to have a Social Security number, but somehow illegals don’t need one. They get school based health care, free meals, and that free education.
After today I'm almost at the point of considering many of those who attack Perry on his less then ideal immigration stance, nothing but a bunch of nativists. Even though its not possible, they want to deport ALL the illegals and probably kick out the legal ones too.
They want Perry out of the way too. Keep the decks cleared for Sarah Palin. Woohoo! ;^)
Who knows. You would think that 50 states are incapable of providing their residents adequate colleges.
Yeah.
But I still wish he were my senator instead of Little Bobby Casey.
Look slow one, do not rewrite what I said and then call it a lie. The illegal under law is not entitled to the education, there fore you have reduced the illegals fees. That is a subsidy. And take your itty bitty computer and look up how much money is transfere to the states each year from the department of education. Texas gets in the hundreds of millions each year. So if there is any lying, and/or disinformation here, it comes from you.
That “as long as we demonstrate the will to address the obstacles,” followed by a bunch of requirements that are solely Mexico’s problems, is a very polite, diplomatic way of saying, “When hell freezes over.”
Then they should be ignored! They should be sent back to Mexico to go to their wonderful colleges!
But for the governor to call me a heartless racist for wanting Americans to be treated fairly is disgusting. He lost my vote completely. I don't really care what his excuse is!
He's tanked our economy so badly they just aren't coming here like they have been.
Another lie, the bs decision applied to grades K-12. But they can still be deported.
That’s where you’re wrong. That quote came from a debate, when K. Bailey was trying to deflect her lack of work on securing the border and referred strictly to Texas State employees. The State of Texas uses another system, just as effective.
Apparently you haven't been reading the whole thread because there is a viable reason for it that you missed that was pointed out by Shield and Sacajaweau. See post 10 & 13.
Here is Herman Cain on immigration and it is almost identical to Perry's. No deportation, road to citizenship, lockdown the borders, etc.
In a final op-ed, Herman Cain noted his opposition to the 2007 Comprehensive Immigration reform plan and noted four things that congress could do concerning immigration. These items were to secure the borders convincingly, expand the temporary worker program for skilled legal immigrants, establish a reliable legal immigrant identification program and then propose a reasonable program for the 12 million (and counting) illegal persons who broke our laws to get here, but not amnesty.
In additional interviews, Mr Cain stated that comprehensive immigration reform was a "do nothing" policy which would not solve the problem of illegal immigration. He stated that a Cain administration would do three things: secure the border; enforce the laws; promote the existing path to citizenship.
But only by the Federal Government not a state.
But it is taxes that Texans paid to the Federal Government plus Texas pays more in Federal Taxes than it gets back.
Problem solved. The problem is that I can never trust Perry to implement even one of the above steps, based on his past statements and actions. Heck, I don't trust ANY of the candidates to implement this sort of action and that's why I'm finding this election season very frustrating.
Then he is on record as agreeing to in-state college tuition for illegal aliens.
The law says K-12 for illegal aliens,Perry says what the heck lets give the little criminals a break since a high school education is not enough to reward their parents for sneaking in--and hey,more will try to break in when they hear about this and we will reward them too.
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.