deportation vs. legalization in texas
Post on 04-Apr-2018
217 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
-
7/31/2019 Deportation vs. Legalization in Texas
1/19
-
7/31/2019 Deportation vs. Legalization in Texas
2/19
The Consequences ofLegalization Versus MassDeportation in TexasFindings and Methodology
Dr. Ral Hinojosa-Ojeda August 2012
-
7/31/2019 Deportation vs. Legalization in Texas
3/19
1 Introduction
3 Economic contribution of immigrants in Texas
5 The economic consequences of mass deportation
7 The benefits of legalizing undocumented immigrants
in Texas
9 Appendix: Methodology
13 About the Author
14 Endnotes
Contents
-
7/31/2019 Deportation vs. Legalization in Texas
4/19
The effects of mass deportation versus legalization in TexasWhat would happen to Texass economy were it to drive out all of its undocumented immigrants? Conversely, what would
the impact be if a ll of Texass undocumented immigrants acquired legal status? Our analysis finds that Texas would stand
to see significant gains if legalization occurs, and significant losses if mass deportation became a reality.
These results have been calculated using the IMPLAN system. For the complete Texas ndings and methodology,
visit our website at: http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/immigration/report/2012/08/29/35229//
Total undocumented in 2010
(6.8% of total population)
1,650,000
24,312,000Total population in 2010
Texas fast facts Current contributions of undocumented workers
1,022,000Total undocumented
workers
$77.7 BillionGross state product of
undocumented workers
$14.5 billionTax revenue from
undocumented workers
Mass deportation versus legalization in Texas
$77.7 billionDecrease in gross
state product if 100%
deportation occurs
193,000Jobs created if 100%
legalization occurs
Total wages
$9.7 billionincrease if 100%
legalization occurs
$33.2 billiondecrease if 100%
deportation occurs
$4.1 billionincrease if 100%
legalization occurs
$14.5 billiondecrease if 100%
deportation occurs
Tax revenue
What could Texas do with an extra $4.1 billion in tax revenue?
Give nearly 300 days of
free school lunch to every
K-12 student in the state.
Fund the salaries
of close to 60,000
Registered Nurses.
Replace close to halfof the recent
education spending cuts in the
Foundation School Program.
Fund over 1 million students
through the Top 10% Scholarship
Program for students majoring in
a critical workforce shortage field.
Fund close to 700,000
Pell Grants at the
maximum level.
7.2%Of total workers are
undocumented
Fund the recently elimi-
nated Pre-K Early Start
Grant for over 39 years.
By Ral Hinojosa-Ojeda, Director of the North American Integration and Development Center, UCLA
-
7/31/2019 Deportation vs. Legalization in Texas
5/19
1 Center or American Progress |The Cons equences o Le gal izat ion Versus Mass Depor tation in Texas
Introduction
Debaes abou he economic and scal benes and drawbacks o immigrans ypi-
cally oversimpliy he role ha immigrans play in our economy. When one looks
more closely, hey will nd ha he impac immigrans (or any group or ha ma-
er) have on he economy is muliaceed and complex.
Immigrans are no jus workers; hey are also consumers and axpayers. Te
eecs o heir labor and consumpion on economic growh and scal healh
mus be acored in as we consider how o address he siuaion o having a largeundocumened workorce.1
In his repor we describe he direc impacs o eiher deporing or legalizing
undocumened workers. In realiy, he eecs would be much larger. Mass depor-
aion, or example, would resul in an indirec negaive impac on local businesses
because here would be less money circulaing in he local economy, which would
lead o urher job losses.2 Te esimaes repored here should hus be considered
conservaive raher han exhausive.3
We esimae he economic conribuions o immigrans, boh documened
and undocumened, or seven saes: Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Nevada, New
Mexico, exas, and Virginia. Tese seven saes have some o he larges popula-
ions o unauhorized immigrans, and have played and will coninue o play a piv-
oal role in elecions as swing saes. We hen repor he negaive scal impac o
our dieren deporaion scenariosnamely wha would happen i 15, 30, 50, or
100 percen o undocumened immigrans were removed rom he sae. Finally,
we explore he posiive economic oucomes ha would resul rom legalizing
undocumened immigrans in each o he seven saes. (For a deailed explanaion
o he mehodology used, please see he appendix on page 9.)
-
7/31/2019 Deportation vs. Legalization in Texas
6/19
2 Center or American Progress |The Cons equences o Le gal izat ion Versus Mass Depor tation in Texas
Overall we nd ha each o he seven saes would gain signicanly rom legal-
izing heir unauhorized immigrans, boh in erms o raised wages or all workers
in he sae, new jobs creaed, and addiional ax revenue generaed. Conversely,
deporing even a porion o he unauhorized immigrans would lead o signi-
can losses in gross sae produc, worker wages, and ax revenues. Te benes o
immigraion are clear, and saes sand o prosper hrough posiive immigraionpolicies, or lose ou wih harsh and resricive ones.
-
7/31/2019 Deportation vs. Legalization in Texas
7/19
3 Center or American Progress |The Cons equences o Le gal izat ion Versus Mass Depor tation in Texas
Economic contribution of
immigrants in Texas
exas has a oal populaion o 24.3 million people, o which 3.9 million, or jus
over 16 percen, are oreign born. Te sae has 1.65 million undocumened immi-
grans, comprising 6.8 percen o he oal populaion.4 (see able 1)
TABLE 1
Foreign-born residents
Thousands
State of Texas Share of total population
Total population 24,312 100%
Legal foreign-born residents 2,264 9.3%
Undocumented immigrants 1,650 6.8%
Total foreign-born residents 3,914 16.1%
Immigran workers as a whole added $191 billion o exass gross sae produc
he oal value added by workers o he saein 2010, he laes year such daa
was available. Te undocumened workorce by isel accouned or $77.7 billion
o his GSP.5 Immigran workers produce even more by way o goods and services
creaed, wih a oal sae oupu o $448 billion, including $209 billion rom
undocumened immigrans alone. (see able 2)
-
7/31/2019 Deportation vs. Legalization in Texas
8/19
4 Center or American Progress |The Cons equences o Le gal izat ion Versus Mass Depor tation in Texas
TABLE 2
The economic importance of immigrants in the labor force
Employment
(thousands)
Percent of total
employment
Gross state product*
(in millions)
Output**
(in millions)
Employee
compensation***
(in millions)
Total 14,148 100% $1,287,431 $2,323,334 $630,041
Legal foreign-born residents 1,269 9.0% $113,269 $239,275 $58,070
Undocumented immigrants 1,022 7.2% $77,706 $208,912 $33,223
Total foreign-born residents 2,291 16.2% $190,975 $448,187 $91,293
*Gross state product or value added includes employee compensation, proprietary income, other property income, and indirect business
tax.
**Output represents the value o the total production o goods and services by industry in the regional economywhether such output isconsumed or not. Output could also be thought as the total value o sales plus or minus inventory.
*** Income received by workers, including benefts and beore taxes.
Immigran workers also pay billions o dollars o axes o he sae reasury. Jus
like he naive born, immigrans pay personal axes, such as income ax and
propery ax , business axes (among hem corporae pros axes, dividends, and
propery axes), and sales axes. Our analysis esimaes ha immigrans on hewhole paid $33 billion in axes o exas in 2010 wih undocumened immigrans
conribuing approximaely $14.5 billion. (see able 3)
TABLE 3
The tax revenues immigrants pay
Local and state taxes
Personal taxes
(in millions)*
Business taxes
(in millions)**
Sales taxes
(in millions)
Total taxes
(in millions)
Total $12,226 $98,399 $78,733 $189,358
Legal foreign-born residents $1,167 $9,571 $7,657 $18,395
Undocumented immigrants $845 $7,604 $6,084 $14,533
Total foreign-born residents $2,012 $17,175 $13,742 $32,928
*Personal taxes include income tax, motor vehicle license ees, property tax, and other nontax fnes and ees.
**Business taxes include corporate profts tax, dividends, motor vehicle license ees, property tax, severance tax, and other taxes.
-
7/31/2019 Deportation vs. Legalization in Texas
9/19
5 Center or American Progress |The Cons equences o Le gal izat ion Versus Mass Depor tation in Texas
The economic consequences
of mass deportation
So wha would happen i all he undocumened immigrans were driven rom
he sae?
Removing all o he undocumened immigrans rom exas would have subsan-
ial, indeed devasaing, consequences or everyone remaining in he sae. Driving
undocumened immigrans ou o exas would lead o subsanially diminished
earnings, decreased gross sae produc, and los ax revenue or he sae govern-
men, which is already reeling rom he recession and high unemploymen7 per-cen in 2010 (he base year or calculaions) and 7 percen as o June 2012 as well.
Our analysis shows ha he conracion rom rapidly removing undocumened
immigran workers would have severe ramicaions or he sae. I all undocu-
mened workers were expelled, exas would lose more han $33.2 billion in
employmen compensaion, dened as preax salary and wage earnings. While i
is likely ha some o hese posiions would be lled by oher workers, i even 15
percen o unauhorized immigran jobs go unlled, he sae sands o lose close
o $5 billion in employee compensaion.6 (see able 4) As ha worker income
decreases, he earnings ha would oherwise be spen in he saes economy, or
example, on groceries, clohes, and housing, are los.
Tere is ample reason o suspec ha a leas a porion o hese jobs would no
be readily aken by oher workers. Immigrans end o live clusered in cerain
communiies, where here may no be a ready supply o oher workers o ll he
openings hey would leave behind. 7 Addiionally, undocumened workers end o
have skill ses ha are specic o he indusries hey work in (or example, con-
srucion, home healh services, ec.) ha ofen do no mach hose o he naive-
born unemployed.8
-
7/31/2019 Deportation vs. Legalization in Texas
10/19
-
7/31/2019 Deportation vs. Legalization in Texas
11/19
7 Center or American Progress |The Cons equences o Le gal izat ion Versus Mass Depor tation in Texas
The benefits of legalizing
undocumented immigrants
in Texas
Our analysis shows ha bringing all undocumened workers legally ino he exas
workorce would be unquesionably benecial o he sae economy and all is
residens. Ulimaely, only he ederal governmen can resolve he saus o he
undocumened. Bu or he purposes o our analysis we examine in his secion o
he paper wha would happen i exass workorce were legalized.
Undocumened immigran workers earn abou 18 percen less in wages han legalworkers.9 A program ha required all undocumened immigrans o earn legal
saus would increase employmen compensaion and employmen in he sae by
closing he wage gap beween documened and undocumened workers. We esi-
mae ha legalizing he undocumened workers in exas would increase employ-
men compensaion in he sae by nearly $9.7 billion. (see able 6)
TABLE 6
Legalization: Raising Texas
The effects of legalizing undocumented workers on employment compensation
and employment in TexasEmployment compensation
increase (in millions)
Direct employment
gain (in thousands)*
Texas** $630,041
Legalization $9,655 193
*Direct employment gain is the increase in employment caused by the legalization o all undocumented immigrants in the regional
economy.
**IMPLAN base data. This case represents the economy without any changes in employment or other values.
Note: Totals may not sum due to rounding error.
As he legalized workers and heir amilies spend he increased earnings on new
clohes, a down paymen on a car, or a new aparmen, he eec reverberaeshroughou he economy. Clohing sores, car dealers, and renal agencies boos
heir sales and hire more sa. In oher words, he increase in economic oupu and
consumer spending would precipiae a spike in demand or goods and services.
-
7/31/2019 Deportation vs. Legalization in Texas
12/19
8 Center or American Progress |The Cons equences o Le gal izat ion Versus Mass Depor tation in Texas
Insead o he downward spiral produced by exracing hese workers rom he saes
economy, requiring hem o earn legal saus would sar a viruous cycle o growh in
jobs and revenue ino moion. Our modeling shows ha legalizing hese workers
and hus increasing heir spending power, which would lead o greaer economic
demand or goods and serviceswould add 193,000 jobs o exass economy (see
able 6) and increase he saes ax revenues by $4.1 billion.10
(see able 7)TABLE 7
Legalization: Boosting tax revenues by the millions
The effects of legalizing undocumented workers on tax state revenue in Texas,
direct effects
Taxes in millions
Personal taxes* Business taxes** Sales taxes Total taxes Total tax gain Percentage chang
Texas*** $12,226 $98,399 $78,733 $189,358
Legalization $251 $2,159 $1,726 $4,136 $4,136 2.2%
*Personal taxes include income tax, motor vehicle license ees, property tax, and other non-tax fnes and ees.
**Business taxes include corporate profts tax, dividends, motor vehicle license ees, property tax, severance tax, and other taxes.
***IMPLAN base data. This case represents the economy without deportation changes.
-
7/31/2019 Deportation vs. Legalization in Texas
13/19
9 Center or American Progress |The Cons equences o Le gal izat ion Versus Mass Depor tation in Texas
Appendix: Methodology
Tis sudy uses he erm undocumened immigrans o describe hose individu-
als who are no U.S. ciizens or legal residens. Overall and oreign-born popula-
ion esimaes are derived rom he American Communiy Surveys ve-year daa
or 2006-2010, as well as he Pew Hispanic Cener on he number o unauhorized
immigrans in a given sae. o calculae he number o undocumened workers in
each sae, we discouned he oal number o undocumened workers in he labor
orce rom Pew daa by he unemploymen rae or oreign-born workers in he
sae a he ime he daa were colleced.11
About IMPLAN
Tis sudy uses he IMPLAN inpu-oupu models o each saes economy, which
allow researchers o calculae he impacs resuling rom changes in policy and
economic aciviy. Te sudy esimaes he impacs on economic oupu and
employmen in each indusry, and he resuling impac on ax conribuions, given
a range o assumed changes o migraion-relaed policies. Te model allows ideni-
caion o direc economic eecs in aeced indusries, indirec eecs in relaed
indusries, and induced eecs ha cascade hrough he economy. Only direc
economic eecs are uilized in his sudy.
Te IMPLAN inpu-modeling approachIMPLAN sands or IMpac analy-
sis or PLANningis mos useul and appropriae in analyzing he shor-erm
shock o a sae economy ha would be immediaely el rom a signican policy
changeeiher a mass deporaion or a mass legalizaion. Te IMPLAN model-
ing approach is hus well suied o analyze he immediae and regionally specic
impacs resuling rom abrup policy shifs.12
-
7/31/2019 Deportation vs. Legalization in Texas
14/19
10 Center or American Progress |The Cons equences o Le gal izat ion Versus Mass Depor tation in Texas
IMPLAN data
Te daase used is a 2010 daa le by sae conaining 509 indusries. For his
sudy, he 2010 IMPLAN daa les were aggregaed down o 36 indusries. A
bridge was creaed beween he 509 indusries in he IMPLAN les and he
13 indusries in he U.S. Census Bureaus indusry ables o creae compaibil-iy beween he U.S. Census daa and he IMPLAN daases. I is imporan o
noe ha in his sudy we are using consan 2010 dollar gures provided by he
IMPLAN daabase.
Undocumented worker estimates
Te number o undocumened workers was esimaed using Pew Cener esimaes
or each sae, adjused o accoun or he unemploymen rae among oreign-born
workers. We hen applied he number o undocumened workers o each indusryusing oreign-born worker percenage esimaes or he economies o each region
(see nex secion), since specic esimaes o unauhorized immigrans by secor are
no available. For insance, i here were an esimaed 100 undocumened workers in
a given region and esimaes or oreign-born workers in he consrucion indusry
in ha region were 23 percen, hen 23 undocumened workers were added o he
consrucion indusry and he res were disribued using he same mehod.
Undocumented workers by industry
In Te Characerisics o Unauhorized Immigrans in Caliornia, Los Angeles
Couny and he Unied Saes, he auhors provide esimaes o he percenage o
undocumened workers in 13 aggregaed indusries.13 Because no similar break-
down exiss or exas, we used he Caliornia disribuions o esimae exass
share o undocumened workers by indusry.
-
7/31/2019 Deportation vs. Legalization in Texas
15/19
11 Center or American Progress |The Cons equences o Le gal izat ion Versus Mass Depor tation in Texas
Undocumented worker value-added contribution by industry
In order o esimae he undocumened worker conribuions o gross sae prod-
uc in each indusry, we applied he ollowing calculaion:
VA*Uj = (VA / E)*Uj
Where:
UUndocumened workers in indusry jJAny given indusry VAoal value added Eoal employmen
Deportation scenarios
In his sudy, we calculae he impacs resuling rom he deporaion o 15 per-
cen, 30 percen, 50 percen, and 100 percen o undocumened workers. Tese
calculaions were perormed by esimaing he number o undocumened work-
ers by indusry and running he IMPLAN model o calculae he exac impac o
hese workers (all else equal).
Te model provides a good esimae o changes in economic aciviy imporan
o his sudy. Te main economic impacs analyzed are: employmen impacs;
oupu impacs; value-added impacs; labor-income impacs; and ax impacs.
Wage differences between legal and undocumented workers
Tis sudy assumes undocumened workers wages are 18 percen lower han
hose o legal workers. o assure ha our gures are he mos conservaive
esimaes possible, we have placed a cap or wages o undocumened workers
in high-wage indusries. Tese indusries are: uiliies, rened energy, ranspor
equipmen, and elecronic equipmen. Te cap consiss o wo imes he medianworker income o unauhorized immigrans ($36,000 x 2 = $72,000), and in
indusries where he median wage was higher han he cap, undocumened
workers wages were reduced by 50 percen insead o 18 percen.14 Based on
his assumpion, we esimaed legal and undocumened workers wages using
-
7/31/2019 Deportation vs. Legalization in Texas
16/19
-
7/31/2019 Deportation vs. Legalization in Texas
17/19
-
7/31/2019 Deportation vs. Legalization in Texas
18/19
14 Center or American Progress |The Cons equences o Le gal izat ion Versus Mass Depor tation in Texas
Endnotes
1 In order to have the most accurate data, we use theAmerican Community Survey ve-year estimates ortotal state population (2006-2010), which pools thedata collected over multiple years and is less proneto sampling error. See When to use 1-year, 3-year, or5-year estimates, available at http://www.census.gov/acs/www/guidance_or_data_users/estimates/.
2 For example, with ewer people around to spend theirwages, local businesses will lose customers and prots,and will likely be unable to sustain as many jobs, lead-ing to urther economic troubles.
3 Previous reports released by the Center or AmericanProgress in conjunction with the Immigration PolicyCenter have included direct, indirect, and inducedeects o legalization or deportation o undocu-
mented workers. For more inormation, please see R aulHinojosa-Ojeda and Marshall Fitz, A Rising Tide or aShrinking Pie: The Economic Impact o LegalizationVersus Deportation in Arizona (Washington: Centeror American Progress, 2011) available at http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/03/pd/rising_tide.pd, and Revitalizing the Golden State: What Legaliza-tion Over Deportation Could Mean to Caliornia andLos Angeles County (Washington: Center or AmericanProgress, 2011), available at http://www.american-progress.org/issues/2011/04/pd/ca_immigration.pd.
4 Demographic data rom: American Community Survey5 year data, 2006-2010; Passel and Cohn, Unauthor-ized Immigrant Population.
5 The number o employed undocumented workers wascalculated by discounting the Pew Hispanic Centernumbers or the size o the undocumented workorce
(which includes employed and unemployed people,)by the state unemployment rate or oreign bornnon-citizens, 7.1 percent in 2010, the base year orcalculations. See American Community Survey 5-yearestimates, 2006-2010; Passel and Cohn, UnauthorizedImmigrant Population.
6 A 100 percent deportation scenario, where all jobsdisappear and no native workers replace the undocu-mented is clearly the worst-case scenario. We haveincluded multiple deportation scenarios (15 percent,30 percent, 50 percent, and 100 percent,) to illustratewhat would happen i even a portion o these jobsevaporate. And economic research backs the claimthat, as the Immigration Policy Center puts it, There isno direct correlation between the presence o recentimmigrants and unemployment levels at the regional,state, or county levels. In general native-born workersand recent immigrant workers compliment, rather than
confict with one another, and are not easily substitut-able, generally having dierent work and skill histories,and living in dierent locations. See: Immigration PolicyCenter, The Economic Blame Game; and ImmigrationPolicy Center, Not in Competition. Immigrant workersalso sustain workers in other sectors, with the U.S.Department o Agriculture estimating that each arm
job sustains three other jobs in upstream occupations,such as transportation or manuacturing. See Holt,
Testimony beore the Committee on Agriculture.
7 For example, ater the passage o Georgias immigrationlaw H.B. 87 which drove many undocumented workersout o the state, a sur vey by the Georgia RestaurantAssociation ound that hal (49 percent) o respondentsexperienced labor shortages, and a whopping 88percent were concerned with experiencing uture laborshortages. See Georgia R estaurant Association, Geor-gia Immigration R eorm: Restaurant Impact Study.
8 Hagan, Lowe, and Quingla, Skills on the Move; Lowe,Hagan, and Iskander, Revealing talent.
9 Bureau o International Labor Aairs, Eects o theImmigration Reorm and Control Act.
10 Tax eects in IMPLAN are derived rom wage increasesresulting rom the legalization o undocumented work-
ers. This tax analysis represents the estimated increasein tax revenue generated by a change in nal demand,refecting only the direct impacts o increasing wagesto undocumented workers.
11 American Community Survey 5 year data, 2006-2010;Passel and Cohn, Unauthorized Immigrant Population.
12 For more inormation on the IMPLAN system, see: MIG,inc.s IMPLAN website, available at http://implan.com/V4/Index.php. For other immigration and economicmodeling uses o IMPLAN, see, or example: RandyCapps, Kristen McCabe, and Michael Fix, Prole oImmigrants in Napa County (Washington: MigrationPolicy Institute, 2012), available at http://www.migra-tionpolicy.org/pubs/Napa-Prole.pd.
13 Karina Fortuny, Randy Capps, and Jerey S. Passel,The Characteristics o Unauthorized Immigrants in
Caliornia, Los Angeles County, and the United States(Washington: The Urban Institute, 2007), available athttp://www.urban.org/uploadedpd/411425_charac-teristics_immigrants.pd.
14 Note: For the Texas State gures, the wages o undocu-mented workers in the industry category o RenedEnergy still crossed the $72,000 threshold even aterdiscounting the wages by 50 percent; or this categoryalone we discounted the overall wages by 60 percentto ensure the most conservative results.
-
7/31/2019 Deportation vs. Legalization in Texas
19/19
The Center for American Progress is a nonpartisan research and educational institute
dedicated to promoting a strong, just, and free America that ensures opportunity
for all. We believe that Americans are bound together by a common commitment to
these values and we aspire to ensure that our national policies reflect these values.
We work to find progressive and pragmatic solutions to significant domestic and
international problems and develop policy proposals that foster a government that
is of the people, by the people, and for the people.
top related