View
222
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
8/7/2019 Revitalizing the Golden State
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/revitalizing-the-golden-state 1/29www.americanprogress.org www.immigrationpolicy.o
Revitalizing the Golden StateWhat Legalization Over Deportation Could Mean to Caliornia
and Los Angeles County
Raul Hinojosa-Ojeda and Marshall Fitz April 2011
8/7/2019 Revitalizing the Golden State
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/revitalizing-the-golden-state 2/29
Revitalizing the Golden StateWhat Legalization Over Deportation Could Mean to
Caliornia and Los Angeles County
Raul Hinojosa-Ojeda and Marshall Fitz April 2011
8/7/2019 Revitalizing the Golden State
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/revitalizing-the-golden-state 3/29
1 Introduction and summary
5 Economic contributions o immigrants in Caliornia
and Los Angeles County today
9 The economic consequences o deporting Caliornia’s
undocumented immigrants
15 The beneits o legalizing undocumented immigrants
to work in Caliornia
18 Appendix: Methodology
23 Reerences
24 Endnotes
25 About the authors and acknowledgements
Contents
8/7/2019 Revitalizing the Golden State
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/revitalizing-the-golden-state 4/29
1 Center for American Progress • Immigration Policy Center | Revitalizing the Golden State
Introduction and summary
Caliornia is home o nearly 10 million immigrans, more han one quarer o
he sae’s populaion. O hose, 2.7 million are undocumened, and he vas
majoriy o hem have been living in he Unied Saes or more han 10 years. 1
Caliornia’s immigran conribuions o he Golden Sae canno be oversaed.
From Cesar Chavez, he pioneering agriculural labor-righs leader in he 20h
cenury o Sergei Brin, he Russian enrepreneur behind one o he 21s cen-
ury’s mos revoluionary companies, Google Inc., he oreign born and heir
descendans are woven ino he sae’s culural and economic abric.
Sill, ha realiy has no prevened some Caliornians, rusraed wih our broken
ederal immigraion sysem, o call or an Arizona-syle “papers please” approach.
In ac, a ea Pary acivis and ormer chair o he Sonoma Couny Republican
Pary is currenly organizing a peiion drive o pu a similar measure beore he
Caliornia voers on he nex ballo.2
Caliornia is no sranger o ani-immigran senimen. Tis immigran-rich sae
has grappled wih issues relaed o legal and illegal immigraion or decades. In
1994, hen-Gov. Pee Wilson saked his poliical orunes o a measure similar o
S.B. 1070, Arizona’s immigraion enorcemen law. Te Wilson-backed measure—
known as Proposiion 187—died in he cours bu riggered a poliical backlash
agains he sae’s Republican esablishmen ha persiss o his day.3
Noneheless, some sae legislaors in Caliornia appear willing o repea he mis-
akes o 1994 by gearing up o push S.B. 1070-syle legislaion wihou consider-
ing he economic and scal consequences o such a move.4 Te saed goal o his
new wave o sae-based enorcemen legislaion is o rigger a mass exodus o
undocumened immigrans, by making “atriion hrough enorcemen” he policy o sae and local governmen agencies.5 Te hreshold quesion ha proponens
o S.B.1070-syle legislaion have ailed o answer is wheher ha goal serves he
economic ineress o he sae’s consiuens.
8/7/2019 Revitalizing the Golden State
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/revitalizing-the-golden-state 5/29
2 Center for American Progress • Immigration Policy Center | Revitalizing the Golden State
Te Cener or American Progress and he Immigraion Policy Cener recenly
released a repor answering ha quesion as i relaed o Arizona. 6 Our economic
analysis conclusively demonsraed ha, i successul, S.B. 1070 would have
grave consequences or he sae’s economy. In his repor, we rain our ocus on
Caliornia, wih a separae look a Los Angeles Couny. We assess he economic
ramicaions o he sae and couny by answering he ollowing wo quesions:
• I legislaion designed o drive all undocumened immigrans rom Caliornia
acually accomplished ha goal, wha eec would i have on he sae’s econ-
omy and he economy o Los Angeles Couny?
• Conversely, wha would he impac
be on he Caliornia and Los Angeles
Couny economies i undocumened
immigrans acquired legal saus?
Our analysis nds ha he economic and
scal consequences o widespread depor-
aion or Caliornia and L.A. Couny
would be even more devasaing han in
Arizona. When undocumened workers
are aken ou o he economy, he jobs
hey suppor hrough heir labor, heir
consumpion, and heir ax paymens dis-
appear as well. Paricularly during a ime
o proound economic uncerainy, he
ype o dislocaion envisioned by harsh
immigraion enorcemen policies runs
direcly couner o he public ineres.
Conversely, our analysis shows ha legal-
izing he undocumened populaion in
Caliornia and L.A. Couny would yield
signican economic benes. Based on
he hisorical resuls o he las legaliza-ion program under he Immigraion
Reorm and Conrol Ac o 1986, a
similar program would increase wages
no only or immigrans bu also or heir
Deportation efects
California:
• Decrease total employment by 17.4 percent
• Eliminate 3.6 million jobs
• Shrink the state economy by $301.6 billion
• Reduce state’s tax revenues by 8.5 percent
Los Angeles County:
• Decrease total employment by 21.9 percent
• Eliminate 1.3 million jobs or immigrant and native-born workers a• Shrink the county economy by $106.4 billion
• Reduce tax revenues by 11.6 percent
Legalization efects
California:
• Add 633,000 jobs
• Increase labor income by $26.9 billion
• Increase tax revenues by $5.3 billion
Los Angeles County:
• Add 211,000 jobs
• Increase labor income by $10.3 billion
• Increase tax revenues by $1.9 billion
Figure 1
Mass deportation versus mass legalization
Costs and consequences
8/7/2019 Revitalizing the Golden State
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/revitalizing-the-golden-state 6/29
3 Center for American Progress • Immigration Policy Center | Revitalizing the Golden State
naive-born co-workers. Tis would generae more ax revenue and more con-
sumer and business spending, supporing addiional jobs hroughou he sae
and L.A. Couny economies.
Our repor esimaes and compares he shor-erm shock o he sae and couny
economies ha would be immediaely el rom a signican change in policy—deporaion or legalizaion. Our analysis evaluaes he changes in economic oupu,
employmen levels, and ax conribuions on he economies o Caliornia and, more
specically, Los Angeles Couny arising rom hese divergen policy approaches.
Tis analysis demonsraes unequivocally ha undocumened immigrans don’ sim-
ply “ll” jobs—hey creae jobs. Trough he work hey perorm, he money hey
spend, and he axes hey pay, undocumened immigrans susain he jobs o many
oher workers in he U.S. economy, immigrans and naive-born alike.
Were undocumened immigrans o suddenly vanish, he jobs o many Americans
in Caliornia and L.A. Couny would vanish as well. By conras, were undocu-mened immigrans o acquire legal saus, heir wages and produciviy would
increase, hey would spend more in our economy and pay more in axes, and new
jobs would be creaed. (see Figures 1 and 2)
• Fully und the proposed 2011-2012 general und expenditures or the legislative, judicial,
and executive branches, state and consumer services, business transportation and housing,
environmental protection, labor workorce development, nonagency departments, and
statewide expenditures, with money let over7
• Provide in-state tuition to University o Caliornia schools or more than 300,000 students8
• Build and ully sta 600 new elementary schools9
• Provide vaccinations or hal o Caliornia’s children10
• Build 104 large (4-8 stories) hospitals11
• Give every Caliornian $143
Figure 2
Boosting jobs, boosting tax revenues
What Caliornia can do with $5.3 billion in additional tax revenues romlegalizing undocumented workers
8/7/2019 Revitalizing the Golden State
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/revitalizing-the-golden-state 7/29
4 Center for American Progress • Immigration Policy Center | Revitalizing the Golden State
In shor, mimicking Arizona’s goal o mass expulsion would be economically
sel-desrucive o he Caliornia economy and he L.A . couny economy.
Caliornia wen down ha road in he early 1990s and accomplished nohing
excep o unleash a poliical backlash rom he ases growing demographic
group in he sae and naion. Caliornia should op insead or he more
orward-looking approach ha pus all workers on a legal, even ooing. Taprogressive sraegy could serve as a cosless simulus o he economy ha
would improve he sae’s scal balances.
8/7/2019 Revitalizing the Golden State
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/revitalizing-the-golden-state 8/29
5 Center for American Progress • Immigration Policy Center | Revitalizing the Golden State
Economic contributions of
immigrants in California and
Los Angeles County todayDebaes abou he economic and scal benes and drawbacks o immigrans
ypically oversimpliy he role ha immigrans play in our economy. Bu he
impac ha immigrans (or any cohor or ha mater) have on he economy
is muliaceed and complex. Nowhere in he naion is ha more rue han in
Caliornia. Immigrans are no jus workers; hey are also consumers and axpay-
ers. 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 a large
undocumened workorce.
Tis secion o he repor examines he economic and scal conribuions immi-
grans—documened and undocumened—currenly make in Caliornia, and Los
Angeles Couny. Alhough he saed goal o S.B. 1070-ype iniiaives is o drive
undocumened immigrans rom he sae, he eec has been o creae an inhospi-
able environmen or all immigrans. Undocumened immigrans live in mixed-
saus amilies wih legal immigrans and U.S. ciizens. Measures geared oward
undocumened immigrans hus hi a signicanly larger populaion. As such, we
provide a snapsho o he overall conribuions immigrans make o he Caliornia
and L.A. Couny economies in addiion o he specic impacs made by undocu-
mened immigrans. (See he Appendix on page 18 or a deailed explanaion o
he mehodology used in his repor.)
Immigrans accoun or a signican share o he populaion in Caliornia and
Los Angeles. Firs-generaion immigran Americans as a whole accouned or
27.1 percen o he populaion in Caliornia, and 35.5 percen in Los Angeles
Couny. Undocumened immigrans accouned or 7.4 percen o Caliornia’s
populaion and 10.2 percen o LA’s populaion in 2008.12 (see able 1) O
course, given ha immigrans are predominanly drawn o he Unied Saes insearch o improved economic opporuniy, large numbers o hese immigrans
are in he Caliornia workorce and conribue enormously o he economies o
Caliornia and Los Angeles.
8/7/2019 Revitalizing the Golden State
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/revitalizing-the-golden-state 9/29
6 Center for American Progress • Immigration Policy Center | Revitalizing the Golden State
Immigran workers as a whole added $492 billion o Caliornia’s gross sae
produc—he oal value added by workers o goods and services produced in he
sae—in 2008. Te undocumened workorce by isel accouned or $158 billiono his GSP. Looking a economic oupu o immigran workers in he sae—he
oal value o all goods and services produced in he economy—he gures are
an even more sunning $900 billion, and he oupu o undocumened immigran
Table 1
More than a quarter o the state’s population is a lot o people
Proportion o oreign-born residents in Caliornia and Los Angeles County
Caliornia Proportion o total population Los Angeles Proportion o total popula
Total population 36,418,499 100% 9,832,137 100%
Legal oreign born* 7,155,606 19.6% 2,491,729 25.3%
Undocumented 2,700,000 7.4% 1,000,000 10.2%
Total oreign born 9,855,606 27.1% 3,491,729 35.5%
Source: Pew Hispanic Center estimates and 2006-2008 American Community Survey estimates.
* Includes naturalized citizens.
Note: These gures represent the total population, not just estimates o those residents active in the labor orce. The undocumented estimates were constructed based on gures published by the Pew Hi
Center (Passel & Cohn 2009). The category “Legal Foreign-Born” was obtained by subtracting the estimated undocumented population (Passel & Cohn 2009) rom the estimated number o non-citizen residthe 2006-2008 American Community Survey.
Table 2
The economic importance o immigrants
Gross state product, economic output, and labor income by documented and undocumented residents in Caliornia and Los Angeles Co
Employment
(thousands)
Percent o total labor orce
by immigration status
GSP (1)
(millions)
Output (2)
(millions)
Labor income (3)
(millions)
Othe
income
Caliornia (5)
Total workers 20,620 100% $1,749,836 $3,202,735 $976,240 $642,5
Legal residents 3,938 19.1% $334,219 $611,722 $186,462 $122,7
Undocumented immigrants 1,856 9.0% $157,485 $288,246 $87,862 $57,83
Total oreign born 5,794 28.1% $491,704 $899,968 $274,324 $180,5
Los Angeles (6)
Total workers 5,674 100% $483,654 $871,478 $264,298 $182,9
Legal residents 1,379 24.3% $117,528 $211,769 $64,224 $44,46
Undocumented immigrants 692 12.2% $59,006 $106,320 $32,244 $22,31
Total oreign born 2,071 36.5% $176,534 $318,089 $96,468 $66,78
(1) Value added includes employee compensation, proprietary income, other property income, and indirect business tax. It represents the contribution o each industry to Gross Domestic Product (GDP).
(2) Output represents total value added by sector plus the total value o inventory and purchases by intermediate and nal consumers.
(3) Labor income is the pre-tax earnings o workers, including all benets.
(4) Other income includes earnings rom rents, royalties, and dividends.
(5) Caliornia estimates constructed using Passel & Cohn 2009; Fortuny, Capps, & Passel 2007; and Myers, Pitkin, and Park 2005.
(6) Los Angeles County estimates constructed using Fortuny, Capps & Passel 2007.
8/7/2019 Revitalizing the Golden State
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/revitalizing-the-golden-state 10/29
7 Center for American Progress • Immigration Policy Center | Revitalizing the Golden State
workers was more han $288 billion. As able 2 shows, even zeroing in jus on Los
Angeles Couny, he economic impacs rom he immigran workorce are signi-
can. Undocumened workers alone accouned or $59 billion o Los Angeles’s
gross produc and $106 billion in oal economic oupu.
O course, hese workers are no only producing imporan goods and services bu also earning money ha hey spend in he sae and conribuing o economic
growh and job creaion ha way. And he pre-ax earnings o immigran workers
in Caliornia were signican—more han $274 billion or all immigran work-
ers in he sae and nearly $88 billion or undocumened workers. (see able 2)
Clearly, he sheer size o he impacs hese populaions make renders i imperaive
o consider he economic implicaions o proposed enorcemen policies.
Te oupu and spending o all immigran workers generaed 11.4 million jobs in
Caliornia and 3.7 million jobs in Los Angeles. Te oupu and spending jus o
undocumened workers generaed 3.6 million in he sae and 1.2 million jobs in hecouny. Tese oupu and spending calculaions per job are based on he number o
direc, indirec, and induced jobs relaed o he economic aciviies o immigrans
Table 3
Employment creation by immigrants
The direct, indirect, induced, and total employment eects o oreign-born workers in Caliornia and Los Angeles County
Jobs in thousands
EmploymentPercent o total labor orce
by immigration status
Indirect employment
impact (1)
Induced employment
impact (2)
Total employ
impactCaliornia (3)
Total workers 20,620 100% - - -
Legal residents 3,938 19.1% 1,786 2,069 7,793
Undocumented immigrants 1,856 9.0% 843 886 3,585
Total oreign born 5,794 28.1% 2,629 2,955 11,378
Los Angeles (4)
Total workers 5,674 100% - - -
Legal residents 1,379 24.3% 488 616 2,483
Undocumented immigrants 692 12.2% 264 293 1,249
Total oreign born 2,071 36.5% 752 909 3,732
(1) Indirect employment impact is the efect on employment in one industry caused by a change in employment in another industry, as a result o the interaction between industries. For instance, when emplreduced in a given industry (direct), transactions between that industry and others decrease, and thus, more employees are laid of (indirect).
(2) Induced employment impact is the change in employment caused by a reduction in household spending, which happens when a drop in demand or goods and services causes a drop in an industry’
or employment.
(3) Caliornia estimates constructed using Passel & Cohn 2009; Fortuny, Capps, & Passel 2007; and Myers, Pitkin, and Park 2005.
(4) Los Angeles County estimates constructed using Fortuny, Capps & Passel 2007.
8/7/2019 Revitalizing the Golden State
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/revitalizing-the-golden-state 11/29
8 Center for American Progress • Immigration Policy Center | Revitalizing the Golden State
Table 4
The tax revenues immigrants pay
Estimated tax contributions o Caliornians and Los Angeleans by residency status
Population
(thousands)
Percent o total population
by immigration status
Personal taxes
(millions) (1)
Business taxes
(millions) (2)
Sales taxes
(millions)
Total tax
(million
Caliornia (3)
Total 36,418 100% $84,729 $150,012 $114,781 $349,52
U.S. citizens (4) 26,563 72.9% $61,800 $109,415 $83,719 $254,93
Legal residents 7,156 19.6% $16,648 $29,475 $22,552 $68,67
Undocumented immigrants 2,700 7.4% $6,282 $11,122 $8,510 $25,91
Total oreign born 9,856 27.1% $22,930 $40,597 $31,062 $94,58
Los Angeles (5)
Total 9,832 100% $20,752 $39,398 $29,646 $89,79
U.S. citizens (4) 6,340 64.5% $13,382 $25,407 $19,117 $57,90
Legal residents 2,492 25.3% $5,259 $9,985 $7,513 $22,75
Undocumented immigrants 1,000 10.2% $2,111 $4,008 $3,015 $9,134
Total oreign born 3,492 35.5% $7,370 $13,993 $10,528 $31,89
(1) Personal taxes include income tax, motor vehicle license ees, property tax and other non-tax nes and ees.
(2) Business taxes include corporate prots tax, dividends, motor vehicle license ees, property tax, severance tax, and other taxes.
(3) Caliornia estimates constructed using Passel & Cohn 2009; Fortuny, Capps, & Passel 2007; and Myers, Pitkin, and Park 2005.
(4) Los Angeles County estimates constructed using Fortuny, Capps & Passel 2007.
(5) U.S. citizens include children born overseas to U.S. citizen parents and children born in Puerto Rico and other U.S. territories.
in Caliornia. Direc employmen reers o direc labor orce paricipaion. Indirec
employmen reers o he eec o employmen in indusries conneced o he
indusries in which hese workers are employed. And induced employmen reers o
he eec o household spending on employmen across he economy. (see able 3)
Rounding ou his snapsho o immigrans’ presen economic conribuions oCaliornia is he ac ha immigran workers pay billions o dollars o axes o he
sae reasury. Jus like naive-born Caliornians, immigrans pay personal axes,
such as income ax and propery ax, business axes (among hem corporae pro-
is axes, dividends, and propery axes), and sales axes. Our analysis esimaes
ha immigrans on he whole paid $95 billion in axes in 2008 while undocu-
mened immigrans paid approximaely $26 billion. (see able 4)
Te upsho: Immigrans living and working in Caliornia and Los Angeles Couny
make signican conribuions o he overall prosperiy o he sae. So wha would
happen i all he undocumened immigrans were driven rom he sae? o hisquesion we now urn.
8/7/2019 Revitalizing the Golden State
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/revitalizing-the-golden-state 12/29
9 Center for American Progress • Immigration Policy Center | Revitalizing the Golden State
The economic consequences
of deporting California’s
undocumented immigrantsRemoving all o he undocumened immigrans rom Caliornia would have
subsanial, indeed devasaing, consequences or everyone remaining in he sae.
Driving he undocumened immigrans ou o Caliornia would lead o signican
losses o jobs or boh naive-born and oreign-born workers. I would rigger a
major conracion o he sae economy as i sruggles o grow is way pas he
Grea Recession. And i would lead o subsanial los ax revenue or he sae gov-
ernmen, which is already reeling rom he recession and high unemploymen.13
Viewed hrough a sric economic lens, i is indispuable ha he goal o mass
deporaion behind S.B. 1070 and relaed proposals conravenes he mos basic
public ineres in a sable and growing economy. Indeed, he simplisic narraive
ha driving undocumened workers rom he sae will ree up jobs or naive-
born Caliornians and legal immigrans does no hold up o scruiny. In ac, push-
ing hose workers ou o he sae would shrink he sae’s economy and rigger
signican addiional job losses in a sae already suering rom high unemploy-
men and sagnan job growh.14
Why? Because, as he prior secion highlighed, hese workers are no one-dimen-
sional economic acors. Tey operae wihin a complex and dynamic sysem.
When signican numbers o workers o any background (or immigraion saus)
are removed rom he labor orce, here are reverberaing eecs hroughou
he economy. I mass deporaion policies were enaced by he sae or couny,
Caliornia and Los Angeles Couny could also anicipae huge coss beyond he
direc economic havoc i would creae. Te coss o Arizona rom los conerences
and convenions in he wake o S.B. 1070 and he liigaion coss o a ciy like
Farmers Branch, exas, ha adoped a localized version o S.B. 1070 highligh
addiional economic consequences o going down his pah.15
(see box)
Here’s an example o wha could happen in Caliornia in jus one indusry—agricul-
ure. I undocumened immigrans working in he elds o Caliornia—50 percen
o 75 percen o he workorce by mos esimaes—are driven ou o work and ou
8/7/2019 Revitalizing the Golden State
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/revitalizing-the-golden-state 13/29
10 Center for American Progress • Immigration Policy Center | Revitalizing the Golden State
o he sae by an aggressive sae crackdown, i will rigger a cascade o uninended
economic consequences. Te armers, o course, are hur; i hey can’ harves he
crops, hey can’ pay heir bills.
Bu he harm doesn’ sop here. I armers can’ harves heir crops, he ruckers
who ranspor hose crops o ood processors, grocery sores, and resaurans lose
work. And i hose enerprises ha rely on hese crops o prepare meals or resell o
consumers wan o remain in business, hey will have o pay more or new produc-
ers. Te increased demand rom a ar smaller number o producers will elevae
prices or all consumers. And more money spen on letuce means less money
spen elsewhere in he economy.
Over ime, some o he arm jobs would be lled by currenly unemployed
workers and a measure o equilibrium would be resored. Bu we know ha
even he promise o subsanial wages ails o draw signican numbers o U.S. workers o he elds; i oen means moving o remoe locaions and i is back-
breaking work.17 Even assuming more U.S. workers atemped o do hese jobs
han we have seen in he pas, he immediae consequences o driving undocu-
mened workers ou o he indusry would be signican—and many o he jobs
will never be lled. I will ake ime o recrui and rain he workers who are
In November 2006, Farmers Branch, Texas, a small Dallas suburb o
26,000 people, passed an ordinance aimed at driving undocumented
immigrants rom the city by prohibiting them rom renting apart-
ments. The ordinance required apartment owners and managers to
obtain proo o citizenship rom every member o a amily. Failure
to comply could result in nes up to $500 a day. The ordinance also
made the city’s ocial language English, and authorized local law
enorcement to enorce ederal immigration laws on a limited basis as
part o a ederal program.
Ater passage, our lawsuits were led against the city, including one
rom local businesses that claimed that the English-only provision
hurt businesses. The lawsuits were eventually combined, and in 2008
the ordinance was declared unconstitutional. The Farmers Branch
city council has since passed two other versions, the last one requir-
ing renters to pay a $5 ee and state their legal status on occup
papers, but both have been declared unconstitutional.
As o December 2010, deending its city ordinances cost Farme
Branch’s taxpayers $3.7 million, and that cost is expected to ris
$5 million. As a result o these high legal ees, the city was orc
cut the salaries and benets o city employees by 1 percent, re
ing in $300,000 in savings that would be directed toward payi
legal and court ees.
What’s more, a study by economists rom the University o Nort
Texas concludes that the repeated attacks on immigrants by th
Farmers Branch city has and will continue to have a “deleteriou
on the city ’s ability to attract, develop, and retain business.”16
What happens when a city overreaches?
The tale o Farmers Branch, Texas
8/7/2019 Revitalizing the Golden State
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/revitalizing-the-golden-state 14/29
11 Center for American Progress • Immigration Policy Center | Revitalizing the Golden State
willing o ry. In he inerim, many crops will perish, arms will go in o oreclo-
sure, and he eecs o conracion will accelerae.
O course, he consequences o mass deporaion are no limied o hose workers
and indusries direcly conneced o he agriculural indusry. When undocu-
mened immigrans working in he elds are plucked rom he sae, hey sop
paying ren, hey sop buying clohes, groceries, and gas, and hey sop paying
axes o he sae. And as ha spending declines, jobs in deparmen sores, prop-
ery managemen companies, and ransporaion companies are los. As each o
hose indusries suers losses and shrinks, U.S. workers in he sae are hur, sae
revenues are los, and he sae economy conracs.
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, Caliornia would lose more han $176 billion in
labor income, dened as pre-ax salary and wage earnings. And as ha income
decreases, he earnings ha would oherwise be spen in he sae’s economy, or
example, on groceries, clohes, and housing, also are los. (see able 5)
Table 5
Mass deportation, mass income losses
The income eects o deporting undocumented workers in Caliornia
Labor income in millions o dollars
Total labor
income
Direct labor
income impact (1)
Indirect labor
income impact (2)
Induced labor
income impact (3)
Total labor
income impact
Percenta
change
State o Caliornia (4) $976,240 - - - - 0%
15 percent deportation -$12,907 -$6,859 -$6,061 -$25,827 -2.6%
30 percent deportation -$26,697 -$14,009 -$12,481 -$53,187 -5.4%
50 percent deportation -$44,495 -$23,349 -$20,802 -$88,646 -9.1%
100 percent deportation -$87,862 -$46,699 -$41,604 -$176,165 -18.0%
Los Angeles County (4) $264,298 - - - - 0%
15 percent deportation -$5,107 -$2,189 -$2,069 -$9,365 -3.5%
30 percent deportation -$10,215 -$4,378 -$4,137 -$18,730 -7.1%
50 percent deportation -$17,024 -$7,296 -$6,895 -$31,216 -11.8%
100 percent deportation -$32,244 -$14,593 -$13,791 -$60,628 -22.9%
(1) Direct labor income impact is the change in pre-tax earnings o undocumented workers, including all benets, as a result o their removal rom the regional economy.
(2) Indirect labor income impact is the change in pre-tax earnings o workers as a result o changes in employment caused by the interaction o industries afected by undocumented worker deportation. For e
when employment is reduced in a given industry (direct), transactions between that industry and others decrease, and thus, more employees are laid of (indirect).
(3) Induced labor income impact is the change in pre-tax earnings o workers caused by the reduction in employment resulting rom a reduction in household spending and a consequent drop in demand oand services.
(4) 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.
8/7/2019 Revitalizing the Golden State
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/revitalizing-the-golden-state 15/29
12 Center for American Progress • Immigration Policy Center | Revitalizing the Golden State
Tis cycle o diminished earnings, consumpion, and demand would shrink
Caliornia’s economy. Our analysis indicaes ha Caliornia’s gross sae produc
would be reduced by more han $300 billion i he undocumened populaion was
driven rom he sae. (see able 6) Ta is a caasrophic gure oaling more han
17 percen o he sae’s economy.
Unsurprisingly, he economic conracion would rigger job losses ha aec
all o Caliornia’s workers, naive-born and oreign-born alike. And i is no jus
he indusry in which he undocumened workers were employed ha would be
adversely aeced. ransacions beween ha indusry and oher indusries also
would decrease, leading o addiional layos. Te decrease in household spend-
ing ha would resul rom hese layos keeps ha downward cycle in moion and
would rigger sill urher job losses.
We esimae ha i all undocumened workers were removed rom he sae,
Caliornia would lose 3.6 million jobs. Ta ranslaes ino a jaw-dropping
decrease in oal employmen o over 17 percen. able 7 shows he impac o
mass deporaion on direc, indirec, induced, and oal employmen in Caliornia.
Table 6
Devastating Caliornia’s economy
The eects o deporting undocumented immigrant workers on state domestic product
GSP in millions o dollars
Total GSPDirect GSP impact
(1)
Indirect GSP
impact (2)
Induced GSP
impact (3)Total GSP impact Percentage c
State o Caliornia $1,749,836 - - - -
15 percent deportation -$18,047 -$10,230 -$10,858 -$39,134 -2.2%
30 percent deportation -$37,578 -$20,888 -$22,359 -$80,825 -5.6%
50 percent deportation -$62,630 -$34,815 -$37,265 -$134,709 -7.7%
100 percent deportation -$157,485 -$69,630 -$74,530 -$301,645 -17.2%
Los Angeles County $483,654 - - - -
15 percent deportation -$7,254 -$3,371 -$3,734 -$14,358 -2.9%
30 percent deportation -$14,508 -$6,741 -$7,467 -$28,716 -5.9%
50 percent deportation -$24,180 -$11,234 -$12,445 -$47,858 -9.9%
100 percent deportation -$59,006 -$22,467 -$24,890 -$106,363 -21.9%
(1) Direct value added impact is the change in value added caused by the removal o undocumented immigrants rom the regional economy.
(2) Indirect value added impact is the change in value added caused by the change in production in industries that interact with one another.
(3) Induced value added impact is the change in value added caused by the reduction in household spending.
Note: Totals may not sum due to rounding error.
8/7/2019 Revitalizing the Golden State
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/revitalizing-the-golden-state 16/29
13 Center for American Progress • Immigration Policy Center | Revitalizing the Golden State
Our presenaion o he consequences o mass deporaion in Caliornia’s agricul-
ural indusry is obviously germane here, oo. Some jobs done by undocumened
immigrans would be lled by currenly unemployed workers, bu some posi-
ions would ake ime o ll and many would never be lled. Small businesses in
paricular, which oen operae close o he margin, would be hur or orced o
close down. Te immediae consequences would be undeniably signican and
he economy, even aer recalibraion, would be diminished.
No doub businesses would make adjusmens o heir business organizaion—
he amoun o labor, capial, and echnology used—as a resul o mass depora-
ion. Noneheless, removing hese people rom he economy creaes a signican
hole in gross sae produc, even aer considering hese adjusmens. In ac, usingresuls rom a naional compuaional general equilibrium, or CGE, model ha
allows us o accoun or such adjusmens, our earlier repor on Arizona deer-
mined ha removal o he naion’s enire undocumened populaion would rigger
a $2.6 rillion loss in cumulaive gross domesic produc over 10 years.18
Table 7
Collapsing Caliornia
The consequences o mass deportation on jobs in Caliornia
Jobs in thousands
Total
employment
Direct
employment
impact (1)
Indirect
employment
impact (2)
Induced
employment
impact (3)
Total
employment
impact
Total employme
impact as percen
total employme
State o Caliornia 20,620 - - - - 100%
15 percent deportation -264 -126 -133 -523 -2.5%
30 percent deportation -529 -253 -266 -1,047 -5.1%
50 percent deportation -881 -421 -443 -1,745 -8.5%
100 percent deportation -1,856 -843 -886 -3,585 -17.4%
Los Angeles County 5,674 - - - - 100%
15 percent deportation -104 -40 -44 -187 -3.3%
30 percent deportation -208 -79 -88 -375 -6.6%
50 percent deportation -346 -132 -146 -624 -11.0%
100 percent deportation -692 -264 -293 -1,248 -21.9%
(1) Direct employment impact is the change in employment caused by the removal o undocumented immigrants rom the regional economy.
(2) Indirect employment impact is the efect on employment in one industry caused by a change in employment in another industry, as a result o the interaction between industries. For instance, when emplreduced in a given industry (direct), transactions between that industry and others decrease, and thus, more employees are laid of (indirect).
(3) Induced employment impact is the change in employment caused by a reduction in household spending, which happens when a drop in demand or goods and services causes a drop in an industry’s dem
employment.
Note: Totals may not sum due to rounding error.
8/7/2019 Revitalizing the Golden State
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/revitalizing-the-golden-state 17/29
14 Center for American Progress • Immigration Policy Center | Revitalizing the Golden State
Operaing or an exended ime wih a depleed workorce may mean he dier-
ence beween keeping he doors o a business open or shuting hem or good.
And ha goes or sae and couny governmen operaions, oo. Even in he bes o
economic imes, no sae or couny governmen can aord o pursue policies ha
lead o economic conracion and los jobs. Amid he currenly epid economic
recovery, a policy ha would orce he sae o orego more han $29 billion in ax
revenues is more han sel-deeaing—i is leadership malpracice. (see able 8)
Tis secion o our repor highlighs he drasic economic and scal consequences
awaiing Caliornia and Los Angeles Couny i i proceeds wih is eors o drive
ou all o is undocumened immigrans. Te nex secion deails why doing jus
he opposie—requiring undocumened immigrans o regiser and work legally
in Caliornia—would have precisely he opposie eec.
Table 8
Mass deportation means lost tax revenues
The eects o deportation on state tax revenues
Millions o dollars
Personal taxes (1) Business taxes (2) Sales taxes Total taxes Total tax change Percent ch
State o Caliornia (3) $84,729 $150,012 $114,781 $349,522 $0 0%
15 percent deportation $83,647 $148,122 $113,305 $345,074 -$4,448 -1.3%
30 percent deportation $82,565 $146,232 $111,829 $340,626 -$8,896 -2.5%
50 percent deportation $81,122 $143,711 $109,861 $334,694 -$14,828 -4.2%
100 percent deportation $77,514 $137,409 $104,941 $319,864 -$29,658 -8.5%
Los Angeles County (3) $20,752 $39,398 $29,646 $89,796 $0 0%
15 percent deportation $20,392 $38,724 $29,123 $88,239 -$1,557 -1.7%
30 percent deportation $20,033 $38,049 $28,601 $86,683 -$3,113 -3.5%
50 percent deportation $19,554 $37,149 $27,904 $84,607 -$5,189 -5.8%
100 percent deportation $18,355 $34,900 $26,163 $79,418 -$10,378 -11.6%
(1) Personal taxes include income tax, motor vehicle license ees, property tax and other non-tax nes and ees.
(2) Business taxes include corporate prots tax, dividends, motor vehicle license ees, property tax, severance tax and other taxes.
(3) IMPLAN base data. This case represents the economy without deportation changes.
8/7/2019 Revitalizing the Golden State
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/revitalizing-the-golden-state 18/29
15 Center for American Progress • Immigration Policy Center | Revitalizing the Golden State
The benefits of legalizing
undocumented immigrants
to work in CaliforniaUndocumened workers in Caliornia and elsewhere around he counry oper-
ae on he margins o he economy and are unable o realize heir ull earning
poenial. Many o hem are noneheless deeply embedded in communiies, oen
in nuclear amilies wih legal residens and U.S. ciizens. In ac, 62 percen have
been living in he Unied Saes or more han eleven years.19 Despie unprec-
edened ederal enorcemen eors and hisoric numbers o deporaions, he
undocumened populaion has remained largely sable.20 Even i i were possible
o expel every undocumened immigran rom Caliornia, he analysis above dem-onsraes ha such a goal would be economically sel-deeaing.
By conras, our analysis shows ha bringing all undocumened workers legally
ino he Caliornia workorce would be unquesionably benecial o he sae
economy and all is residens. A sae program ha required undocumened
immigrans o regiser, undergo background checks, pay axes, and ge righ wih
he law would level he playing eld or all workers and all employers.21 Saes ac-
ing on heir own canno, consiuionally speaking, enac hese kinds o policies,
alhough recenly Uah passed legislaion seeking ederal permission o do jus
ha—provide work permis o he sae’s undocumened immigrans.
Ulimaely, only he ederal governmen can resolve he saus o he undocu-
mened. Bu or he purposes o our analysis we examine in his secion o he
paper wha would happen i Caliornia’s workorce was legalized.
Te resul: reorm would creae jobs and raise wages or all workers.22 And i
would increase ax revenues or Caliornia, which is projeced o ace a budge
shorall o $25.4 billion in 2011-2012.23 Raher han pursue a sraegy ha cus
agains he sae’s economic and scal ineress, he Caliornia legislaure shouldpressure Congress o enac pro-growh reorms like requiring he undocumened
populaion and exploiive employers o ge righ wih he law.
8/7/2019 Revitalizing the Golden State
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/revitalizing-the-golden-state 19/29
16 Center for American Progress • Immigration Policy Center | Revitalizing the Golden State
Undocumened immigran workers earn abou 18 percen less in wages han legal
workers.24 A program ha required all undocumened immigrans o earn legal
saus would increase labor income and employmen in he sae by closing he
wage gap beween documened and undocumened workers. We esimae ha
legalizing he undocumened workers in Caliornia would increase labor income
in he sae by nearly $27 billion. (see able 9)
As he legalized worker and her amily spend he increased earnings on new
clohes, a down paymen on a car, or a new aparmen, he eec reverberaes
hroughou he economy. Clohing sores, car dealers, and renal agencies boos
heir sales and hire more sas. In oher words, he increase in economic oupu
and consumer spending would precipiae a spike in demand or goods and ser-
vices. Insead o he downward spiral produced by exracing hese workers rom
he sae’s economy, requiring hem o earn legal saus would precipiae a viru-
ous cycle o growh in jobs and revenue. Our modeling shows ha legalizing hese
workers would add 633,000 jobs o he hard-hi Caliornia economy (see able 9)
and increase he sae’s ax revenues by $5.3 billion. (see able 10)
Te choice, hen, beween legalizing undocumened immigrans o work inCaliornia or insead o depor hem is really no choice a all rom an economic
sandpoin. Te saed goal o enorcemen-only measures like S.B. 1070 is o drive
he undocumened populaion ou o he sae. Te proponens o his ype o leg-
islaion claim o be acing in he bes ineress o naive-born Americans, bu ha’s
simply no rue.
Table 9
Raising Caliornia
The eects o legalizing undocumented workers on income and employment in Caliornia
Jobs in thousands
Labor income
increase (millions)
Direct
employment
gain (1)
Indirect
employment
gain (2)
Induced
employment
gain (3)
Total
employment
gain
Total emplo
gain as perc
total emplo
State o Caliornia (4) $976,240 - - - - 20,620
Legalization $26,930 349 128 155 633 3.1%
Los Angeles County (4) 264,298 - - - - 5,674
Legalization $10,305 120 41 50 211 3.7%
(1) Direct employment gain is the increase in employment caused by the legalization o all undocumented immigrants in the regional economy.
(2) Indirect employment gain is the increase in employment in one industry caused by a change in employment in another industry, as a result o the interaction between industries. For instance, when emplo
increased in a given industry (direct), transactions between that industry and others increase, and thus, more jobs are created (indirect).
(3) Induced employment gain is the increase in employment caused by an increase in household spending. As more jobs are created, demand or goods and services increases and increases an industry’sor employment.
(4) 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.
8/7/2019 Revitalizing the Golden State
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/revitalizing-the-golden-state 20/29
17 Center for American Progress • Immigration Policy Center | Revitalizing the Golden State
Te economic analysis in his repor demonsraes ha i ha goal were realized,
hen he exac opposie resul would occur. Naive-born Americans in Caliornia
would suer devasaing economic losses. I Caliornia passed and successully implemened an Arizona syle law, i would:
• rigger a loss o 3.6 million jobs• Decrease oal employmen in he sae by more han 17 percen• Reduce he sae’s ax revenues by 8.5 percen.
Te impac on driving undocumened workers rom Los Angeles Couny, wih
is large immigran populaion, would be proound as well. I would eliminae
1.3 million jobs or immigran and naive-born workers alike, and decrease oal
employmen by a whopping 21.9 percen.
A sober analysis o he economic implicaions o S.B. 1070-syle laws should lead
sae legislaors o every poliical sripe o rejec he approach. Tere is a praci-
cal, common-sense alernaive ha carries unequivocally posiive economic
impacs: a ederal policy ha requires undocumened immigrans o regiser,
pay axes, and earn legal saus. Te oregoing analysis shows ha legalizing he
undocumened populaion in Caliornia would add 633,000 jobs and increase
ax revenues by $5.3 billion.
I sae legislaors really inend o promoe he bes ineress o heir consiuens,
hey should rejec hese counerproducive deporaion iniiaives and ocus
insead on holding heir ederal counerpars responsible or reorming our
immigraion laws.
Table 10
Boosting tax revenues by the millions
The eects o legalizing undocumented workers on state tax revenue in Caliornia
Personal taxes (1) Business taxes (2) Sales taxes Total taxes Total tax change Percent cha
State o Caliornia (4) $84,729 $150,012 $114,781 $349,522 $0 0%
Legalization $1,264 $2,261 $1,793 $5,318 $5,318 1.5%
Los Angeles County (4) $20,752 $39,398 $29,646 $89,796 $0 0%
Legalization $411 $804 $638 $1,853 $1,853 2.1%
(1) Personal taxes include income tax, motor vehicle license ees, property tax, and other non-tax nes and ees.
(2) Business taxes include corporate prots tax, dividends, motor vehicle license ees, property tax, severance tax, and other taxes.
(3) IMPLAN base data. This case represents the economy without deportation changes.
8/7/2019 Revitalizing the Golden State
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/revitalizing-the-golden-state 21/29
18 Center for American Progress • Immigration Policy Center | Revitalizing the Golden State
Appendix: Methodology
Tis sudy uses he erm “undocumened” immigrans o describe hose individu-
als who are no U.S. ciizens or legal residens. Esimaes o he number o people
in each o hese immigran groups come largely rom sudies perormed by he
Pew Hispanic Cener using he so-called “residual mehodology” developed by
Jerey Passel, a senior demographer a Pew and he leading naional exper on he
demographics o he undocumened populaion.
Tis mehodology esimaes “undocumened” residens (or workers) by subrac-ing he number o esimaed legal residens rom oal oreign-born populaion
based on daa rom he Deparmen o Commerce’s Census Bureau Curren
Populaion Survey. Te dierence beween oal oreign-born residens and hose
residing legally are known as “unlawul,” “unauhorized,” or “illegal” immigrans.
Te mehodology conrols or emporary workers, inernaional sudens, and
oher oreign-born residens who may aec he accuracy o he esimaes. I also
conrols or omited surveys and oher possible reporing errors.
About IMPLAN
Tis sudy uses so-called IMPLAN inpu-oupu models o he Caliornia and
Los Angeles Couny economies, which allows 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 resul-
ing impac on ax conribuions, given a range o assumed changes o migraion-
relaed policies. Te model allows idenicaion o direc economic eecs in
aeced indusries, indirec eecs in relaed indusries, and induced aecs ha
cascade hrough he economy.
Te IMPLAN inpu-modeling approach—IMPLAN sands or “IMpac analy-
sis or PLANning”—is mos useul and appropriae in analyzing he shor-erm
shock o a sae economy ha would be immediaely el rom a signican policy
8/7/2019 Revitalizing the Golden State
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/revitalizing-the-golden-state 22/29
19 Center for American Progress • Immigration Policy Center | Revitalizing the Golden State
change, eiher 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 shis.
Oher modeling approaches, such as compuable general equilibrium models,
assume ull adjusmen in naional produc and acor markes over long peri-
ods o ime, and hus lessen he shock ha abrup policy changes such as mass
deporaion can infic on economies. Noneheless, as our prior repor conclu-
sively demonsraed, even aer such adjusmens are accouned or, removal o
all o hese workers rom he naion’s economy would creae a massive hole in
GDP. Our repor concluded ha over 10 years, i would lead o a cumulaive loss
o $2.6 rillion in GDP.25
IMPLAN data
Te daa se used is a 2008 daa le conaining 442 indusries. For his sudy, boh he
2006 and 2008 IMPLAN daa les were aggregaed down o 34 indusries. A bridge
was creaed beween he 509 and 442 indusries in he IMPLAN les and he U.S.
Census Bureau’s indusry ables. I is imporan o noe ha in his sudy we are using
consan 2006 dollar gures provided by he IMPLAN daabase. (see able A1)
Undocumented worker estimates
Te number o undocumened workers was esimaed using Pew Cener esimaes
or Caliornia and Los Angeles Couny. We hen applied he number o undocu-
Table a1
General sources and assumptions used in this report
Source Basic assumption Impacts
U.S. Department o Labor, 1996Undocumented workers earn 18 percent
less than authorized workers
Legalization would benet not only
undocumented workers but also
would raise legal worker wages
Pew Hispanic Center Research
or AZ, CA, LA
Foreign-born people represent an important
portion o the labor orce, ranging rom30-40 percent.
Myers, et al. 2005
From 2005 to 2030 population growth will be
6.1 million. Nearly 40 percent o that increase
will be in the oreign-born population.
Foreign-born workers as a propor-
tion o the total worker population
will grow approximately 1 percent
per year rom 2010 to 2020.
8/7/2019 Revitalizing the Golden State
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/revitalizing-the-golden-state 23/29
20 Center for American Progress • Immigration Policy Center | Revitalizing the Golden State
mened workers o each indusry using oreign-born worker percenage esimaes
or he economies o each region (see nex secion). 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.
Noe: Because undocumened workers end o be atraced by specic indusries
(consrucion, leisure, and hospialiy), i is exremely imporan ha hey are dis-
ribued in he corresponding indusries. Failure o do so could resul in perverse
resuls once he IMPLAN model is run.
Undocumented workers by industry
In “Te Characerisics o Unauhorized Immigrans in Caliornia, Los AngelesCouny and he Unied Saes,” he auhors provide esimaes o he percenage o
undocumened workers in 13 aggregaed indusries.26 Par o he original able 18
in heir book is displayed below in able A2.
Table a2
Census Bureau industry aggregations and share o undocumentedworkers by industry in Caliornia and Los Angeles County
Industry Caliornia Los Angeles
Agriculture, orestry, shing/hunting 22% 18%
Mining 0% 0%
Construction 15% 27%
Manuacturing 14% 22%
Wholesale and retail trade 8% 12%
Transportation and utilities 8% 13%
Inormation 8% 4%
Financial activities 3% 5%
Proessional and business services 10% 11%
Educational and health services 3% 5%
Leisure and hospitality 17% 24%
Other services 12% 23%
Public administration 0% 0%
Source: Fortuny, Capps and Passel (tabulations o CPS 2003 and 2004 les).
8/7/2019 Revitalizing the Golden State
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/revitalizing-the-golden-state 24/29
21 Center for American Progress • Immigration Policy Center | Revitalizing the Golden State
Tis sudy used he above percenages o esimae he number o undocumened
workers in each indusry and subsequenly run he IMPLAN model o esimae
economic impacs.
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:
TVAUj =
(TVA / TE)*Uj
Where:
U—Undocumened workers in indusry j
J—Any given indusry
VA—oal value addedE—oal 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 how many jobs could be creaed or
los given he oupu conribuion in each indusry, as well as oher 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. Based on his assumpion, we esimaed legal and undocu-
mened workers’ wages using IMPLAN base labor income. Nex, we “legalized”
hose workers, increasing heir wages o he prevailing marke wage.
8/7/2019 Revitalizing the Golden State
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/revitalizing-the-golden-state 25/29
22 Center for American Progress • Immigration Policy Center | Revitalizing the Golden State
When all workers across he sae economy earn he same wages, he labor wage
bill increases, as does oupu based on he increases in wage-based demand. Based
on previous experiences o legalizaion (such as he impac o he Immigraion
Reorm and Conrol Ac o 1986), we assume labor produciviy grows in com-
mensurae proporion o wage increases due o legalizaion and a consan wage
elasiciy o labor demand, hus resuling in a sable employmen rae.27
Using heIMPLAN model, we considered oupu an indicaor or economic aciviy, mea-
suring oupu beore and aer he rise in wages o undersand he impacs.
Fiscal analysis
ax impacs or his sudy are calculaed in wo pars. Te rs par is calculaed
by exracing oal populaion ax conribuions or he base year (IMPLAN base
year daa). Te second par is calculaed by exracing he dieren percenages
o undocumened workers rom he economy and hen comparing he resuls ohe original IMPLAN daa. Te dierence in ax revenue is he undocumened
worker conribuion.
8/7/2019 Revitalizing the Golden State
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/revitalizing-the-golden-state 26/29
23 Center for American Progress • Immigration Policy Center | Revitalizing the Golden State
References
Bureau o Inernaional Labor Aairs—Division o Immi-graion Policy and Research. 1996. Characerisics andLabor Marke Behavior o he Legalized PopulaionFive Years Following Legalizaion (Te Deparmeno Labor’s submission o he Adminisraion’s Reporon he Eecs o he Immigraion Reorm and Conrol
Ac). Deparmen o Labor.
Foruny, Karina, Randy Capps, and Jerey S. Passel. 2007.“Te Characerisics o Unauhorized Immigrans in
Caliornia, Los Angeles Couny, and he Unied Saes.” Washingon: Urban Insiue.
Gans, Judih. 2008. “Immigrans in Arizona: Fiscal andEconomic Impacs.” ucson, AZ: Udall Cener orSudies in Public Policy, Universiy o Arizona.
Hinojosa-Ojeda, Raúl, and ohers. 2009. “Norh American Alernaive Scenarios: Immigraion Reorm, NAFA and he Global Economy.” Working Paper. UCLA Norh
American Inegraion and Developmen Cener.
Myers, Dowell, John Pikin, and Julie Park. 2005. “Cali-ornia Demographic Fuures: Projecions o 2030, by Immigran Generaions, Naiviy, and ime o Arrivalin U.S.” Los Angeles: Universiy o Souhern CaliorniaSchool o Policy, Planning, and Developmen.
Passel, Jerey S. and D’Vera Cohn. 2009. “A Porraio Unauhorized Immigrans in he Unied Saes.”
Washingon: Pew Hispanic Cener.
Pew Hispanic Cener. 2008. “Arizona: Populaion andLabor Force Characerisics, 2000-2006.” Washingon.
8/7/2019 Revitalizing the Golden State
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/revitalizing-the-golden-state 27/29
24 Center for American Progress • Immigration Policy Center | Revitalizing the Golden State
Endnotes
1 Michael Hoefer, Nancy Rytina, and Bryan C. Baker, “Estimates of theUnauthorized Immigrant Population Residing in the United States:January 2010” (Washington: Department of Homeland Security, 2011).
2 “California Petition Drive Cleared for Arizona-style Immigration Law,”The Sacramento Bee, November 23, 2010, available at http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2010/11/calif-petition-drive-can-start.html.
3 Gebe Martinez, “Learning from Proposition 187: California’s Past isArizona’s Prologue” (Washington: Center for American Progress, 2010).
4 “Assembly Bill No. 26,” Around the Capitol, December 6, 2010,available at http://www.aroundthecapitol.com/billtrack/text.html?bvid=20110AB2699INT; Illegal Immigrants, California As-sembly Bill No. 26, December 6, 2010; Lien Hoang, “Calif lawmakerpromotes Ariz-like immigration bill,” The San Francisco Chronicle,April 4, 2010, available at http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.
cgi?f=/n/a/2011/04/04/state/n163702D24.DTL&type=politics.
5 Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act , ArizonaState Senate Bill 1070, April 19, 2010. As the law states: “The provi-sions of this act are intended to work together to discourage anddeter the unlawful entry and presence of aliens and economic activ-ity by persons unlawfully present in the United States.” Among otherthings, S.B. 1070 requires state and local law enforcement agenciesto check the immigration status of individuals they encounterand makes it a state crime for non citizens to not carry proper im-migration documents. Although a district court judge preventedthe harshest provisions of S.B. 1070 from taking eect, the bill hasinspired imitators around the country.
6 Raul Hinojosa-Ojeda and Marshall Fitz, “A Rising Tide or a ShrinkingPie: The Economic Impact of Legalization Versus Deportation in Ari-zona” (Washington: Center for American Progress and ImmigrationPolicy Center: 2011).
7 Edmund G. Brown Jr., “Governor’s Budget Summary – 2011-12”(Sacramento: State of California, 2011).
8 “Average undergraduate tuition and fees and room and board ratescharged for full-time students in degree-granting institutions, bytype and control of institution and state or jurisdiction: 2008-09and 2009-10” (Washington: National Center for Education Statistics,2010), available at http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d10/tables/dt10_346.asp.
9 Edmund G. Brown Jr., “Governor’s Budget Summary – 2011-12”; Phil-lip Reese, “See how well your school district pays its teachers, super-intendent,” The Sacramento Bee, January 26, 2010, available at http://www.sacbee.com/2011/01/26/995141/see-how-well-your-school-district.html;“Construction Cost Estimating Elementary SchoolConstruction Costs – Los Angeles, California,” Reed ConstructionData, available at http://www.reedconstructiondata.com/rsmeans/models/elementary-school/california/los-angeles/.
10 “U.S. Federal Contract Prices for Vaccines Recommended Universallyfor Children and Adolescents: 1985 , 1995, April 2007,” available athttp://www.317coalition.org/documents/moreresources05.pdf ;
“Construction Cost Estimating Elementary School Construction Costs– Los Angeles, California,” Reed Construction Data.
11 “Construction Cost Estimating Elementary School ConstructionCosts – Los Angeles, California,” Reed Construction Data.
12 Jerey S. Passel and D’Vera Cohn, “A Portrait of Unauthorized Immi-grants in the United States” (Washington: Pew Hispanic Center, 2009).
13 California has been one of the states hardest hit by the economicrecession. California faces a ballooning budget decit of $ 25.4billion, with projected decits of $20 billion or more lasting until2016. Furthermore, personal incomes in the state dropped a totalof $38 billion in 2009, marking the rst decline since 1938. KevinYamamura, “California budget shortfall twice as large as predicted,”The Sacramento Bee, November 11, 2011, available at http://www.sacbee.com/2010/11/11/3176483/california-budget-shortfall-twice.html; Brown Jr., “Governor’s Budget Summary – 2011-12.”
14 California’s unemployment rate has remained around 12.4 percentfor the past year, more than 3 percent above the national rate of unemployment. More than 1 million jobs were lost as a result of the Great Recession in the state. U.S. Department of Labor, “LocalArea Unemployment Statistics,” available at http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet?data_tool=latest_numbers&series_id=LASST06000003.
15 Marshall Fitz and Angela Maria Kelley, “Stop the Conference” (Wash-ington: Center for American Progress, 2010), available at http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/11/az_tourism.html.
16 Bernard L. Weinstein, Ph.D. and Terry L. Clower, Ph.D, “Telling the Truth: Dispelling the Myths About The Negative Impacts of Undocu-mented Residents in Farmers Branch, Texas” (Farmers Branch: Letthe Voters Decide).
17 United Farm Workers of America Take Our Jobs Campaign, availableat http://www.takeourjobs.org.
18 Raul Hinojosa-Ojeda, “Raising the Floor for American Workers: The Economic Benets of Comprehensive Immigration Reform”(Washington: Center for American Progress and Immigration PolicyCenter, 2010).
19 Hoefer, Rytina, and Baker, “Estimates of the Unauthorized ImmigrantPopulation Residing in the United States: January 2010 .”
20 Marshall Fitz, Angela Maria Kelley, and Ann Garcia, “The BorderSecurity First” Argument: A Red Herring Undermining Real Security”
(Washington: Center for American Progress, March 2011).
21 Marshall Fitz, and Angela Maria Kelley, “Principles for ImmigrationReform: Guidelines for Fixing Our Broken Immigration System”
(Washington: Center for American Progress, 2009).
22 Hinojosa-Ojeda, “Raising the Floor for American Workers.”
23 Brown, “Governor’s Budget Summary – 2011-12.”
24 U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of International Labor Aairs, “Char-acteristics and Labor Market Behavior of the Legalized PopulationFive Years Following Legalization” (1996).
25 Hinojosa-Ojeda, “Raising the Floor for American Workers.”
26 Karina Fortuny and Randy Capps, “ The Characteristics of Unauthor-ized Immigrants in California, Los Angeles County and the UnitedStates” (Washington: The Urban Institute).
27 Hinojosa-O jeda, “Raising the Floor for American Workers” andRaul Hinojosa-Ojeda and others, “North American AlternativeScenarios: Immigration Reform, NAFTA and the Global Economy.”Working Paper (UCLA North American Integration and Develop-ment Center, 2009).
8/7/2019 Revitalizing the Golden State
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/revitalizing-the-golden-state 28/29
25 Center for American Progress • Immigration Policy Center | Revitalizing the Golden State
About the authors
Professor Raúl Hinojosa-Ojeda is he ounding direcor o he Norh American
Inegraion and Developmen Cener and associae proessor in he Division o
Social Sciences and he César E. Chávez Deparmen o Chicana and Chicano
Sudies a he Universiy o Caliornia, Los Angeles. Born in Mexico and raisedin Chicago, he received a B.A. in economics, an M.A . in anhropology, and
a Ph.D. in poliical science a he Universiy o Chicago. Proessor Hinojosa-
Ojeda has held various academic and policy research posiions in a variey o
universiies and public insiuions, including he World Bank, InerAmerican
Developmen Bank, he Whie House Council o Economic Advisers, he
Unied Saes rade Represenaive, Sanord Universiy, and he Universiy o
Caliornia, Berkeley. Proessor Hinojosa-Ojeda ounded he Norh American
Inegraion and Developmen Cener a UCLA in 1995, dedicaed o develop-
ing innovaive research agendas and policy pilo projecs concerning globaliza-
ion and developmen.
Marshall Fitz is Direcor o Immigraion Policy a American Progress where he
direcs he Cener’s research and analysis o economic, poliical, legal, and social
impacs o immigraion policy in America and develops policy recommendaions
designed o urher America’s economic and securiy ineress. Beore hold-
ing his curren posiion he served as he direcor o advocacy or he American
Immigraion Lawyers Associaion, where he led he educaion and advocacy
eors on all immigraion policy issues or he 11,000-member proessional bar
associaion. He has been a leader in naional and grassroos coaliions ha have
organized o advance progressive immigraion policies.
Acknowledgements
Suppor or his projec was provided by he UCLA Insiue or Research
on Labor and Employmen and he UCLA Norh American Inegraion
and Developmen Cener. Ramiro Rios Flores, Waler Ewing, Ph.D., senior
researcher wih he Immigraion Policy Cener, Ann Garcia, Research Assisan
a he Cener or American Progress, and Sam Chato provided valuable researchassisance on his projec.
Tanks or generous suppor rom he Carnegie Corporaion and he
Ford Foundaion.
8/7/2019 Revitalizing the Golden State
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/revitalizing-the-golden-state 29/29
About the Center or American Progress
The Center or American Progress is a nonpartisan re-
search and educational institute dedicated to promoting
a strong, just and ree America that ensures opportunity
or all. We believe that Americans are bound together by
a common commitment to these values and we aspire
to ensure that our national policies refect these values.
We work to nd progressive and pragmatic solutions
to signicant domestic and international problems and
develop policy proposals that oster a government that
is “o the people, by the people, and or the people.”
Center or American Progress
1333 H Street, NW, 10th Floor
Washington, DC 20005
Tel: 202.682.1611 • Fax: 202.682.1867
www.americanprogress.org
About the Immigration Policy Center
The Immigration Policy Center (IPC) is the research a
policy arm o the American Immigration Council. IPC
mission is to shape a rational conversation on immig
tion and immigrant integration. Through its researc
and analysis, IPC provides policymakers, the media, a
the general public with accurate inormation abou
the role o immigrants and immigration policy on U
society. IPC reports and materials are widely dissem
nated and relied upon by press and policy makers. IP
sta regularly serves as experts to leaders on Capito
Hill, opinion-makers and the media.
American Immigration Council
1331 G Street, NW, Suite 200
Washington, DC 20005
Tel: 202.507.7500 • Fax: 202.742.5619
www.immigrationpolicy.org
Recommended