Revitalizing the Golden State

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


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



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



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.




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




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




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.




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.




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


(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.




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


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.






Table 4

The tax revenues immigrants pay

Estimated tax contributions o Caliornians and Los Angeleans by residency status

Population

(thousands)

Percent o total population


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



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



(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.



(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.




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




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




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%




Los Angeles County (4) $264,298 - - - - 0%





(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.




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 - - - -





Los Angeles County $483,654 - - - -





(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.





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%


100 percent deportation -1,856 -843 -886 -3,585 -17.4%

Los Angeles County 5,674 - - - - 100%





(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.





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%




Los Angeles County (3) $20,752 $39,398 $29,646 $89,796 $0 0%





(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.




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.




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.





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.




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




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.




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).




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.




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.




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.

http://www.naid.ucla.edu/







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).

http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/ois_ill_pe_2010.pdf



http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2010/11/calif-petition-drive-can-start.html



http://www.aroundthecapitol.com/billtrack/text.html?bvid=20110AB2699INT



http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2011/04/04/state/n163702D24.DTL&type=politics


http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d10/tables/dt10_346.asp


http://www.sacbee.com/2011/01/26/995141/see-how-well-your-school-district.html



http://www.reedconstructiondata.com/rsmeans/models/elementary-school/california/los-angeles/


http://www.317coalition.org/documents/moreresources05.pdf

http://www.sacbee.com/2010/11/11/3176483/california-budget-shortfall-twice.html



http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet?data_tool=latest_numbers&series_id=LASST06000003



http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/11/az_tourism.html


http://www.takeourjobs.org/



http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2010/08/imimgration_benchmarks.html


http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/12/immigration_principles.html


http://www.urban.org/uploadedpdf/411425_characteristics_immigrants.pdf
















http://www.takeourjobs.org/









http://www.317coalition.org/documents/moreresources05.pdf





















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.



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

Documents

Revitalizing the Golden State