In Opposition Of The New York State ‘DREAM Act’

May 31, 2013. Rebecka Schumann, in the “Fighting Words” section of International Business Times, argues that we can’t afford the NYS DREAM Act, but in the process assumes a cost that is 365 times higher than the reality.

According to a recent Fiscal Policy Institute study, if the act is put into law, it would cost New York residents “less than 87 cents a day” — an estimated $17 million a year financed through state income taxes — in order to fund illegal residents’ education, claiming the cost is “less than the price of a doughnut.”

Actually, FPI estimated that the cost to a typical taxpayer would be about 87¢ per year, not per day.

Guest Opinion: Immigration reform will boost state

May 31, 2013. The California state controller’s op-ed on why immigration reform matters, citing some research of the Fiscal Policy Institute, appears on the Calaveras Enterprise web site.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office determined that comprehensive reform would increase both investment and the productivity of new workers brought to our labor force. Overall GDP would increase between 0.8 and 1.3 percent as early as 2016. Given California’s population and economic mix, we are likely to experience growth at a rate higher than the nation. Assuming the state benefited by just one-tenth of the nation as a whole, California’s 10-year gain could be $80 billion to $140 billion.

The Fiscal Policy Institute estimates that immigrant-owned small businesses employed 4.7 million people in 2007, 500,000 of them in California. With sound immigration reform, we could see more people opening small businesses. According to a study by the Center for American Progress, extending legal status or citizenship to current residents can lead to an annual job increase between 121,000 and 203,000, depending on how fast the reforms are implemented. California stands to expand employment by at least 12,000 jobs annually.

Next NYC Mayor facing $7.8B fiscal cliff from unions who haven’t received a raise in years

May 27, 2013. Fiscal experts say the next New York City mayor faces a fiscal cliff of $7.8B. James Parrott, deputy director and chief economist, said ““Disaster looms if we continue down the road we’re going.” Read the story.

James Parrott added the following comment on the New York Daily News web site after the article was published: When I said, “Disaster looms if we continue down the road we’re going,” I was referring to the fact that the current administration had failed to seriously engage city unions in negotiations about resolving long-expired contracts. “Disaster” is not some supposed “fiscal cliff,” as the article suggests, but the deleterious impact on employee morale and constraining the budget choices for the next administration. Challenges should be faced, not avoided.

Inmigrantes altamente calificados son valiosos en Estados Unidos

May 22, 2013. Venezuela Al Día reports on highly skilled immigrants to the United States.

“Los Estados Unidos es el destino más deseado para inmigrantes de todo el mundo. Ésta siempre ha sido una oportunidad de fortalecer y potenciar la economía”, indica Brito. Un estudio de junio de 2012 publicado por el Fiscal Policy Institute reconoce el espíritu empresarial de los inmigrantes en los Estados  Unidos: “18% de todos los propietarios de negocios pequeños es inmigrante. Esto es especialmente impresionante considerando que los inmigrantes componen menos de 16% de la fuerza de trabajo civil y alcanzan menos de 13% de la población total de EE.UU.”

 

Detengan el estancamiento del Dream Act

May 22, 2013. Editorial from El Diario in favor of passing the New York State DREAM Act. (In Spanish.)

De acuerdo al Instituto de Política Fiscal y el centro de Política de inmigración, las proyecciones indican que un grupo de estudiantes con mejor educación, graduados y efectivamente activos en la fuerza laboral, contribuirían mejor a la salud económica de la ciudad, en unos 5 a 6 de estos graduarse. O sea, el Dream Act estatal es una inversión, no una perdida.

State Comptroller Issues Report on Costs of DREAM Act

May 20, 2013. The New York State comptroller issued a press release and report estimating the cost of the NYS DREAM Act. The results and arguments about a strong return on investment are very much in line with those previously arrived at by the Fiscal Policy Institute here and here. The comptroller finds “additional TAP costs would be less than $20 million, an increase of less than 2 percent.” (The FPI study estimated the cost at $17 million.)

Students Rally with Donut to Show Low Cost of NYS DREAM Act

May 15, 2013. A Daily News article shows students rallying in favor of the NYS DREAM Act, with a big donut to suggest the very low cost to individual taxpayers–about 87¢ for a typical taxpayer, according to an FPI analysis (which, incidentally, included a photo of a donut).

 

Immigration Will Boost the California Economy

May 10, 2013. The state controller of California makes the case for embracing immigration reform, in the Mercury News of Silicon Valley.

 

The Fiscal Policy Institute estimates that immigrant-owned small businesses employed 4.7 million people in 2007, 500,000 of them in California. With sound immigration reform, we could see more people opening small businesses. According to a study by the Center for American Progress, extending legal status or citizenship to current residents can lead to an annual job increase between 121,000 and 203,000, depending on how fast the reforms are implemented. California stands to expand employment by at least 12,000 jobs annually.

 

Data for Pre-Citizen Voting Debate in City Council

May 9, 2013. Should legal immigrants who are not yet citizens be permitted to vote in New York City elections?

The NYC City Council will debate this question beginning on Thursday, May 9, in connection with Intro 410, which would allow pre-citizens to vote in New York City municipal elections.

It wouldn’t be the first time noncitizens could vote in New York elections. School board elections, before they were abolished, were open to all parents of children in New York City schools, regardless of citizenship or immigration status.

To provide some context to the debate, the Fiscal Policy Institute prepared this data table.

It shows that of the city’s 6.5 million voting-age residents, a little more than half (55 percent) were born in the United States, automatically making them citizens. Another quarter (24 percent) are immigrants who have become naturalized citizens.

That leaves 21 percent of the city’s residents 18 years and older who are outside of the voting process. Altogether: 1.4 million people.

The Pew Hispanic Center estimates that there are about a half-million undocumented immigrants living in New York City—not all of them, of course, over 18 years old.

So, although we cannot give an exact estimate of how many non-citizen immigrant New York City residents are legally present in the United States, a good guess is about a million. That is a lot of people to be living here without political representation.

Commitment to citizenship seems like a fair condition of voting—this is, indeed, one of the central rights of citizenship.

However, many of these immigrants are already in the process of becoming citizens, a process that can take many years. In the meantime, they send their children to New York City schools, ride the New York City subways, and pay New York City taxes.

The attached data provides some sense of the reason for concern. The debate on this issue will start on Thursday.

Conservatives Must Reject the “Poor Are Parasites” Narrative

May 7, 2013. The Blog of the Competitive Enterprise Institute opines that conservatives who are stuck in the “47 percent” frame of mind are way off base on immigration. Reacting to a new report of the Heritage Foundation about immigrants and the cost of services, the piece notes:

Low-skilled immigrant workers allow Americans to engage in more productive endeavors. For example, the Fiscal Policy Institute found that immigrants operate 75 percent of New York City child care businesses. This allows American mothers to work and implies that these child care workers should get some credit for the tax revenues that those working mothers pay, but Heritage ignores this effect.

%d bloggers like this: