ImmPolitic

Welcome to ImmPolitic, the National Immigration Forum’s blog. Here we will comment on current developments in immigration policy and politics from the perspective of a Washington-based, national pro-immigrant organization.

The Melting Cup

June 16, 2010 - Posted by Maurice Belanger

World Cup soccer is being contested in South Africa, and in this town there are a lot of TVs tuned to the games.  It is truly amazing that so much excitement is generated by so little scoring. 

The World Cup decides the best in the world in soccer, but the “world” in World Cup has another meaning.  Players, no matter what team they are on, are from all over the world. 

On the U.S. team, there are a number of players who are either immigrants themselves or whose parents are immigrants.  Any of them, at least in theory, could have chosen to represent the country of their birth or the country of their parents.

Benny Feilhaber is Brazilian.  His grandparents fled Austria for Brazil when Hitler’s Germany took over.  His family migrated again, to California, when he was six years old.  Through his grandparents, he was able to obtain an Austrian passport in order to play for a time for a German team. 

Stuart Holden is from Scotland, and came to the U.S. when he was 10.  He gained his citizenship four years ago.

Jose Torres, a Texan of Mexican descent, gave up a chance to play in the Olympics on the U.S. team in order to play with the Pachuca, Mexico, club team.  He is now back with the U.S. team in South Africa.

Goalkeeper Tim Howard (who was key to keeping England to one goal in the opening game for the U.S.) could theoretically have represented Hungary, the country of his mother’s birth.

The parents of Oguchi Onyewu came to the U.S. from Nigeria, and his father played soccer for Howard University.

Jozy Altidore’s parents are from Haiti, and earlier this year he raised more than 100,000 pounds (from England, where he was playing on the Hull city team) for Haitian earthquake relief.

Other players with immigrant parents or who are dual citizens on the U.S. squad are Carlos Bocanegra (father is from Mexico); Jonathan Spector (both grandparents on his mother’s side are German and he has a German passport; Maurice Edu (both parents are from Nigeria); Landon Donovan (father is from Canada); and Hercules Gomez (both parents are from Mexico).

There are a number of other American dual nationals who have chosen to represent other countries in the World Cup. 

The U.S. is certainly not alone in having immigrants and dual nationals on its roster.  As Brent Latham of ESPN notes in this story on the World Cup,

In the age of migration, dual-nationals are hardly a uniquely American issue. Rare will be the competitive team at this year’s World Cup that doesn’t count a number of them among its ranks.

Among the more interesting cases, according to Latham, are those of

Gonzalo Higuain, a French-born forward who debated playing for France before deciding to represent Argentina; Liedson, a naturalized Portuguese striker who didn’t leave Brazil until he was 25 but now will play against that country in the World Cup; and Peter Odemwingie, a Nigerian born in the former Soviet Union who has never lived in Africa but will represent the Super Eagles at the World Cup on that continent.

And so, with soccer players at least, there is a free flow of talent, and the world’s top talent is playing with those teams where they feel they can make their best contribution.  It should all make the games more interesting, perhaps will throw us a few surprises and—who knows?—perhaps there will be some scoring.

Photo by Flickr user Dundas Football Club.

Famous Immigrants Immigrant contributions

Taxes… Someone’s Gotta Pay ‘em

April 16, 2010 - Posted by Maurice Belanger

Yesterday, while the tea party turned out to protest their taxes, there were counter-demonstrations, of a sort, by immigrants who were telling us, “Bring ‘em on!” 

Most of the media focus on tax day is on people who complain about their taxes.  This year, there was an effort by advocates for immigrants to show that, not only are immigrants willing to contribute, but comprehensive immigration reform, according to the Immigration Policy Center and the Center for American Progress, is predicted to result in an increase of as much as $5.4 billion in additional tax revenue for the U.S. within a three-year period.  This is for a variety of reasons, including bringing some immigrants working in the underground economy on to the tax rolls, and the prospect that some immigrants would move into more stable jobs with higher pay.  One of the actions advocates carried out yesterday was a visit to the office of Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison with box loads of blank tax forms representing taxes that could be added to the treasury if only Congress would pass comprehensive immigration reform.

While loving taxes might be a bit of a stretch, it is impressive the extent to which undocumented immigrants, who are ordinarily not made to feel welcome in their encounters with the government, are nevertheless determined to figure out how to interact with the government to pay their taxes.  An article from the Associated Press from 2007 looked in to some empirical measurements:

“One measure of the immigrant market is the growth of Individual Taxpayer Identification Numbers, or ITINs, which the IRS issues to immigrants to use on their tax forms instead of Social Security numbers.

Last year [2006], the IRS issued 1.5 million ITINs, the most since the program was started in 1996 and a 30 percent increase from the 1.2 million issued in 2005. In total, the agency has issued 10.8 million ITINs since the program began [though not all have gone to immigrants in the U.S.].”

ITINS are issued to persons who are not entitled to Social Security numbers.  Most are thought to be issued to undocumented immigrants.

Why do they bother?  Eric Jiminez, an undocumented immigrant from Nashville, told the Associated Press in this article from USA Today that he knows nothing would happen to him if he didn’t pay his taxes, but,

“I have an idea, a mentality, that to be a good citizen you have to pay taxes,” he said. “Also, I’m conscious of the fact that the money we pay in taxes supports the schools and all the public services.”

The Social Security Administration has estimated that about three-quarters of undocumented immigrant workers pay in to the Social Security and Medicare system, even though they are not eligible to receive benefits.  In 2005, most of the $9 billion in taxes paid into the Social Security system that could not be matched to a legitimate Social Security account was thought to have come from taxes paid by undocumented immigrants.

The tax impact of immigrants, however, comes from more than their individual payments.  It comes from the prosperity they bring to the communities in which they reside.  A new study by the Fiscal Policy Institute (summarized in this article in the New York Times) provides some interesting data on immigrants in the 25 largest U.S. metropolitan areas.  The article notes that, contrary to the popular image that recent immigration has flooded the U.S. with low-wage workers,

”…the 25 million immigrants who live in the country’s largest metropolitan areas (about two-thirds of all immigrants in the country) are nearly evenly distributed across the job and income spectrum.”

Even more intriguing, the cities with the greatest economic growth were not the ones that attracted primarily high-skilled immigrants.

”…the fastest economic growth between 1990 and 2008 was in cities like Atlanta, Denver and Phoenix that received large influxes of immigrants with a mix of occupations — including many in lower-paid service and blue-collar jobs.”

For example,

“In metropolitan Denver, where the economy doubled between 1990 and 2008, 63 percent of immigrants worked in jobs on the lower end of the pay scale.”

As the report notes,

“Immigration is part of the story of economic growth. Immigrants are drawn by economic expansion, and once they are in a metro area they earn and spend money, expand consumer demand, start small businesses to meet new needs, and fuel further growth.”

That new prosperity leads to more tax revenue.

We are going to need more taxpayers, because our society is aging and unprecedented numbers are retiring from the workforce. 

Immigrants tend to be younger than the population as a whole, and have their prime earning years ahead of them.

On the other hand, people who identify themselves as supporters of the tea party, according to a New York Times survey tend to be older than 45.  Many of them are drawing Social Security benefits, or soon will be.  We need workers paying in to the system so that these tea party activists can continue to draw the benefits to which they are entitled.  One tea party supporter interviewed for the survey was asked what she thought about her advocacy for smaller government while she was drawing Social Security.  She told the interviewer,

“I guess I want smaller government and my Social Security.”

Good thing for her that there are immigrants who want to be a part of our country and pay their taxes.

Economic Impact Immigrant contributions Immigration Reform Taxes

Immigrants – Creating the Jobs Americans Want to Do

March 05, 2010 - Posted by Maurice Belanger

 

The Christian Science Monitor the other day published a story, “Who’s creating US jobs? Mexicans.”  The story noted an increase in Mexican entrepreneurs coming to the U.S. in order to escape drug cartel violence and kidnapping.  There are special visas available to immigrant entrepreneurs willing to come to the U.S. to create jobs.  In the last decade, there has been a steady increase in the number of Mexicans who have been transferring their businesses here, buying and renovating businesses here, or starting new ones.

In the immigration debate, we hear a lot (from anti-immigrant groups) about immigrants “taking” American jobs.  Not enough is said about immigrant entrepreneurs and the jobs they create for Americans.

Each year, the Kauffman Foundation puts out an Index of Entrepreneurial Activity. The index “is a leading indicator of new business creation in the United States.” 

Their latest, the Kauffman Index of Entrepreneurial Activity, 1996-2008, reveals some important “shifts in the demographic and geographic composition of new entrepreneurs across the country.”  

For a number of years, researchers have found that immigrants have a greater rate of entrepreneurial activity than the native-born.  According to the latest Index, the difference between immigrant and native-born entrepreneurial activity is growing.

The immigrant rate of entrepreneurial activity increased from 0.46 percent in 2007 to 0.51 percent in 2008, further widening the gap between immigrant and native-born rates. Native-born rates increased only slightly, from 0.27 percent to 0.28 percent.

The increase in entrepreneurial activity among immigrants in 2008 from the year before, the report notes, is driven by startups in “low- and medium-income-potential” types of businesses, such as grocery stores, child care services, and restaurants.  However, the report notes that immigrants are “also more likely to start high-income-potential types of businesses than the native born.”  That list includes various types of manufacturing, wholesalers, and medical and legal services. 

Looking at ethnic groups, in 2008 Latinos (.48 percent) and Asians (.35 percent) had a higher rate of entrepreneurship than non-Latino whites (.31 percent).  The report also notes that it doesn’t take a college degree to start a business.  In fact, 

While business-creation rates increased for less-educated individuals, the college-educated experienced a decline in entrepreneurial activity rates, from 0.33 percent in 2007 to 0.31 percent in 2008.

The Kauffman report and others such as this one from the Immigration Policy Center estimating that comprehensive immigration reform will boost our economy by $1.5 trillion over ten years, make it increasingly clear that, as we grapple with ways to pull out of the current economic slump, immigration reform must be part of the solution.

Photo by Flickr user Sugi. 

Economic Impact Immigrant contributions

Economic Stimulus for New York

January 29, 2010 - Posted by Maurice Belanger

On January 20th, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg gave his State of the City address at the Frank Sinatra High School of the Arts in Astoria, Queens.  He spent the bulk of his talk telling New Yorkers what to expect from his Administration in the future in terms of helping New Yorkers climb out of the economic downturn. 

One focus of his Administration will be to help immigrants succeed.

So as we push for comprehensive immigration reform in Washington, we’ll also do more to help struggling immigrants right here in our own backyard because all of us have an interest in seeing immigrants succeed.

A recent report by the Comptroller of New York, Thomas DiNapoli, emphasized just how important successful immigrants are to New York City.

In a short paper, The Role of Immigrants in the New York City Economy, the Comptroller lays out a wealth of statistics explaining the crucial contribution immigrants make to the New York workforce and economic life.

The arrival of immigrants between 1970 and 2008 arrested the city’s population decline and more than turned it around.  The immigrant population more than doubled, to 3 million, while the native population declined by a million during the same period. 

New arrivals, the report notes, helped revitalize neighborhoods across the city.  The ten neighborhoods with the greatest concentration of immigrants had stronger economic growth than the rest of the City between 2000 and 2007—14.8 percent compared to 3.3 percent.  In those neighborhoods, the number of paid workers grew by 8.2 percent, but only by 0.9 percent in the rest of the City.  Even though immigrants tend to have lower-paying jobs than native-born residents, the report notes, the annual payroll in the 10 high-concentration immigrant neighborhoods increased by 36.3 percent, compared to 32.8 percent in the rest of the City.

Not all immigrants were in lower-paying occupations.  According to the report, foreign-born workers made up 100 percent of the City’s chemical engineers, 71 percent of biomedical and agricultural engineers, 40 percent of accountants and auditors, 27 percent of chief executives and legislators, and 21 percent of elementary and middle school teachers.

Overall, immigrants make up 43 percent of New York City’s workforce and they account for $215 billion in economic activity—about 32 percent the total gross city product. 

It is no wonder Mayor Bloomberg is stepping up his support for Comprehensive Immigration Reform.  As he noted in a press release commending Representative Luis Gutierrez and members of the New York Congressional delegation for introducing CIR ASAP in December,

New York City’s greatest strength has always been its diversity, and the contributions made by New York’s immigrant communities have driven America’s economic engine for generations.  Today, however, our immigration laws are broken, hurting our economy and many immigrant families.  A comprehensive solution is urgently needed.

The immigration reform component of our economic recovery will also be important to New York State as a whole.  As the Immigration Policy Center notes in a recent fact sheet, New York’s immigrants are responsible for nearly one quarter of the state’s gross domestic product.  Should comprehensive immigration reform fail, and if undocumented immigrants were to be removed from New York, the state would suffer the loss of approximately 137,000 jobs and $12.7 billion in economic output.  That is no way to go about economic recovery.

Photo: Flickr user sayan51

Economic Impact Immigrant contributions

New Poll: Voters Want Immigrants on the Tax Rolls

January 12, 2010 - Posted by Maurice Belanger

We wrote in a previous blog post about a new report that projects a positive impact on the economy of $1.5 trillion and billions of dollars in additional tax revenue if Congress enacts comprehensive immigration reform that includes a path to legal status for undocumented immigrants who are here working.  On January 11, our friends over at America’s Voice released a new poll showing that those additional taxes are just what the public would like.

America’s Voice contracted with the Benenson Strategy Group, which contacted 800 “likely” 2010 general election voters.  Voters were asked a number of questions about immigration and immigration reform.  The poll was conducted from December 19 to 21, 2009.

Voters were asked whether they think the issue of illegal immigration should be a high priority for Congress.  More than half (55%) think it should be, even with all the other issues Congress is facing.

While voters think that illegal immigration should be a high priority, the economy remains the top concern, with 62% of voters naming it as one of the top “two or three” issues Congress should focus on.  Health care was next at 60%.  A whopping 94% of Americans think that economic conditions currently are “poor” or “fair.”

Nearly half of the respondents (48%), believe that undocumented immigrants don’t pay taxes.  Getting those immigrants to pay taxes is very much preferred over forcing them to leave the country.  By a more than two-to-one margin (67% to 28%), survey respondents believe “We would be better off if people who are in the United States illegally became legal taxpayers so they pay their fair share” verses forcing them to leave the country “because they are taking away jobs that Americans need.”

The survey also tied together the concern about the economy and the concern that undocumented immigrants are not paying their fair share of taxes.  When asked which of two statements best described their views, more than half said they supported the statement that “The economic crisis we are currently in makes it more crucial than ever that we solve our immigration problems.”  The elements of comprehensive reform were described, including moving undocumented immigrants “out of the shadows and on to the tax rolls.”

Public support for comprehensive immigration reform has been fairly steady for several years.  This latest poll tells us, again, that the public holds more pragmatic views on immigration reform than do some of our politicians.  When it comes to immigration reform and the economy, voters would rather see undocumented immigrants pay their taxes and join the club.

Immigrant contributions Public Opinion Taxes

What’s in it for us?

January 08, 2010 - Posted by Maurice Belanger

The Center for American Progress and the Immigration Policy Center released a papers on the economic benefits of comprehensive immigration reform.  The report was authored by Dr. Raul Hinojosa-Ojeda, of the North American Integration and Development Center at the University of California, Los Angeles.

The report, Raising the Floor for American Workers, gives us a very practical reason for implementing comprehensive immigration reform that includes a program to provide legal status to undocumented immigrants.  The program would have economic ripple effects that would, when compared to the alternative policy of mass deportation promoted by immigrant restrictions, have a net economic benefit of as much as $4.1 trillion for the U.S. economy over 10 years.

A scenario in which comprehensive immigration reform with a legalization program is passed would result in a positive gain of $1.5 trillion for the economy over 10 years.  The mass deportation scenario result in a $2.6 trillion loss over the same period.

The amount for the legalization scenario was derived from experience with the legalization program of the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act.  A number of studies have followed individuals who went through the legalization program to determine how they did once they gained legal status.

Legalization would set in motion a chain of positive circumstances that would ripple out from the immediate immigrant beneficiaries and effect the economy as a whole.

Legalization raises pay: A variety of studies have shown that legalization, even isolated from other factors, had significant positive effects on the pay of formerly undocumented workers. 

Freedom to choose: There are other factors that further hike the pay of legalized workers.  Workers with legal status have the freedom to leave jobs where they are being exploited.  They have more opportunity to find jobs that pay more.

A willingness to invest: With the threat of deportation lifted, a worker is much more likely to make investments that will improve his skills—learning English, for example.  These investments yield dividends in a timeframe that is longer than a worker might expect if he might be deported.  The dividends include opportunities for better jobs, further boosting income.

Raising the wage floor: As the fortunes of undocumented workers rise, so too do the fortunes of other workers.  In industries where there are large concentrations of undocumented workers, the availability of many workers who can be exploited by shady employers depresses wages for all workers.  When undocumented workers gain legal status, they also gain rights and the ability to walk away from a bad boss.  If the bad employers lose their exploitable workers, they have to pay more, and wages for all workers go up.

More income, more spending, more taxes: All of these workers have more money to spend, and that effects the economy as a whole.  According to the report,

The real wages of newly legalized workers increase by roughly $4,405 per year among those in less-skilled jobs during the first three years of implementation, and $6,185 per year for those in higher-skilled jobs.  … [This] translates into an increase in net personal income of $30 billion to $36 billion, which would generate $4.5 to $5.4 billion in additional net tax revenue …[and] consumer spending sufficient to support 750,000 to 900,000 jobs.

By contrast, the mass deportation scenario, which the report defines as the government deporting over four million immigrant workers and their dependents, would depress U.S. Gross Domestic Product by 1.46 percent annually.  Over 10 years, the economy would take a $2.6 trillion hit—not including the actual cost of deporting all those people, which would add more than $200 billion to the deficit.  According to the report, the wages of low-skilled workers in the U.S. would rise a bit, but the economy would lose a large number of jobs.

So what’s in it for us?  What do we get for comprehensive immigration reform?  More jobs, more taxes, and higher wages for all workers.

When Congress returns for its 2010 session, new stimulus legislation will be on the agenda.  It will be a struggle to have the government spend additional money in the context of a deficit that is already a trillion-and-a-half dollars. If Congress passed comprehensive immigration reform, they would simultaneously be enacting a new stimulus program on the cheap.

Photo by Flickr user yomanimus.

Economic Impact Immigrant contributions Immigration Reform

Page 1 of 1 pages