HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 12071994 - IO.7 TO: ' BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 1 .0.-7.O.-7 s _ Contra
Tl 'k
FROM:
INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE CQSta
o� is
_ _..: 4o C
November 22, 1993 ounty
��s. �_"
DATE: >qt couN
SUBJECT: PROPOSED RESOLUTION OPPOSING ANTI-IMMIGRATION PROPOSALS AND
SUPPORTING THE INCLUSIVE PROCESS AND ESTABLISHMENT OF A NEWCOMERS '
TASK FORCE
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1 . Expanding on the action taken by the Board of Supervisors
October 5, 1993 regarding a Newcomers ' Task Force, agree to
CO-SPONSOR with the Center for New Americans and ESTABLISH a
Newcomers ' Task Force in Contra Costa County, consisting of 15
members, two to be nominated by each Member of the Board of
Supervisors and 5 at-large seats to be nominated by the
Internal Operations Committee. Members need not necessarily
live or work in the. Board Member's district if the Board
Member feels that a particular individual will well -represent
the interests of immigrants in Contra Costa County.
2 . PROVIDE for a December 31, 1994 sunset for the Newcomers ' Task.
Force, and request the 1994 Internal Operations Committee to
make recommendations before December 31, 1994 on the need to
continue, modify, restructure. or abolish the Task Force.
3 . REQUEST the Social Services Director and Community Services
Director to jointly provide staff support to the Newcomers '
Task Force.
4 . REQUEST the County Counsel to provide the Board of Supervisors
with an opinion regarding whether there is any actual,
potential or apparent conflict of interest in having a County
Department which receives financial support .from the Federal
Government staff a Newcomers ' Task Force which is addressing
issues of immigration policy and which might make
recommendations which, if implemented, could impact programs
operated by that County Department on behalf of the Federal
Government.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE:
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SI_GNATURE(Sl: RUNNY
ACTION OF BOARD ON DeGe} ber 7 , 1--9- APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED ' OTHER
The Board heard testimony relating to the above recommendations from Tom Chin, El Cerrito;
Mr. Danhle, Richmond; Barbara Racek, Catholic Charities., El Cerrito:; ; Ayce Robbins, Oakley;
Jack Nakashima, Center for New Americans; Walnut Creek; and Maria L Alegria, Coalition for
Human Rights, Pinole. °
Following receipt of testimony from the public and Board discussion, the Board of Supervisors
APPROVED Recommendations #1 through #6 and #8 above. The attached Resolution 93/717 was
ADOPTED in response to Recommendation # 7, and the County's lobbyist is DIRECTED to pursue
these legislative policies."
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
UNANIMOUS(ABSENT ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
ATTESTED December 7, 1993
Contact: PHIL BATCHELOR,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
CC: County Administrator SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
Social Services Director
Health Services Director
Community Services Director BY DEPUTY
I .O.-7
-2-
5 . CHARGE the Newcomers ' Task Force with the following:
✓ Identify ways in which the negative image of immigrants
in Contra Costa County can be improved.
✓ Identify ways in which the positive contributions of
immigrants to Contra Costa County can be identified and
highlighted.
✓ Prepare and forward to the Board of Supervisors an
overall plan for establishing and maintaining positive,
strong and cooperative relationships between immigrants
and the rest of the community in Contra Costa County.
✓ Provide the Board of Supervisors with periodic reports at
such intervals as the Task Force believes is appropriate
regarding their work, with a comprehensive annual report
to be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors not later
than December 1, 1994, for review by the Internal
Operations Committee and recommendation back to the full
Board of Supervisors on the continued existence of the
Newcomers ' Task Force, and for this purpose refer this
matter to the 1994 Internal Operations Committee.
6 . URGE each Member of the Board of Supervisors to make his or
her appointments to the Newcomers ' Task Force by early
January, 1994 so the Task Force can be convened and get to
work as quickly as possible.
7 . DETERMINE whether the Board of Supervisors wishes to take any
further action on other elements of the Resolution which had
been proposed to the Board of Supervisors on October 5, 1993.
8. REMOVE this item as a referral to the 1993 Internal Operations
Committee.
BACKGROUND:
On October 5, 1993, the Board of Supervisors adopted a Resolution
(See attached Resolution) which stated that the Board of
Supervisors abhors and rejects immigrant bashing, racism, and
scapegoating which are targeted at immigrants and ethnic
minorities . This same Resolution established a Newcomers ' Task
Force. Our Committee was asked to recommend the specific
composition and charge to the Newcomers ' Task Force and determine
whether any other portions of the original Resolution which was
presented to the Board of Supervisors should be adopted.
Staff, with the cooperation of the International Institute of the
East Bay and the Center for New Americans, has pulled together a
substantial package of information which is being supplied to each
Member of the Board of Supervisors, but is not to be considered as
an attachment to this Committee report.
We have agreed on the composition of the Newcomers ' Task Force and
its proposed charge and staffing. We leave open the question of
whether the Board of Supervisors wishes to take any further action
on elements of the original Resolution which were not adopted on
October 5, 1993 (see attached copy of the original proposed
Resolution) .
THE BOARD OF SUPERV2 SORS
OF
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY � CAL= FORMA
RESOLUTION NO. 93/ 717
IN OPPOSITION TO
ANTI-IMMIGRANT PROPOSALS
WHEREAS, Contra Costa County has always been an ethnically diverse county,
including the contributions of a rich mosaic of immigrant communities; and
WHEREAS, during these difficult economic times immigrants, ethnic minorities and
poor families and children have become scapegoats for the State's financial problems;
and
WHEREAS, the cultural diversity of Contra Costa County and the State of California
have contributed greatly to the strength of our society; and
WHEREAS, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors has sworn to uphold the
United States Constitution, including the 14th amendment to the Constitution
regarding due process and equal protection under the law; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors opposes any legislation which would restrict the
rights of legal immigrants to live in California; and
WHEREAS, effective immigration policies must address the issue of economic
development of countries of origin as well as effective enforcement of labor laws in
the United States;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF
CONTRA COSTA RESOLVED, that the Board abhors and rejects immigrant bashing,
racism, and scapegoating which is targeted at immigrants and ethnic minorities; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
hereby establishes a Newcomer Task Force to study the need and contributions of
immigrants, the effects of immigration on Contra Costa County, and to recommend
positive policies for the greater health, safety, and welfare of all residents of Contra
Costa County; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors calls on the Federal
Government to provide full funding for the cost of having local governments provide
services to immigrants, including the SLIAG Program; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Supervisors is concerned about the
issue of asylum appeals and refers this issue to its newly established Newcomers'
Task Force and also asks the Task Force to address all remaining items which were
included in the draft Resolution presented to the Board on October 5, 1993 which are
not included herein and return to the Board of Supervisors with its findings and
recommendations for further Board action.
Witness my hand and the Seal of the
Board of Supervisors affixed this 7th
day of December, 1993.
PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk of the Board
of Supervisors and County
Administrator
By _ a %)��
ep ty erk
RESOLUTION NO. 93/717
THE BOARD OF SUP E RV I S ORS
OF
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY 0 CAL=FORN=A
RESOLUTION NO. 93/651
IN OPPOSITION TO
ANTI-IMMIGRANT PROPOSALS
WHEREAS, Contra Costa County has always been an ethnically diverse
county, including the contributions of a rich mosaic of immigrant
communities; and
WHEREAS, during these difficult economic times immigrants, ethnic
minorities and poor families and children have become scapegoats
for the State's financial problems; and
WHEREAS, the cultural diversity of Contra Costa County and the
State of California have contributed greatly to the strength of our
society;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF
CONTRA COSTA RESOLVED, that the Board abhors and rejects immigrant
bashing, racism, and scapegoating which are targeted at immigrants
and ethnic minorities; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Contra Costa County Board of
Supervisors hereby establishes a Newcomer Task Force to study the
need and contributions of immigrants, the effects of immigration on
Contra Costa County, and to recommend positive policies for the
greater health, safety, and welfare of all residents of Contra
Costa County.
Witness my hand and the Seal of
the Board of Supervisors
affixed this 5th day of
October, 1993.
PHIL . BATCHELOR, Clerk of the
Board of Supervisors and County
Administrator
By
Depuyl Cpbrk
RESOLUTION N0. 93/651
two a a C/erqu i,W"
IN RECOGNITION OF OPPOSING RESOLUTION NUMBER
ANTI-IMMIGRANT PROPOSALS/
SUPPORTING INCLUSIVE PROCESSES)
WHEREAS, Contra Costa County has always been an ethnically diverse
county, including the contributions of a rich mosaic of Immigrant
communities; and
WHEREAS, during these difficult economic times , immigrants, ethnic
minorities and poor families and children have become scapegoats
for the state's financial problems; and
WHEREAS, extensive state and national research demonstrate that
immigrants are a powerful benefit to the economy, as well as
, contributing more in taxes than using in public services; and
WHEREAS, border control and immigration enforcement are being used
at times against documented and undocumented entrants in an unjust
manner, while denying the right to appeal asylum violates the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; and
WHEREAS, denying children of undocumented immigrants citizenship,
health care, education, and social service violates fundamental
Constitutional and civil laws and principles, and would create
greater health and safety burdens for residents of Contra Costa
County; and
WHEREAS, requiring a national identification card will encourage
discrimination against residents on the basis of name, language,
ethnicity, and color, creating a permanent underclass; and
WHEREAS, effective immigration policies must address the issue of
economic development of countries, of origin as well as effective
enforcement of labor laws in the nited States;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, t at the Contra Costa County Board
of Supervisors does hereby reject punitive policies and proposals
that prohibit citizenship to children born in the United States;
and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Contra Costa County Board of
Supervisors rejects imprudent policies and proposals to prohibit
access to necessary health care and education currently required by
law for the public health and welfare of residents of Contra Costa
County; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Contra Costa County Board of
Supervisors rejects the proposed national identity card as
discriminatory and placing an undue burden on county staff to
operate as de facto agents of the Immigration and Naturalization
Service; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Contra Costa County Board of
Supervisors rejects proposals restricting the right of asylum
appeal; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Contra Costa County Board of
Supervisors opposes the pending bills in the California Legislature
that would further restrict the r'ghts of immigrants and refugees
residing inCalifornia, and direr
�
s its State Lobbyist to actively
oppose these proposals; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Contra Costa County Board of
Supervisors does establish a Newco mer Task Force to study the need
and contributions of immigrants, I the effects of immigration on
Contra Costa County, and to recommend positive policies for the
greater health, safety, and welf re of all residents of Contra
Costa County,
INTRODUCED BY:
JEFF SMITH
Supervisor, District II
Witness my hand and the seal of
the Board of Supervisors affixed
this 5th day of October, 1993.
Phil Batchelor, Clerk of the
Board of Supervisors and
County Administrator.
B
Deputy Clerk
0
OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
C O N T R A C O S T A C O U N T Y
Administration Building
651 Pine Street, 11th Floor
Martinez, California 94553
DATE: November 19, 1993
TO: Supervisor Sunne Wright McPeak
Supervisor Jeff Smith
INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE
FROM: Claude L. Van Martel sistant County Administrator
SUBJECT: DISCUSSION OF IMMIGRATION ISSUES
BACKGROUND:
You will recall that on October 5, 1993, the Board of Supervisors
referred to your Committee a Resolution which had been brought to
the Board by Supervisor Smith relating to immigration. The
Resolution opposed certain anti-immigration actions which had been
taken or proposed and established a Newcomers Task Force.
The Board was not prepared to accept all elements of the Resolution
at that time. The Board agreed to the establishment of a Newcomers
Task Force and referred the composition of the Task Force and the
balance of the Resolution to your Committee.
In preparing for the discussion on this subject, we have contacted
the International Institute of the East Bay, which has provided us
with some very helpful materials . We have also advised the Center
for New Americans and each of the individuals who testified before
the Board of the fact that your Committee would be considering this
issue on November 22, 1993 at 10 : 00 A.M. Finally, we have
contacted a number of County departments to try to get additional
information from them regarding the nature and extent of the
problems they may face because of immigrants (legal or otherwise) .
CONCLUSIONS:
From the materials provided by the International Institute of the
East Bay and various County departments, it seems fair to reach the
following conclusions:
1 . Immigrants are an important element of the American fabric of
society - we are, in fact, almost all here in the United
States as a result of immigration.
2 . Most immigrants work and pay taxes .
3. Immigrants, and particularly undocumented immigrants, tend to
need some services more when they first arrive in the United
States than do those who have been here longer. This includes
health care and educational services . However, many of the
myths about the extent to which immigrants use public services
are simply not supported by the facts .
4 . While immigrants pay their share in taxes, most of those taxes
are in the form of income taxes, the bulk of which go to the
Federal Government. Therefore, the State and counties do
provide services to immigrants for which they are not
reimbursed.
5 . Immigration is controlled by the Federal Government and all of
its costs should be reimbursed by the Federal Government,
which, however, has failed to do so.
6 . There is little, if any, data gathered by County departments
on the extent to which they provide services to immigrants and
essentially none on services provided to undocumented
immigrants .
7 . In Contra Costa County, a smaller proportion of the population
are foreign born than is true statewide, and a higher
proportion of the foreign born in the County are naturalized
citizens than is true statewide. A larger proportion of the
foreign born in the County are from Southeast Asia than is
true statewide.
ISSUES BEFORE THE COMMITTEE:
Your Committee may wish to address some or all of the following
issues :
1 . Whether to recommend that the Board of Supervisors approve any
of the language of the balance of the Resolution which was not
adopted on October 5, 1993, specifically dealing with the
issues of:
A. Whether immigrants pay more in taxes than they use in
public services, particularly from the County' s point of
view.
B. Whether border control and immigration enforcement are
being used in an unjust manner against documented and
undocumented entrants .
C. Whether it is unconstitutional or otherwise against the
law to deny the children of undocumented immigrants
citizenship, health care, education and social services
and if not currently against the law, whether laws to
make such actions legal should be supported or opposed.
-2-
D. Whether requiring a national identification card will
encourage discrimination and whether the proposed
national health plan does not, in fact, already provide
for exactly such a card.
E. Whether a national identification card would make County
staff operate as de facto agents of the Immigration and
Naturalization Service.
F. Whether the Board of Supervisors should oppose proposals
which prohibit citizenship to children born in the United
States to undocumented immigrants .
G. Whether the Board of Supervisors should oppose proposals
to deny health care and education to the children of
undocumented immigrants.
H. Whether it is appropriate for the Board of Supervisors to
oppose proposals restricting the right of asylum appeal.
2 . The size and composition of the Newcomers Task Force which was
established by the Board of Supervisors .
3 . The process which will be used to recruit, screen, interview
and appoint members to the Newcomers Task Force.
ATTACHMENTS:
The following documents have been gathered for your Committee's
information and are labeled as noted:
■ Attachment #1 : Material from the International Institute of
the East Bay on immigrants in Contra Costa County
■ Attachment #2 : Material prepared by the State Library
(California Research Bureau) from the 1990 U.S. Census on
Immigrants in California.
■ Attachment #3 : Material from the National Immigration Law
Center on immigrants ' eligibility for public benefits.
■ Attachment #4 : A summary of refugee entitlements from
"California' s Changing Faces" , California Policy Seminar,
University of California, 1993 .
■ Attachment #5 : Informational material from the Coalition for
Immigrant & Refugee Rights & Services .
■ Attachment #6 : A reference guide to immigration research
prepared by the National Council of La Raza.
-3-
■ Attachment #7 : A copy of a portion of the summer-fall, 1993
edition of Pacific Crosscurrents, published by the Pacific
Research Institute.
■ Attachment #8 : Copies of SB 691, SB 733 and SB 976, all of
which were signed into law by the Governor on October 5, 1993
and all of which tighten up on verification of resident status
for law enforcement purposes, employment services and job
training purposes, and for purposes of obtaining a driver' s
license.
■ Attachment #9 : Responses from the County Probation Officer,
County Clerk-Recorder, Health Services Director, and Community
Services Director.
■ Attachment #10 : The original packet of materials provided to
the Board of Supervisors by Supervisor Smith.
■ Attachment #11 : The Resolution adopted by the Board of
Supervisors on October 5, 1993, in lieu of the one presented
by Supervisors Smith.
CLVM:amb
vanll-49-93
Attachments
-4-
ATTACHMENT #1
International Institute of the East Bay
A Resource for Immigrants and Refugees Since 1919
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Claude L. Van Marter RECEIVED
BOARD OF DIRECTORS Assistant County Administrator 14
President Contra Costa County NOV 1 2 1993
Elvira Rose 651 Pine Street, lith Floor o
Vice-Presidents Martinez, CA 94553-1229 OFFICE OF
Betty Ann Webster
Carol Beadle November 9, 1993 COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
Secretary
Iry Kermish
Treasurer
Martha Killebrew
Dear Van:
Mrs.Adela Bedford
Nancy Hackley
Kiel Lam I am enclosing a second packet of information in preparation for the meeting on
Kenneth Morrison
Lina Piamonte-Block November 22. It includes some work prepared by the Clearinghouse on immigrants
Ruthl
Dr.YeSalemush Sendeku in Contra Costa County and immigrants and public assistance. A recent report issues
salem
Margaret Tyler by the California Research Bureau provides data from the 1990 Census. Finally, we
Aline Wierzbianska have included an overview of immigrants' eligibility for public benefits and a
Executive Director summaryof entitlements for refugees.
Kathleen Deamer
Associate Director If you need any other information or clarification, please do not hesitate to contact
Douglas Stein
Lifang Chiang, Research Associate, or me.
ACNS Network
A United Way Agency Sincerely,
Mari Gasiorowicz
Director,
Newcomer Information Clearinghouse
297 Lee Street•Oakland,California 94610•Telephone(510)451-2846
Branch Office•26081 Mocine Avenue
Hayward,CA 94544•(510)582-7845
FAX(510)465-3392
DMHGRANTS AND REFUGEES
IN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Overview
Foreign born residents represent roughly 13% of Contra Costa County's population (1990
Census). This compares to 22% statewide. Over 40% of Contra Costa's foreign born residents
are naturalized citizens (compared to one-third statewide). A larger share of the County's
recent legal immigrants and refugees are Southeast Asian (58% of Contra Costa's legal
immigrants, 1986-91 compared to 49% statewide), whereas statewide, a larger share are from
North America (28% compared to 14% in the County). These exclude undocumented
immigrants whose numbers are difficult to determine. The State Department of Finance
estimates that there are 3,000 undocumented residents living in Contra Costa County; the INS's
estimates are higher but do not break down the East Bay region. The State Department of
Finance's estimates would suggest that .4% of the County's residents are undocumented, though
that is probably a conservative estimate. Foreign born residents include the following groups.
Legal immigrants come to the U.S. primarily in order to reunify with family members already
here and for better economic opportunities. In order to obtain legal residency, immigrants have
to "prove" that they will not become a public burden--that they have a sponsor who can support
them. For three years after arrival, legal immigrants are not eligible for public assistance.
Undocumented immigrants come to the U.S. for the same reasons as legal immigrants. In
most families, some members are undocumented and others are here legally. Undocumented
immigrants are not eligible for welfare. They do have access to emergency medical care and
perinatal services as well as public education including Head Start.
Refugees come to the U.S. fleeing political or religious persecution. Many Southeast Asian
refugees (from Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia) were persecuted by their governments as a result
of their involvement with the U.S. during the Vietnam War. Refugees have access to public
benefits upon arrival because they come at the invitation of the U.S. government.
Immigrants and the Economy Nationally and Statewide
Historically, research indicates that nationally, the economic benefits of immigrants and refugees
have far outweighed the costs. (Survey of economists, American Immigration Institute Survey,
1990). Despite reliance on immigrant labor, this country has experienced waves of anti-
immigrant sentiment during previous recessions. (Carolyn Blum, U.C. Professor of Law).
• Immigrants pay more in Social Security and taxes than they consume in public benefits.
(Business Week, July 13, 992) However, it is true that the bulk of the fiscal benefits
are reaped at the federal level while states and localities sometimes pay out more than
they receive.
Prepared by The Newcomer Information Clearinghouse, International Institute of the East Bay, 11/93. 1
• In 1990, statewide, a somewhat higher percentage of immigrants received public
assistance than did long-time California citizens--4.8% compared to 4.1% (despite a
large average household income difference-422,300 for immigrants compared to
$34,000.) (California Senate Office of Research, 1993)
• Immigrants who arrived before 1980 use public assistance less than long-time citizens--
3.8% compared to 4.1%. (California Senate Office of Research, 1993)
• The impact of undocumented immigrants on the economy is very difficult to determine.
Data for health, education, and public benefits are not maintained by immigrant status.
It is also very difficult to estimate the revenues generated through small business start-up
and living expenditures, especially because most undocumented persons have family
members who are in the U.S. legally.
Public Assistance Recipients By Language in Contra Costa Count
Utilization data for Public Assistance data are not available by immigrant status (legal
immigrant, refugee, undocumented, U.S. born), but primary language spoken can be used as
a proximate indication of recent immigrant status. Those who speak English are assumed to be
native-born or long-time U.S. residents; whereas those who speak a primary language other than
English are more likley to be recent immigrants.
Public assistance figures for Contra Costa County, available from the California State
Department of Social Services for the month of April 1993, can be compared with census data
on the County's racial, ethnic, and language composition. This provides a proximate
comparison of the rates of public assistance utilization by recent immigrants and refugees,
relative to the native-born and long-time U.S. resident population.
AFDC
Those who spoke a primary language other than English are, as a whole, less likely to receive
Aid To Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) monies than native English speakers.
Whereas the rate of utilization for native English speakers is 2.7%, for Spanish speakers (the
next largest category of AFDC recipients) it is 1.8%. The AFDC rate for Southeast Asian
language speakers, 35.0% is much higher than the County rate, but in real number terms, they
comprised 1,000 out of a total of 18,693 recipients. Southeast Asians are refugees fleeing
persecution from their governments; they come to this country at the invitation of the U.S.
government.
The distribution of AFDC recipients by County region reflects the distinct demographic
composition of the County's different regions. Nearly half of all AFDC recipients are in West
County, which has only a quarter of the County's population. West County AFDC recipients
Prepared by The Newcomer Information Clearinghouse, International Institute of the East Bay, 11/93. 2
are primarily English speaking (nearly 8 out of 10). Of non-native English speakers in West
County, Laotian refugees overwhelmingly comprise the largest category on AFDC. Primary
English language speakers also predominate in East County AFDC composition (nearly 9 out of
10). Spanish speakers on AFDC are fairly evenly concentrated in both West and East County.
In the Central and South County regions, primary English speakers comprise 90 percent of all
AFDC recipients, with much smaller numbers of other language speakers.
Medi-Cal
There were 13,653 Medi-Cal recipients in the County in June 1993. Three quarters of Medical
recipients were English speakers, whereas 82% of the County's population are English speakers.
The next largest group of Medi-Cal recipients are Spanish speakers--one in five of total
recipients--compared to their County presence of 7% of the total population. South and East
Asians comprise the next largest group of Medi-Cal recipients, over 4% of recipients, slightly
less than their County presence of 5%.
Prepared by The Newcomer Information Clearinghouse, International Institute of the East Bay, 11/93. 3
z c
W N
V
o COCO
CCL
U) cc
c O
W a W
cn N W N L
c - W0
co c
^ ) L
Q.
W (n W Z Q
M
C7 � ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ®
z
Q _ o
J Q M N f6
� m
>- E LO
CDL
N co W
cy) cc
Q 0-) o II
C CO
c O
E ,n Q
cu u
CL 4-J
(�
O "D cc rn
I- n �• O c
,- a
O co ca
m U D c
>, o
(n Ca O y coCD cc .
+-+ c
o gg �00,o Lo o M a�
Z O1 LO c a j «-
U � ,n LO C
a�
W U
a� 00cu c ai
Q.. +.+ M 11 •5a) o
UO II c o s
E U) c 0)
W U o a oCU
�.
I LL M
W E co -o c
"O o Q -p a) o
U C co 4r
00 � �- Q C m
Z U o E
c c
0-0-10, o�� :3
�r o Mia° o c (D
_ L \ Cr) M r— U 'CD
NN O o
U
II II U c a�
C C a Z
c c N L
C
U _
U) U
CL ° m
J w N ;; v
o -WCN 0 U O U
00 c CC U) o
O
CL
U N O`
0
N
N
� o
� r
^, O
41
W cn
FO
O
^^ 0
V/ �
C
O
E
o
2 cD
co
^, 0
W
06 \
0
C
M
M
LLQ
�O � M CO)
LLQ
V, C 0 co
c0 m
u >
C6
J L COO
c m
LU y
ca
LU
a�
o 0
M O
O M
U
N cn c
Q �
�. m
( •CL m
O Q t
c L) c
� ?
4-J cn o
o L
r
(B
C
OC U 'L
U ....................
Q 0 c
M
V
° o
o w 'M
cn
o cE
C 0O
N i C cc
L (0
oo N (D N
■� r- 0 p O.
^ C'�
O
* (a 7
(•) C a) w
" z
� 0-0 ° a� �
ItE- N
U o " mW
s
0
Q c Cj ) a)
CL i U z
LL U) p II
Q Cl) C
Table 6D
TABLE 6D
LEGAL FOREIGN IMMIGRATION BY COUNTRY OF BIRTH, GROUPED BY WORLD REGION
ALAMEDA AND CONTRA COSTA COUNTIES AND CALIFORNIA, 1986-90
RANKED BY EAST BAY TOTAL WITHIN WORLD REGION
State Dept. of Finance, Demographic Research Unit
Elizabeth Hoag, (916) 323-4103
Includes immigrants admitted for legal residence,refugees approved and admitted,and asylees approved.
California(and the county indicated)is the primary destination of these immigrants.
Those who migrate from another state or county are not included in the totals below.
SIX YEAR TQTAL 1986;-91 SIX;:YEAR TOTAL 1986-.91.::_:
ALAMEDA CONTRA EAST STATE ALAMEDA CONTRA EAST STATE
000NTRY OF BIRTH:. COSTA BAY COUNTRY OF BIRTH:;. COSTA BAY
AFRICA 14.4 C.AMERICA
Ethiopia 403 40 443 4,313 Mexico 3,073 1,394 4,467 201,102
Nigeria 205 48 253 1,842 EI Salvador 570 393 963 37,818
Egypt 124 99 223 4,592 Nicaragua 627 247 874 11,852
South Africa 73 75 148 2,754 Canada 454 398 852 12,877
Kenya. 67 26 93 852 Guatemala 178 87 265 14,203
Ghana 46 31 77 587 Jamaica 126 43 169 2,337
Liberia 42 15 57 259 Honduras 82 37 119 3,982
Morocco 46 10 56 863 Cuba 91 27 118 5,524
Sierra Leone 17 5 22 208 Panama 52 63 115 1,911
Cape Verde 2 1 3 20 Costa Rica 39 29 68 1,444
Other Africa 270 63 333 3,348 Trinidad&Tobago 26 20 46 895
AFRICA TOTAL 1,295 413 1,708 19,638 Dominican Republic 25 18 43 522
Belize 24 11 35 3,346
S,C,&SE ASIA Haiti 25 4 29 444
Philippines 10,406 4,066 14,472 149,726 Barbados 7 6 13 108
China Mainland 6,612 1,258 7,870 63,798 Bahamas 5 1 6 89
Vietnam 4,588 925 5,513 91,579 Other North America 35 10 45 615
India 2,744 1,149 3,893 29,917 N.&C.AMERICA TOTAL 5,439 2,788 8,227 299,069
Korea 1,706 713 2,419 54,185
Taiwan 1,523 766 2,289 32,458 OCEANIA
Hong Kong 2,197 610 2,807 19,452 Fiii 728 210 938 5,511
Laos 793 814 1,607 24,148 Australia 102 66 168 2,467
Cambodia 998 31 1,029 18,558 New Zealand 74 55 129 1,338
Thailand 580 304 884 17,505 Other Oceania 120 35 155 1,944
Japan 453 153 606 9,716 OCEANA TOTAL 1,024 366 1,390 11,260
Indonesia 205 171 376 5,947
Malaysia 172 74 246 2,482 SOUTH AMERICA
Bangladesh 54 31 85 1,313 Peru 425 309 734 7,656
Other Asia 823 261 1,084 9,398 Brazil 138 81 219 2,748
S, C,°SE ASIA TOTAL 33,854 11,326 45,180 530,182 Columbia - 131 85 216 4,556
Chile 112 95 207 2,282
NEAR&MIDDLE EAST Argentina 91 53 144 3,084
Afghanistan 2,857 562 3,419 6,934 Guyana 51 77 128 1,060
Iran 1,325 877 2,202 54,572 Venezuela 62 43 105 1,005
Pakistan 630 219 849 7,016 Bolivia 48 28 76 1,096
Israel 185 57 242 5,396 Ecuador 29 19 48 2,326
Jordan 152 74 226 4,332 Other S.America 23 16 39 655
Lebanon 135 55 190 7,246 SOUTH AMERICA TOTAL 1,110 806 1,916 26,468
Turkey 64 28 92 2,946
Syria 32 33 65 4,371
Iraq 27 22 49 2,109 ALL COUNTRIES TOTAL 151,640 19,541 71 1811 084,933
N.&M.EAST TOTAL 5,407 1,927 7,334 94,922
EUROPE
United Kingdom 723 502 1,225 28,163
Soviet Union 399 196 595 28,267
Romania 387 103 490 7,086
Poland 299 190 489 4,763
West Germany 252 154 406 5,347
France 213 71 284 3,816 LEGAL IMMIGRATION TO THE EAST BAY,1986-1991, BY WORLD REGION
Ireland 145 137 282 3,953
Portugal 203 65 268 1,657
Czechoslovakia 115 82 197 1,982 REGION 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991
Sweden 77 41 118 1,804 AFRICA 298 245 251 268 303 3431
Italy 73 44 117 2,056 ASIA (INCL.N&M EASI 8,436 7,944 8,028 8,682 9,272 10152
Netherlands 66 48 114 1,373 EUROPE 967 778 831 754 949 1147
Spain 75 26 101 1,310 N.AND C. AMERICA 1,254 1,334 1,435 1,344 1,208 1652
Greece 73 22 95 1,443 OCEANA 192 268 240 206 255 229
Hungary 52 36 88 1,662 S.AMERICA 271 282 302 317 374 370
Other Europe 359 198 557 8,712
EUROPE TOTAL 3,511 1.915 5,426 103,394 TOTAL 111,418 10,851 11,087 11,571 12,361 13 893
Produced by the Newcomer Information Clearinghouse,International Institute,(510)451-2846
-" ATTACHMENT #2
CRBr
i
ISSUE SUMMARY
-
!_ <'.f �• _ -iv �.QvYi.�h�}i';:$:f:i:^:if'>r `
v •-^�'�1Cx �vv — __ '.-f.:�A:iY::riri•:i4i:4ii:•:
Ki:i.-v}'•F\-s:�. va -?i _ _ _ f':'.v:ii::::.`...t
- .}rha- T"}3:•.v �s'G.�iP 4 '..f. � w:.Jii: �
1
Immigrants in California:
Findings from the 1990 Census
By
Hans Johnson
/ September 1993
California Research Bureau 1029 J Street, Room 500
California State Library Sacramento, California 95814
CRB-IS-93-009 (916) 322-0600
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DIGEST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 1
THEDATA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4
DEMOGRAPHIC INDICATORS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Number of Immigrants Growing Rapidly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Race/Ethnic Composition Stable Since 1970 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Age Structure - Immigrants are Concentrated in Young Working
Ages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7
SOCIAL INDICATORS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . 8
Most Immigrants are not Citizens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . 8
Educational Attainment Levels are Low . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Language - Mixed Findings on Ability to Speak English . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Marital Status/Living Arrangements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
ECONOMIC INDICATORS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Incomes Lower for Immigrants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Labor Force Status Similar for Immigrants
and Nonimmigrants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Occupation and Industry - Immigrants Represent Substantial
Shares of the Work Force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Poverty More Common Among Immigrants - Public Assistance a
Complex Picture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
APPENDIXA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Foreign immigration is contributing to rapid population growth in California even during the
current economic downturn. As a consequence, immigration to the state has become an
especially controversial topic.' Critics of foreign immigration argue that immigrants have a
negative impact on the state's economic and social life. Claims have been made that immigrants
take jobs away from nonimmigrants, that immigrants are a tax burden on government because of
their extensive use of welfare and other social programs, and that immigrants' inability to speak
English is a threat to American culture. Supporters of immigration claim that immigrants are
beneficial economically as well as socially and culturally, and have charged that opponents of
immigration are engaging in scapegoating and racism. Table 1 (see page 3)'provides a simplistic r
description of the two sides in the immigration debate.
Although numerous studies have considered various facets of the impact of foreign immigrants in
the United States, few have considered the effects specific to California. With the recent release
of detailed individual level records from the 1990 Census, it is now possible to develop a deeper
understanding of the economic, social, and demographic impact of immigrants living in California.
While many issues in the debate concerning immigrants are difficult to answer, the 1990 Census
does provide one of the most comprehensive sources of information on immigrants in the state.
This paper provides a socioeconomic and.demographic overview of foreign immigrants counted in
California in the 1990 Census. In this study, any person who was born outside of the United
States, with the exception of those born abroad of American parents, is considered an immigrant.
This definition includes undocumented immigrants, legal foreign residents, refugees, applicants for
amnesty, and other legal immigrants. Much of the data presented in this report has direct bearing
on the immigration debate. Future California Research Bureau papers will consider other aspects
of the debate.
The primary findings of this analysis include:
• Immigrants now comprise a larger share of the state's population
than at any time since at least 1920.
• Half of all immigrants currently residing in the state arrived during
the 1980s.
• The ethnic composition of immigrants to California has changed
little over the past twenty years. Hispanics comprise over half of all
immigrants in the state; Asians comprise about a quarter of the ;
total.
• Immigrants are concentrated in young working ages.
l Immigration refers to foreign migration only. Domestic migration ( to California from other states in the c
United States)is not considered here.
CRB-IS-93-009 Page 1 of 23
(September 1993)
' I
• Despite high poverty rates, immigrant households are only slightly more
likely to receive public assistance, as defined by the Census Bureau, than '
nonimmigrant households. Taking into account differences in education,
immigrants are no more likely to receive public assistance than are
nonimmigrants. The Census Bureau definition of public assistance includes
Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Aid to Families with Dependent
Children (AFDC), and other public assistance and public welfare cash
payments, but does not include Food Stamps or Medi-Cal. The percentage
of immigrants receiving Food Stamps and Medi-Cal is not known. The
proportion of AFDC cases comprised of children citizens of ineligible
immigrant adults has increased dramatically since the census. This would
increase the number of immigrant households receiving public assistance.
• The factors most strongly associated with receiving public assistance are
education and household type. Single parent families, and households
headed by persons who did not complete high school were especially likely
to receive public assistance.
• Most immigrants are poorly educated (only 54 percent have completed
high school); recent immigrants are only slightly better educated than
previous immigrants.
• Almost 70 percent of immigrants say they are proficient in English.
Proficiency in English increases with time in the United States and
decreases with age at time of immigration. Over 30 percent of immigrants,
or 2.1 million persons, say they are not proficient in English.
a • Immigrants comprise a substantial share of the work force for several
major industries, including manufacturing, trade, construction, business and
repair services, personal services, entertainment and recreation, and
agriculture.
• Incomes of recent immigrants are much lower than incomes of
nonimmigrants. Immigrants who have been in the United States over
fifteen years have earnings similar to nonimmigrants.
• Immigrants are much less likely to be divorced or separated than
nonimmigrants, and are equally likely to be married.
• About one-third of the immigrants in California have become citizens of the
United States.
CRB-IS-93-009 Page 2 of 23
(September 1993)
Table 1: The Debate on Foreign Immigration
Issue Critics of Immigration Supporters of Immigration
Economic Impact The labor of immigrants is a substitute for The labor of immigrants is a complement to
the labor of nonimmigrants. the labor of nonimmigrants.
Jobs Immigrants take jobs away from Many immigrants take jobs that no one else
nommmigrants. will take. Other immigrants provide needed
skills.
Wages Immigrants drive down wages. Immigrants increase wealth for everyone by
supplying labor that expands total economic
output.
Government Expenditures Immigrants pay less in taxes than they Immigrants pay more in taxes than they
receive in benefits: receive in benefits.
Public Immigrants are disproportionate receivers of Immigrants,especially undocumented
Assistance public assistance. immigrants,are less likely to utilize public
services. Most new immigrants are
ineligible for public assistance for three
years.
Health Care Immigrants are less likely to have private Immigrants,especially recent and
insurance,and are more likely to receive undocumented immigrants,are less likely to
Medi-Cal or indigent care. utilize public services. Immigrants tend to
be young and healthy.
Education Immigrant children place an extra financial Most children of immigrants are American
burden on schools because of their sheer born citizens. Immigrants,especially
numbers and language problems. children,learn English rapidly.
Incarceration Illegal immigrants comprise a small but Immigrants are no more likely to commit
significant portion of the prison population. crimes than nonimmigrants.
The cost to the state is high.
Environment Immigrants contribute to rapid population Congestion and environmental degradation
growth which increases congestion and are the result of poor planning and
degrades the environment. inadequate or ineffective environmental
regulation.
Source: California Research Bureau
CRB-IS-93-009 Page 3 of 23
(September 1993)
THE DATA
The 1990 Census represents the most comprehensive and detailed data set available on
immigrants in California. Over 300,000 immigrants in California completed the long-form census
questionnaire. Their self-reported responses to the census questionnaire provide a thorough
socioeconomic and demographic snapshot of immigrants in the state. Because the Census Bureau
attempts to count all residents of the United States, including undocumented immigrants, it
includes persons who are missed,-by other surveys.
Nevertheless, as with any data set, the 1990 Census has some limitations. Using census data, it is
not possible to determine whether an immigrant is undocumented (i.e., a person residing in the
United States illegally), a refugee, an amnesty applicant, a foreign student, or some other legal
foreign resident. Other than citizenship, the legal status of immigrants is not collected in the
census. ' Because much of the debate on foreign immigration centers on..undocumented
immigrants, the inability to ascertain the legal status of.immigrants using census data necessarily
limits the utility of this study. A recently released Senate Office of Research report (Californians
Together: Defining the State's Role in Immigration) did provide limited socioeconomic data as
well as a historical sketch of the flows of foreign immigrants by type of immigrant (refugees,
amnesty applicants, other legal immigrants, and undocumented immigrants).
Another limitation of census data is that some people were not included in the count. The Census
:Bureau inevitably misses some persons and households, and has recently decided not to adjust for
this undercount. Immigrants, especially undocumented and/or cyclical immigrants, probably
experienced higher undercount rates than did the general population. This differential undercount
leads to estimates of immigrants which understate their true numbers. If the undercount rate for
undocumented immigrants is especially high relative to other immigrants, then the data presented
here understate the effect of undocumented immigrants. Overall, the Census Bureau estimates
that it missed 3.7 percent of all Californians in its 1990 count. The Census Bureau does not
develop estimates of the undercount rate for immigrants. The group with the highest estimated
undercount rates are Hispanics, with an undercount rate of 5.2 percent.
Additionally, because this study considers only 1990 Census information, it is not possible to
determine whether the experience of recent immigrants will be similar to the experience of earlier
immigrants. For example, according to the 1990 Census, the average income of recent
immigrants was lower than the average income of previous immigrants. This difference could be
ascribed to what demographers call "cohort" effects (e.g., the group or cohort of immigrants
which entered the United States many years ago was better skilled upon arrival than the cohort
which entered the United States most recently). An alternative explanation is provided by period
effects (e.g., the lower earnings of the recent cohort reflect a current lack of work experience;
this lack of work experience is a period phenomena in that it is not a permanent condition for this
cohort). Because this study uses only 1990 Census data, it is not strictly possible to discern
between the two effects.
CRB-IS-93-009 Page 4 of 23
(September 1993)
Finally, emigration skews comparisons between recent immigrants and previous immigrants.
Many immigrants to the United States eventually return to their countries of origin. While no
comprehensive data exist on these emigrants, most of them are undocumented residents and
therefore probably have fewer skills and lower earnings than immigrants who stay in the United
States permanently. Emigration usually occurs within a few years after arrival to the United
States. Therefore, a survey/census of recent immigrants includes a significant proportion who will
eventually return to their country of origin. Over time, measures of the economic well-being of
the recent immigrant cohort is likely to show improvement partly because of emigration. Thus,
comparisons between recent immigrants and previous immigrants are complicated because the
cohort of recent immigrants includes eventual emigrants while previous immigrant cohorts include
only long-term residents.
DEMOGRAPHIC INDICATORS
Number of Immigrants Growing Rapidly
The foreign-born population of California increased 80 percent between 1980 and 1990, a growth
rate five times as high as the growth rate for the nonimmigrant population of the state. The 1990
Census counted over 6.5 million foreign-born persons residing in California, compared to 3.6
million in 1980. Accordingly, by 1990 immigrants represented over 20 percent of the state's total
population, their highest share since 1920. Approximately half of the immigrants in California in
1990 imrrugrated to the United States during the 1980s (see Figure 1).
Figure 1
Immigrants in California in 1990
Totals by Race/Ethnicity and Period of Entry
2,000,00
1,500,00 ❑ Other
® White
1,000,00
Hispanic
500,0
Asian
0
Before 1950-591960-64 1965-691970-741975-791980-841985-90
1950._
Source: California Research Bureau, 1990 Census
CRB-IS-93-009 Page 5 of 23
(September 1993)
Race/Ethnic Composition Stable Since 1970
Based on the broadly defined race/ethnic Figure 2
categories used by the California Department . Immigrants in California inn
i990
of Finance, (Asian, Hispanic, White, and Proportions by Race/Ethnicity and Period of Entry
Other), the race/ethnic composition of
immigrants entering California has not changed 80°' p Other
markedly over the past two decades. Since the ®White
early 1970s, over 80 percent of-the entering , ^' En His anic
immigrants have been either Asian or Hispanic p
■Asian
(see Figure 2). A large shift in the race/ethnic
composition of immigrants occurred between o%
1950 and 1970 with the share of White 1°m 1950 1 t 1970 1119as-
, 1950 59 64 64 69 69 74 79 79 84 84 90
immigrants declining substantially. tee:Cohtmas Remarch Bmaaa,1990 Census
k
The broadly defined race/ethnic categories Figure 3
mask some distributional shifts within each Hispanic Immigrants in California
category. - For example, while Hispanic Total by Period of Entry and Country/Region of Origin
immigrants continue to originate primarily from
Mexico, the proportion of Hispanic immigrants 1.200,00
that are from Central America has increased
over the past 25 years (see Figure 3). Asian 800,000 ®Mexico
immigrants are still primarily from the
Philippines and China, although the share from ®America
Korea and Southeast Asia has risen 400,000 ❑Other
substantially (see Figure 4). Recent White
22,
immigrants are much more likely to be from 0 02944
North Africa and the Middle East than White Before 1950- 1%0. 1%5- 1970- 1975- 1980- 1985-
immigrants of the late 1960s, who were 1950 59 64 69 74 79 84 90
primarily from Western Europe (see Figure 5). Source: California Reaesrch13=4 19%Census
Figure 4 Figure 5
Asian Immigrants in California White Immigrants in California
Total by Period of Entry and Country/Region of Origin Total by Period of Entry and Country/Region of Origin
®Korea
600.000 �.
Japan E Canada
200.
400,000 Philippines ®Eastern Europe
150.
China100. ®Western Europe
200.000
India 50.000 S North Africa,
0
❑other Southeast 0 Sheast Middle East
�.
Before 1950- 1960• 1965 1970- 1975 1980• 1985 Asia Befoue 1950- 1960• 1965- 1970• 1975- 198U. 1985
Other Whlte
1950 59 64 69 74 79 84 90
.Other 1950 59 64 69 74 79 SQ 90
Source.Cshfomia Research Bureau,1990 Census Source: Cabfmm Reswcb Bureau.1990 Census
CRB-IS-93-009 Page 6 of 23
(September 1993)
Compared to the nonimmigrant population of the state,.the immigrant population of the state is
more racially and ethnically diverse. While the 1990 immigrant population of the state was over
80 percent Hispanic, Asian, and Pacific Islander, the 1990 nonimmigrant population was:only 22
percent Hispanic, Asian, and Pacific Islander(see Figures 6a and 6b).
Figure 6a Figure 66 '
Race/Ethnic Distribution of Immigrants, 1990 Race/Ethnic Distribution of Nonimmigrants, 1990
j
Other
2% White Other
18% 9%
Hispanic
18%
i
Hispanic
52% Asian and Pacific Asian and Pacific
Islander lslander4%
28% li&White
69%
Source: California Research Bureau, 1990 Census
Age Structure - Immigrants are Concentrated in Young Working Ages
Almost half of all immigrants to California are between the ages of 20 and 39, a much higher
proportion than among the nonimmigrant population (see Figure 7). Relatively few immigrants
are children. As a result, the dependency ratio is lower among immigrants than nonimmigrants.
(The dependency ratio, the number of children and elderly persons per 100 persons of working
age, is a measure of a population's ability to support nonworking people; a low ratio means there
are a lot of potential workers to support the nonworkers.)
Figure 7
Age Distribution of California Residents,1990
14.011.
12.01/.
10.0%
s.ac ■Immigrant
6 M. El Nonimmigrant
F
4.00%
2.oX
0.0%
11114
0.4 10-14 20-24 30-34 4044 50-54 60-64
5-9 15-19 25-29 35-39 4549 55-59 65+
_. Agc Group
Soum: California Rewamh Bumm 1990 Census r
CRB-IS-93-009 Page 7 of 23
(September 1993)
However, the dependency ratio of immigrants is somewhat misleading. Most of the children of
immigrants are born in the.United States, and therefore are not included in the calculation of the
dependency ratio of immigrants. When American born children of immigrants are included in the
calculation, dependency ratios for recent immigrants are still slightly lower than dependencyratios
for nonimmigrants (35.2 versus 35.7), but dependency ratios for immigrants arriving before 1980
are somewhat higher than dependency ratios for nonimmigrants (40.5 versus 35.7).
SOCIAL INDICATORS
Most Immigrants are not Citizens
Only one-third of the immigrants in Figure 8 C
California are citizens of the United Percent Citizens by Years Since Immigration
States. This figure is undoubtedly tool.
skewed low by the presence of non-
citizen residents who intend to stay in soap
the United States only a short time 600%
(e.g., students and temporary foreign 400/
workers) and by undocumented
immigrants. Nevertheless, the 20°�
proportion of non-citizens is high even oab
among immigrants who have resided 0-3 4-5 6-8 9-10 11-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 30-39 >40
in the United States for decades. For Years Since Immigration
example, less than half of the Source: California Research BureaLk IM Ccn>u
immigrants who entered the United Table 2
States from 1965 through 1969 were citizens of the
United States in 1990. Still, the longer an immigrant
has resided in the United States, the more likely he/she Citizenship
by Years of Residence in the U.S.
will have become a citizen (see Figure 8).
Percent Citizens
Looking at White immigrants and Asian immigrants that Years in the U.S.:
have been in the United States for the same number of 0-9 16-20
years, Asian immigrants are more likely to become Immigrants 25.4% 41.5%
citizens (see Table .2). However, because White Asian 36.3 74.4
Hispanic 17.0 25.4
immigrants have resided in the United States for more White 32.2 52.7
years than Asian immigrants on average, White
immigrants are overall more likely to be citizens. Partly source: California Research Burraq 19WCcn as
because a significant proportion of Hispanic immigrants
are undocumented, citizenship rates among Hispanics
are especially low. The number and proportion of Hispanic citizens should increase substantially
as amnesty applicants become eligible for citizenship.
CRB-IS-93-009 Page 8 of 23
(September 1993)
Educational Attainment Levels are Low
Although a significant proportion of immigrants have completed college, most immigrants have
low educational attainment levels. Of persons aged 25 and over,just over half of the immigrants
have completed.high school while over 80 percent of the nonimmigrants have completed high f
school. Nevertheless, almost the same
proportion of recent immigrants as Table 3 f
nonimmigrants have graduated from college. For
all persons aged 25 and over, over 18 percent of
Educational Attainment
immigrants and 25 percent of nonimmigrants are For Persons 25 and Over
college graduates. As shown in Table 3, Asian
and White immigrants have high educational Percent Completing: €
attainment levels, while Hispanic immigrants have High School College
particularly low levels of education. Indeed, the
proportion of college graduates among Asian Immigrants 54.0 18.3
Asian 74.3 33.9
immigrants is substantially higher than the Hispanic 31.1 5.1
proportion among nonimmigrants. White 75.3 26.5
Many immigrants arrive in the United States Nonimmigrants 83.6 25.0
having already completed college. Among Sora: California Researach Bureau,1990 Census
recently arriving immigrants, the proportion who
are college graduates is almost as high as for the
total nonimmigrant population of the state. Recent immigrants are more likely to have graduated
from college than previous immigrants (see Figure 9a).
Figure 9a
Percent College Graduates
Percent by Period of Entry
22
20
j
18 I
i
16
14
12
10
Before 1950 1950.59 1960.64 1965-69 1970.74 1975-79 1980-84 1985-90
Period of Entry
Note: For persons aged 25 and over
Source: California Research Bureau,1990 Census
CRB-LS-93-009 Page 9 of 23
(September 1993)
In terms of high school education, immigrants who came to California during the 1980s tended to
be slightly better educated than immigrants who arrived during the 1970s and prior to 1950.
However, compared to immigrants who arrived during the 1950s and 1960s, recent immigrants
are less likely to have graduated from high school (see Figure 9b). In addition, the, rise in
educational attainment levels of immigrants between 1970 and 1990 did not keep pace with.the
overall rise in educational attainment levels of all Californians.
Figure 9b
Percent High School Graduates
by Period of Entry
70
60
50
40
Percmnt
20
10
Before 1950- 1960- 1965- 1970- 1975- 1980- 1985-
1950 59 64 69 74 79 84 90
Period of Entry
Source: California Research Bureau,1990 Cereus
The 1990 Census does provide some evidence that educational assimilation is occurring. Using
census data, it is not possible to identify the adult children of immigrants. We can, however,
follow very young immigrants to determine their educational attainment. Immigrants who entered
the United States between the ages of 0 to 4 may be a reasonable proxy for U.S. born children of
immigrants. Educational attainment
levels are much higher for foreign-born Figure 10
children of immigrants than for older High School Graduates
immigrants. For example, immigrants 90% Percent by Age at Immigration
who entered the United States as
young children have high school and 80%
college graduation rates similar to 70%
nommmigrants (see Figure 10). It is 60%
reasonable to expect that the 50%
American-born children of immigrants 40%
would have fewer language barriers 30°i°
and woulderform at least as well as 0-4 5-9 10- 15- 20- 25- 30- 35- 40- 45- 50- 55- 60- 65+
p 14 19 24 29 34 39 44 49 54 59 64
the foreign-born children of immigrants Age at Immigration
in terms of educational attainment.
Note: o,tly persons aged 20 and over as the time of the camu we included
Source: California Research Bureau.1990 Cereus
CRB-IS-93-009 Page 10 of 23
(September 1993)
f
{
Language - Mixed Findings on Ability to Speak English
Most immigrants, and young immigrants in particular, become proficient in English within a few
years of arrival to the United States. Approximately two of every three immigrants in California
speak English proficiently.2 Nevertheless, 2.1 million immigrants in California are not proficient
in English. For immigrants, the ability to speak English is a.function of age at time of entrance to
the United States and the number of years since entrance.
i
Younger immigrants are more likely to speak English proficiently than are older immigrants. For
example, almost 90 percent of immigrants who were less than five years old when they
immigrated to the United States spoke English proficiently by the time of the 1990 Census, while r
less than half of those who immigrated between the ages of 50 and 65 spoke English proficiently.
k
Regardless of age at time of immigration, the ability to speak English increases with the number of
years that an immigrant has resided in the United States. Among immigrants in California in
1990, less than half of the most recent immigrants were proficient speakers of English. The j
proportion of proficient speakers increases to two-thirds for immigrants who had been in the
United States for 9 to 10 years, and increases to 90 percent for those who had resided in the
country for over 40 years.
Upon entrance, White immigrants were more Table 4
likely to be proficient in English than were
Asian or Hispanic immigrants. However, for Proficiency in English `.
those who have been in the United States at
least 16 years, the differential between White Percent Proficient in English
and Hispanic immigrants narrows Years since immigration:
dramatically, and is practically non-existent 0-3 16-20
between White and Asian immigrants (see
Table 4). All Immigrants 48.5% 73.5%
Asian 59.2 87.9
These findings suggest that immigrants Hispanic 36.7 63.7
realize that the ability to speak English is White 71.4 89.9
important in their. success in the..United . source: CaUbmia Research Bureau,1990 Cmsus
States. The overwhelming majority of
immigrants eventually become proficient in
English.
2In this discussion, persons who reported speaking only English or who reported speaking English well or very
well are regarded as proficient in English.
CRB-IS-93-009 Page 11 of 23
(September 1993)
Marital Status /Living Arrangements
Immigrants are just as likely to be married as nonimmigrants. Immigrants are more likely to be
single (never married), slightly less likely to be widowed, and only half as likely to be divorced or
separated as nonimmigrants (see Figure 11). Some of these differences may reflect age
differentials between the two groups, but probably also reflect strong emphases placed on family,
ties among immigrants. For example, immigrants are much less likely to live alone or with non-
related roommates then are
nonimmigrants. Family households, both Table 5
single parent family households and
married couple family households, are Family/Household Size
more common among immigrants than and Number of Children
nonimmigrants. Immigrant households Non-
are over twice as likely to include Immigrant immigrant
extended family members as Households `^" Households
nonimmigrant families.3 Immigrants tend Avg. number of children 1.9 1.7
to have more children than Persons per household 3.9 2.6
nonimmigrants. Accordingly, the average Persons per family 4.3 3.1
number of persons per household and
average family size are higher among Source: California state census Data Center,1990 Census
immigrant households (see Table 5).
Figure 11
Marital Status of California Residents Aged 15+, 1990
60.0%
52.71/6 52.70/6
50.0%
40.0% 35.6%
30.0% 27.1%
20.0%
13.8%
10.0"6 4.6% 6.3%
0.0%
Never Married Married Divorced or Separated Widowed
N Immigrants El Nonimmigrants
Source: Califomia Research Bureau, 1990 Census
3 Families consist of related persons living together in a household. Households include families as well as non-
related individuals living alone or together. In this tabulation, immigrant households are households in which the
householder(the adult who completed the census form)was an immigrant.
CRB-IS-93-009 Page 12 of 23
(September 1993)
ECONOMIC INDICATORS
Incomes Lower for Immigrants
On average, immigrants earn substantially less income than nonimmigrants. Per capita incomes in
1989 were 24 percent lower for immigrants (just over $13,000) compared to nonimmigrants (just
over $17,000). The incomes of immigrants are a function of age and time in the United States.
Older immigrants earn more than younger immigrants, as is typical of nonimmigrants. As shown
in Figure 12, mean annual earnings were higher for immigrants in their forties than for immigrants
in other age groups.
However, because immigrant households contain more workers per household, median household
incomes for immigrants are fairly close to nonimmigrant household incomes. For immigrants who
have been in the United States over ten years, median household incomes are almost 90 percent of
nonimmigrant median-household incomes.
Immigrants who have resided in the United States for long periods of time earn more than recent
immigrants. Average annual incomes were much lower for recent immigrants relative to previous
immigrants (see Figure 12). Indeed, immigrants who have been in the United States for at least
16 years have earnings similar to nonimmigrants. Because educational attainment levels of recent
immigrants are slightly higher than for previous immigrants, it is possible that the difference in
earnings between recent immigrants and previous immigrants reflects a lack of United States work
experience among the recent immigrants. As the recent immigrants increase their work
experience and develop job networks, it is possible that their earnings will increase and reach
levels similar to or higher than previous immigrants. An alternative scenario is that structural
changes in the economy, specifically a decline in the demand for low-skill jobs, could prevent
recent immigrants from ever experiencing the earning levels achieved by previous immigrants.
Figure 12
Average Annual Income
by Age and Years Since Entry
Income($):
25,000
20,000 Years Since
i
Entry:
15,000 j
10,000 i j ❑ 0-5
5,000
i 016-20
0
20- 25- 30- 35- 40- 45- 50- 55- 60- 65+
24 -29 34 39 44 49 54 59 64
Age
Source: California Research Bureau, 1990 Census
CRB-15-93-009 Page 13 of 23
(September 1993)
Labor Force Status Similar for Immigrants and Nonimmigrants
Overall, immigrants are similar to nonimmigrants in terms of labor force participation (see Figure
13). Male immigrants are slightly more likely to be in the labor force than male nonimmigrants.
In contrast, female immigrants are slightly less likely to be in the labor force than female
nonimmigrants. The lower labor force participation of female immigrants is probably the result of
more persons in immigrant households, and thus more household responsibilities. Unemployment
rates are higher for immigrants than nonimmigrants.
Figure 13
Labor Force Status of California Civilians
Males Aged 16+
Immigrants N Non-immigrants
80.0% 72.6% 70.2%
60.0%
40.01%
20.9% 25.2%
20.01/•
6.4% 4.6%
0.0'/�
Employed Unemployed Not in the Labor
Farce
Females Aged 16+
80.0%
60.0% a
553%
16.0% 11.2%
40.0%
20.0%
5.4% 73%
0.0%
Employed Unemployed Not in the Labor
Force
Total Population Aged 16+
6&M fiM
60.01% 0
40.0%
20.0%
S.fK r.fx
0.0%
Employed Lhemployed Not in the Lebon
Force
Source: California Research Bureau, 1990 Census
CRB-IS-93-009 Page 14 of 23
(September 1993)
Occupation and Industry -Immigrants Represent Substantial Shares of the Work Force
Immigrants are much more likely to work in blue collar occupations than nonimmigrants (see
Figure 14) . A common misperception is that most immigrants work in agriculture. Although
agriculture is: especially dependent on Figure 14
Occupational Distribution of California's Residents,19%
immigrant labor, over 90 percent of 4o%
immigrants work in industries other than 35%
agriculture. Even among recent Hispanic 3096
25%
immigrants (the group most likely to work 20%
in agriculture), the overwhelming majority -Is%
work in industries other than agriculture. io%
While most agricultural workers are s% fts JU
immigrants, most immigrants are not 0%
Matugerial& TahnicA Service Fuming, Craft,
agricultural workers. p1°f�4O07' sale Forestry,
Laborers,
Support Others
■Immigrants p Nonunmigrants
Immigrants comprise sizable portions of
Source:Cahfm=Research Bureau.1990 Censm
the work force of many industries in
California (see Figure 15). Critics of immigration will point to this finding as evidence that
immigrants are taking jobs away from nonimmigrants. Conversely, proponents will argue that this
chart is proof that immigrants are an important element of the economy and are providing needed
skills. Actually, the chart is consistent with both positions, and proves neither. In addition to
agriculture, industries that are heavily dependent on immigrants include:
• trade (both wholesale and retail),
• manufacturing (durable as well as non-durable) ,
• business and repair services, and
• personal, entertainment, and recreation services ("Other
Services" in Figure 15).
Overall, immigrants comprise over 25 percent of the civilian labor force in California.
Figure 15
Immigrant Share of Total Employment by Industry
California, 1990
g0.0°r
71.8%
60.0%
43.5% 40.5%
40.0% 29.6% 34.2%
21.1% 21.8% 21.7%
9%
20.0% 15. I i 14.2•h
I I I I
0.0% i
Agriculture, Mming Construction Manufac. Trarivor- Trade Fmmce, Other Professional Public
For-try, ming talion and hwurmoe, Services Health.d Admix
d Fnhctg co®nunx8bon and Real Estate Education
Ser Aces
Source- California Research Bureau.1990 Census
CRB-IS-93-009 Page 15 of 23
(September 1993)
Poverty More Common Among Immigrants - Public Assistance a Complex Picture
Despite the extreme difference in poverty rates between immigrants and nonimmigrants,
immigrant households are only slightly more likely to receive public assistance than noriimmigrant
households (see Figure 16 and Figure 17).4 Public assistance as defined by the Census Bureau
includes Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC);-
and
AFDC);and other public assistance and public welfare cash payments; it does not include Food Stamps or
Medi-Cal. Data on AFDC usage figure 16
from the Department of Social Poverty Status for California Residents,1989
Services, while not directly
comparable to the census data, are 35'0.A30.0'R
consistent with the findings on public
25.0%
assistance utilization from the 1990 200%
Census. Since 1990,.Department of
Social Services data indicate that the 1o.ov,
proportion of AFDC cases comprised s.a�
of citizen children of ineligible o.o%
immigrant • parents has increased Non m rugrants
dramatically, from 7 percent of the ■Below Poem Leel 0 Below 150%of Poverty Level
total number of AFDC cases in
August 1989 to 14 percent in January Soume: Califomia Rese=b Bumu,1990 Census
of 1992.
Figure 17
Percent of Households Receiving Public Assistance
by Immigration Status
12%
10%
6%
4%
2%
0%
Immigrant Nonimmigrant
s=ce: California Reesuch Biaeaµ1990 Census
4 In this discussion, households with at least one immigrant are considered immigrant households. A
subset of 50,000 households from the 1990 Census Public Use Microdata Sample served as the basis for the
tabulations and statistical model presented in this section.
CRB-IS-93-009 Page 16 of 23
(September 1993)
Using 1990 Census data, the California Research Bureau developed a statistical model to identify
factors which are strongly associated with receiving public assistance. A total of sixteen. social,
economic, and demographic variables were included in the model.5 The results of the model
indicate that- only a few factors are strong predictors of the likelihood of receiving public
assistance. Table 6 presents observed proportions receiving public assistance for the factors
which the model determined to be most significant and powerful in predicting public assistance
utilization. Household type is one of the most important factors. Family households headed by a
non-married person are much more likely to receive public assistance than are other types of
households. In particular, family households headed by single females are especially likely to
receive public assistance.
Table 6: Percent of Households Receiving Public Assistance
by Selected Householder Characteristics
Non-
Immigrants immigrants
Total 11.7% 8.8%
Education:
Postgraduate 4.2 1.7
College Graduate 5.7 2.1
Some College 8.1 6.5
High School Graduate 9.8 10.6
Less than High School 19.1 22.5
Household Type:
Single Female Headed Family 26.2 28.0
All Other 9.8 6.3
Source: California Research Bureau, 1990 Census
Education is an equally strong predictor of public assistance utilization. The probability of
receiving public assistance was found to dramatically decline with increasing levels of education.
Households headed by persons who did not complete high school are twice as likely to receive
public assistance as households headed by high school graduates, and households headed by high
school graduates were 3.5 times as likely to receive public assistance as households headed by
college graduates. Other factors with some explanatory power in the model included the presence
of children in the household, and proficiency in English. Households with young children (aged
five and under) were approximately 1.5 times more likely to receive public assistance than
otherwise similar households without children, and households headed by persons not proficient in
English were approximately 1.3 times more likely to receive public assistance than otherwise
similar households headed by persons proficient in English.
5See Appendix A for a more complete treatment of the statistical model.
CRB-IS-93-009 Page 17 of 23
(September 1993)
Immigration status, when taking into account the effect of other factors, was of no practical
consequence in explaining the likelihood of receiving public assistance. Immigrants are not more
likely to receive public assistance because they are immigrants; they are more likely to receive
public assistance because they tend to be poorly educated. Controlling for education, immigrant
households were essentially no more likely to receive public assistance than nonimmigrant
households. Nevertheless, it is important to note that immigrants are generally much less
educated than nonimmigrants, and this explains the slightly higher proportions receiving public
assistance.
CRB-LS-93-009 Page 18 of 23
(September 1993)
REFERENCES
California Assembly Select Committee on California-Mexico Affairs (1993), Immigrants,
Immigration & the California Economy; A Compendium of Materials Submitted at an
Informational Hearing, February 25, 1993, Sacramento, CA.
California Department of Finance (1993), Components of Change, Foreign and Domestic
Migration, Sacramento, CA.
California Department of Social Services (1993), Estimates Branch, unpublished data and _
personal communication.
California Department of Social Service (1992),Refugees Receiving Cash Assistance
Characteristics Survey; Study Month January 1992, Sacramento, CA.
California Department of Social Service (1989),Refugees Receiving Cash Assistance
Characteristics Survey; Study Month August 1989, Sacramento, CA.
California Health and Welfare Agency (1989),A Survey of Newly Legalized Persons in
California, San Diego, CA: Comprehensive Adult Student Assessment System.
California State Census Data Center(1993), SCDC Newsletter, March 1993.
Census of Population and Housing, 1990: Public Use Microdata Sample U.S. Technical
Documentation, prepared by the Bureau of the Census. Washington D.C.: The Bureau, 1992.
Census of Population and Housing, 1990: Public Use Microdata Samples[machine-readable
data files]. prepared by the Bureau of the Census. Washington D.C.: The Bureau [producer and
distributor], 1992.
Espenshade, Thomas J. and Eric S. Rothman (1992), "Fiscal Impacts of Immigration to the
United States, " Population Index 58:3,381-415.
Immigration and Naturalization Service (1991), 1990 Statistical Yearbook of the Immigration and
Naturalization Service, Washington D.C.: United States Department of Justice.
Los Angeles County, Internal Services Department, Urban Research Section. 1992. Impact of
Undocumented Persons and Other Immigrants on Costs, Revenues, and Services in Los Angeles
County. Report prepared for the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors.
Passel, Jeffrey S. and Woodrow, Karen A. (1984), Geographic Distribution of Undocumented
Aliens Counted in the 1980 Census by States, Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
Population Association of America, Minneapolis.
CRB-IS-93-009 Page 19 of 23
(September 1993)
" E
Radoslovich, Frank, Philip Romero, and Beth Vella(1993), The North American Free Trade
Agreement: Implications for California, Sacramento, CA: Governor's Office of Planning and
Research.
Rea, Louis M. and Richard A. Parker. 1992. A Fiscal Impact Analysis of Undocumented
r
Immigrants Residing in San Diego County. Sacramento: Office of the Auditor General of
California.
,t
- r
CRB-LS-93-009 Page 20 of 23
(September 1993)
APPENDIX A
A logistic regression model was developed to examine the relationship between the probability of
receiving public assistance and numerous social, economic, and demographic factors. The model
was developed on a subset of over 50,000 California households from the 1990 Census Public
Use Microdata Sample. In Model 1, the full model, sixteen independent variables were included
(see Table Al). Model 2 considered only the immigrant status and household type variables, and �.
Model 3 considered only the immigrant status and education variables. For all models, the
dependent variable was the dichotomous determination of whether or not a household received
public assistance income in 1989. Some of the independent variables are based on characteristics
of the household, while other independent variables are based on characteristics of the
householder (i.e. the person who completed the census form). Table A2 shows the results of the
three models. An additional model, not reported here, indicated that interaction effects of
immigrant status with household type and educational attainment variables were not powerful
predictors of public assistance utilization.
Because of the large sample size, almost all of the independent variables were highly statistically
significant. Nevertheless, not all of the factors were strong predictors of the likelihood of
receiving public assistance. The magnitude of the predictive strength can be evaluated by looking
at the absolute values of the coefficients in Table A2. In logistic regression, the coefficients
represent the log odds ratio. Negative coefficients indicate lower predicted probabilities of public
assistance utilization; positive values indicate higher predicted probabilities.
i
Model 1 predicts that households headed by high school graduates are only half as likely to utilize '
public assistance as households headed by persons who did not complete high school.
Households headed by single or divorced males were two times more likely to receive public
assistance than married couple households, and households headed by single females were five
times more likely to receive public assistance. Citizenship and immigrant status are not strong
predictors of public assistance utilization.
The results of Model 2 and Model 3 indicate that the observed association between immigrant
status and public assistance utilization is primarily due to lower educational attainment levels
among immigrants than among nonimmigrants. Controlling for household type, Model 2 predicts
that immigrant households are 1.4 times more likely to receive public assistance than are
nonimmigrant households. The observed ratio of public assistance utilization between immigrant
and nonimmigrant households in the sample was only 1.3. Thus, the structure of household living
arrangements among immigrants results in a lower dependence on public assistance. Immigrants
are less likely than nonimmigrants to live in household types that are associated with high public
assistance utilization.
CRB-IS-93-009 Page 21 of 23
(September 1993)
Table Al
Independent Variables in the Logistic Regression Models
Variable Description
AGE Age in years
MANY Binary;0=all household members are nonimmigrant, I=at least one household member is an
immigrant
HSGRAD Binary; 1 =householder is a high school graduate
SOMECOL Binary; 1 =householder attended but did not complete college
COLGRAD Binary; I =householder is a college graduate
POSTGRAD Binary; I =householder earned advanced degree
SWAM Binary; I =family household headed by a single male
SFFAM Binary; I =family household headed by a single female
SMNFAM Binary; 1—single.maleliving alone
SFNFAM Binary; I =single female living alone
MNFAM Binary; 1 =male householder living with non-related persons
FNFAM Binary; 1 =female householder living with non-related persons
CHLD6 Binary; 1 =household includes children less than six years of age
CBLD17 Binary; 1=household includes children between the ages of six and seventeen
USCITZN Binary; I =citizen of the United States
NOTENG Binary; I =not proficient in English
Source: California Research Bureau
CRB-IS-93-009 Page 22 of 23
(September 1993)
Table A2
Results of the Logistic Regression Models
------- Logit Coefficients ------
Variable Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
---------- --------- --------- ---------
INTERCEPT -2.7039 * -2.7933 * -1.3348 *
AGE 0.0139 *
IMANY 0.0383 * 0.3626 * 0.0155
HSGRAD -0.7280 * -0.8144 *
SOMECOL -1.1036 * -1.2794 *
COLGRAD -1.8264 * -2.1528 *
POSTGRAD -2.0395 * -2.3675 *
SMFAM 0.7692 * 0.7683 *
SFFAM 1.6016 * 1.7187 *
SMNFAM -0.0646 * -0.2017 *
SFNFAM 0.3953 * 0.6298 *
MNFAM 0.3036 * -0.1253 *
FNFAM 0.3580 * -0.0293
CHLD6 0.4656 *
CHLD17 0.1850 *
USCITZN 0.0343 *
NOTENG 0.2916 *
Likelihood
ratio 174,722.93 2,404.58 2,263.91
* denotes significance at the .01 level
Source: California Research Bureau
Controlling for education, Model 3 predicts that immigrant households are essentially no more
likely to receive public.assistance than are nonimmigrant households. The results of Model 3
suggest that if immigrant households had educational attainment levels similar to nonimmigrants,
then public assistance utilization would be similar between the two groups.
CRB-IS-93-009 Page 23 of 23
(September 1993)
OVERVIEW OF
ALIEN ELIGIBILITY FOR FEDERAL PROGRAMS
A�dE1V'S STATUS
PAROLEE,
LPR FAMILY REFUGEE/ CUBAN! .EPS DED ASYLUM UNDOCU-
PROGR" UNITY ASYLEE AArrIAN APPLICANT MENTED
ENTRANT
y. } CASH
Same as Arguably
AFDC Yes amnesty Yes Yes No yes as No** No
alien PRUCOL*
SSI Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes Arguably yes No
as PRUCOL*
Unemployment
uceYes
Imura ''";
- Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes (if work- No
authorized)
Yes,if Yes,if
Amer- paroled as No, unless
asian, refugee or No, unless
Refiugee former No Yes asylee or if No No national of national of
Assistance refugee national of Cuba or Haiti Cuba or
or Cuba or Haar
asylee Haiti
MEDICAi`:CAitE
Same as Emergency Emergency Emergency
Medicaid Yes amnesty Yes Yes Yes
alien services services** services
FOOD
Food Siam Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No
_.
WIC Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Sclsool Lunch Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
&Breakia 'i:
EDUCATIt�N
2 Headstart, Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
15fleYes Yes Yes Yes Arguably Arguably Arugably yes No
Federal:Coatis. yes yes
Yes Yes Yes Yes
Ti PA Yes (if work Yes., Yes (if work- (if work- (if work- No
authorized) authorized) authorized) authorized)
HOUSING
Federal Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
*PRUCOL-permanendy residing in the U.S. under color of law
**Some states, such as Florida and Massachusetts,recognize as PRUCOL _
Table prepared by the National Inunigrarion Law Center 6193
"s C j^kj r"(Cc- ATTACHMENT #4
ak S&/c Pd - C y
m.G�u c t PSa/i1 / �► J� (yttr✓! ,k PC -i'^r"0.1 / o
�!'t
C A,l �'�l�r Po I �vN ,-t-t
Appendix (J y,v:�
REFUGEES' ASSISTANCE, SOCIAL AND
EMPLOYMENT SERVICE ENTITLEMENTS
i
The U.S. Refugee Resettlement Program under the authority of the California
Department of Social Services (DSS) provides refugees cash assistance, food stamps,
employment and training services and community resources with the goal of promoting
self-sufficient family units.
Cash Assistance Programs
The following cash assistance programs are available to refugees who meet the
eligibility requirements: AFDC (Aid to Families with Dependent Children), SSI/SSP
(supplemental security income/state supplemental program), and county General Assistance '
(GA) as well as Refugee Cash Assistance/Entrant Cash Assistance (RCA/ECA).
AFDC and SSI/SSP
For refugees, the eligibility criteria for these public assistance programs are the same
P P g �
as those for nonrefugees. j
is
RCA/ECA
Refugees/entrants who do not qualify for the AFDC or SSI programs may be eligible
for RCA/ECA for a maximum of eight months after their arrival date. This category of
recipients is generally made up of single men and women, and couples without children.
In order to receive RCA, refugees must register and participate in a state-approved
employment training or language program and accept an appropriate offer of employment.
Local General Assistance
Refugees qualify for GA on the same basis as other residents. This program is county-
funded and varies across counties.
Emergency Assistance Program
The EAP provides cash assistance to meet the emergency needs of intact families when
both parents are unemployed and neither parent has a connection with the labor force.
Unaccompanied Minor (UM) Program
The county in which the minor is placed establishes protective legal custody for the
child within 30 days after the child's arrival. The county welfare department has to ensure
175
3
that the child receives the full range of child welfare benefits and services provided to
nonrefugee children in foster care.
Health Service Programs
Medical assistance costs are subject to reimbursement from the U.S. Office of Refugee
Resettlement (ORR) on the same basis as cash assistance. Costs for public health services
such as referral to followup services, education and counseling, support services, health
assessments, and clinical or technical services are covered. Current federal regulations
provide funding to cover the overall state costs of providing medical assistance to eligible
refugees during their first eight months in the U.S.
County Social Services
Refugees may be eligible for the following county-administered social services:
Federally mandated
Information and Referral; Emergency Response; Family Maintenance, Protective
Services for Children; Protective Services for Adults; Family Reunification, Permanent
Placement; Out-of-Home Care Services for Adults; and In-Home Supportive Services.
Optional
Special Care for Children in Their Own Homes; Home Management and Other
Function Educational Services;Employment/Education/Training;Services for Children with
Special Problems; Service to Alleviate or Prevent Family Problems; Sustenance; Housing
Referral Services; Legal Referral Services; Diagnostic Treatment Services for Children;
Special Services for the Blind; Special Services for Adults; Services for Disabled
Individuals; and Services for County Jail Inmates.
The total level of social services available is subject to yearly appropriations by the
state legislature, Congress, and the individual county boards of supervisors.
Since October 1, 1984, ORR has allowed states to expend up to 15 percent of their
Refugee Social Services allocations to provide the aforementioned and other nonemploy-
ment-related services to refugees.
Refugee-specific Employment Services System
RESS is designed to assure that the employment services needs of refugees are
properly determined and met through a planned set of services designed to result in self
sufficiency. On an annual basis, ORR provides the state with Refugee Social Services
(RSS) and Targeted Assistance (TA) funding. These funds are allocated to the counties to
provide the following services to refugees:
Client Intake Services
Support Services (child care, transportation and work-related)
Employment Services (ES)
English-as-a-Second Language Training (ESL)
On-the-Job-Training (OJT)
Vocational Training (VT)
176
Work Experience
Educational Services (EDS)
Other Employment-related Services
Counties may provide the services directly or contract with other agencies to provide
them. However, counties are required to allocate at least 85 percent of their program
allocations to employment and employment-related services and activities. The rest can be
used for nonemployment-related services.
Greater Avenues for Independence
GAIN is a mandatory program to assist AFDC applicants and recipients become self-
sufficient by providing them with the necessary skills to obtain/retain employment. Counties
also may elect to serve RCA clients in their GAIN system.
Depending on their needs, GAIN participants are provided employment services and
employment-directed training and education. The program takes into consideration the
recipients' need for ESL and remedial education. Self-initiated training programs (limited
to two years) and college programs (limited to two years) are allowed if they are tied to
the local labor market.
Complimenting the employment-related services is a full range of supportive services
to facilitate the recipients' successful participation in GAIN (i.e., child care, transportation
assistance, and other ancillary services that assist in removing barriers to program
participation).
Counties can use RSS and TA funding to pay for GAIN activities provided to AFDC
recipients, and for those provided to RCA recipients if the county is mandating their
participation in GAIN.
Special Programs
Mutual Assistance Associations
MAAs are private, nonprofit organizations established and operated by refugees.
Qualified MAAs may apply for RSS and TA funds. In addition, they may apply for MAA
Incentive Funds, part of the state's RSS allocation, which are provided to RSS-eligible
counties for the provision of social adjustment and cultural orientation services.
The California Department of Social Services encourages MAAs to participate in the F
development of their county's plan for services to refugees and provide them with technical
assistance related to the provision of those services.
Amerasian Special Needs
As a result of growing up as outcasts in Vietnam, arriving in this country with
unrealistic expectations for gaining acceptance, lacking in formal education, and having
limited employment skills, Amerasians need a broad array of services to successfully
resettle in the United States. The Amerasians and their families are eligible for all the
current services provided to other refugees and immigrants, but because of their special
177
x
i
t
k
circumstances the Office of Refugee Resettlement makes available additional funds to
provide services that supplement those in place for the other two aforementioned groups.
These supplemental services'may include intensive case management and client tracking,
crisis intervention, and in-depth counseling.
Since 1989, ORR has made Amerasian Special Needs funding available for areas that }
have a "cluster" of Amerasians. The funding level is $35,000 per site. For 1991-92, six
counties in California received "cluster site" awards: Alameda, Los Angeles, Orange,
Sacramento, San Diego, and Santa Clara.
i
1
s
(9h1
F
{
1
f
0
eeR
a:
178
t
• ATTACHMENT #5
COALITION FOR IMINUGRANT & REFUGEE RIGHTS & SERVICES
Affirmation of the Human Rights of Immigrants and Refugees
The United States is a country built by immigrants. With the exception of native Americans,
each of us can trace our origins to other countries. No nation has so successfully combined
people from different backgrounds within a single society. This heritage helps shape and sustain
our nation's commitment to pluralism, diversity, and respect for individual rights, and is our
unique source of strength.
An immigration policy which continues to welcome immigrants from all lands and to provide
refuge to those who are threatened is a tradition that we must preserve and honor.
Today, global interdependence has changed the nature of national identities and borders.
Immigration policy is not simply a matter of domestic policy. International migration is a world-
wide reality, with an estimated 100 million people in transit. They move to flee war and
persecution. They move to seek respite from famine and persistent poverty. They move to
escape the effects of natural or man-made disasters. They move to seek better opportunities or
to reunite with their loved ones.
And yet, today we are witnessing rising anti-immigrant hysteria. Much of the hatred and hostility
towards immigrants is motivated by fear and frustration about the stagnant economy, the
continued budget cuts in education and public services, the rising costs and diminishing
availability of health care, and growing crime and,violence.
While these are serious issues that we must confront together as a nation, it is wrong and
simplistic to blame immigrants for problems they did not create. The- true causes of these
difficulties are inequitable tax structures, misallocation of public resources, the flight of jobs and
capital to more "profitable" locations outside the country, and lack of investment in local
workers and American productivity. Scapegoating and attempting to marginalize our society's
newcomers only diverts from the pressing task of building workable solutions to the problems
we face as a society.
The history of anti-immigrant sentiment in the United States follows a pattern in which
immigrants are generally welcomed in times of economic expansion, and scapegoated in times
of insecurity. It is easier to dehumanize and blame some sector of the population rather than
work together towards solutions to difficult economic and social problems. But any attempt to
erode the rights of newcomers is to erode the rights of all of us. Diminishing the dignity of the
newcomer is to diminish our society itself.
And so it is necessary to open space in the public debate for the human and moral dimensions
of these issues. Whether immigrants or native born, we are all members of the same human
family, with the same fundamental rights. Efforts to make life more difficult and even
unbearable for immigrants and refugees is morally wrong and violates fundamental human and
civil rights and the dignity of each human being.
Coalition for Immigrant & Refugee Rights & Services Page 1
We affirm that there are fundamental human rights, regardless of race, ethnicity, national origin
or immigration status. We affirm the right to movement, to work, to be with one's family. We
affirm the right to education, housing, health care and basic social services. We affirm the
right to live in dignity, free from discrimination, prejudice, physical and verbal abuse or
exploitation. We believe that human dignity and survival often depend on fulfillment of political
and economic rights. Therefore, we reject simplistic distinctions between economic migrants
and political refugees with respect to these fundamental rights.
Furthermore, we must recognize that U.S. foreign and economic policies are all too often
directly responsible for the factors pushing people to leave their native lands. Through our
support for repressive and undemocratic regimes, as well as our practice of inequitable trade and
economic policies which promote and maintain conditions of underdevelopment, we have caused
millions to flee their countries.
To address, therefore, the root cause of migration, we must work to eliminate the dramatic
disparities between developed and developing nations. We must support authentic, democratic
movements building equality and social justice. We must alter the logic of international trade.
While we are developing long-term solutions, we must also address the immediate consequences
of current global migration trends. We have a particular humanitarian obligation to receive
those persons forced to flee conditions which we helped create. Confronted by their faces and
their suffering, we are compelled to speak and act on their behalf in defense of their human
dignity and basic human rights.
Immigrants bring with them cultural richness, a commitment to hard work, a dedication to
family values, an inspirational optimism and a desire to fulfill their dreams. They contribute
to,America's ability to participate and compete successfully in the global economy. They rebuild
decaying communities and give of their skills and talents.
The emergence of a multiethnic, multicultural society is 'an opportunity, not a threat. As
members of this national community and as policymakers, we must recognize that judicious
investment in the education, health, and integration of immigrants is a way to strengthen our
country, not weaken it.
We do not deny the complexity of immigration policy. Even more, we must not deny the very
spirit that has made odr country great. The way we treat the newcomer remains-a critical test
of our nation's moral fiber and our nation's faithfulness to its roots. As individuals we must
respect each other, take advantage of the opportunity to learn about the world from each other,
and recognize that our commitment to building harmony and community is in the best interest
of us all.
Coalition for Immigrant & Refugee Rights & Services Page 2
COALITION FOR IM UGRAN,T & REFUGEE RIGHTS & SERVICES
Myths and Facts:
Immigration and the United States
Myth 1: `Immigrants are hurting the economy, especially in California. `
FACT: Immigrant workers are essential to the U.S. economy.
• Compared to U.S.-born workers of all backgrounds, immigrants have a higher rate of
participation in the labor force, tend to save more, apply more effort at work, have a higher
propensity to start new businesses and to be self-employed. (Simon, 1989)
• During the current and past recessions, the demand for immigrant labor has continued in all
but the most depressed sectors of the California economy, indicating that demand for
immigrant labor in the state is fairly constant. (Cornelius, 1992)
• The relatively lower-cost and available immigrant workforce keeps labor-intensive industries
competitive and helps to retain these industries in the U.S. Immigrants made crucial
contributions to the economic dynamism of California over the last twenty years, and have
saved the furniture, garment, shoe industries in Southern California, and textile industries in
Los Angeles, New York and San Francisco. (Cornelius, 1992; Muller, 1993; RAND, 1986;
U.S. Department of Labor, 1989)
FACT: Immigrants contribute to the U.S. economy through tax payments,job creation,
entrepreneurial activity, consumer spending and neighborhood revitalization.
• The average immigrant pays $1,300 or more a year in taxes. (Simon, 1989)
• Immigrants are more likely to be self-employed and start new businesses. Small businesses,
18% of which are started by immigrants, account for up to 80% of the new jobs available in
the U.S. each year. (Federal Reserve Bank, 1991; Bach & Meissner, 1990)
• The larger the foreign-born population, the larger the employment gains for natives.
Immigrants add twice as many jobs to the country as does the native born population, and
contribute to local employment more than non-immigrants. (Urban Institute, 1992)
• Immigrant consumer spending represents a major partof the economy in the cities and
neighborhoods where they are concentrated. (Cornelius, 1992)
• Without immigrants' capital, skills and business acumen, middleclass entrepreneurship so vital
to past economic growth and the post-industrial revitalization would not have been possible.
Immigrant labor generated greater socioeconomic mobility for white, and to a lesser extent
for black, native workers. (Muller, 1993)
• By setting'up businesses and buying homes, immigrants generate both taxes and employment
opportunities, while encouraging further investment in run-down central city neighborhoods
Coalition for Immigrant & Refugee Rights & Services Page 1
and older suburbs.(Cornelius, 1992; BusinessWeek, 1992)
• Immigrants are working in both high and low skilled jobs that would otherwise go unfilled,
generating additional jobs in management and service sectors from work they do and goods
and services they consume. (Muller, 1993; U.S. Department of Labor, 1989)
Myth 2: "Immigrants take jobs away from American workers.
FACT: Immigrants are job makers, not job takers.
i
• Immigrants create jobs through the formation of new businesses, spending, and capital
investment, and by raising the productivity of U.S..businesses. (Alexis de Toqueville
Institution, 1990)
• By filling the need for low-skilled labor, immigrants create and sustain U.S industries and
increase the demand for skilled jobs typically held by U.S.-born workers. This boosts
employment.and income for the population as a whole. (U.S. Council of Economic Advisors,
1990; Reischauer, 1989)
• There is no significant relationship between immigration and the unemployment rates in U.S.
cities. (Simon, 1993)
• Any reductions in wages and loss of jobs are more a consequence of trade deficits and
manufacturers moving overseas, rather than immigration. (Borjas, 1991)
FACT: Immigration does not,hurt native born U.S. workers.
` • Numerous studies have found little evidence that immigration, including undocumented
immigration, reduces the employment or wage rates of U.S.-born low-skilled workers,
including blacks and Hispanic Americans. (Altonji&Card., 1987;Reischauer, 1989;Freeman,
1988; Borjas, 1990; U.S. Department of Labor, 1989)
• Black unemployment rates are no higher in cities with high immigration, even during serious
recessions in the 1970s and 1980s. (Muller and Epenshade, 1985; Reischauer, 1989)
• Even the large influx of immigrants into Miami after the 1980 Mariel boat lift (125,000), a
seven percentlovemight expansion of the local labor force, "had virtually no effect on the
wages or unemployment rates of less-skilled workers," white or black. (Card, 1993)
Myth 3: "Immigrants receive a disproportionate amount of welfare and other public
assistance. "
FACT: Despite high poverty rates, immigrants use less public benefits than average, and
are less likely to become dependent on welfare.
(Cornelius, 1992; California Research Bureau, 1993; California Senate Office of Research,
1993; U.S. Department of Labor, 1990; Tienda, 1985; U.S. Department of Justice,
Immigration and Naturalization Service, 1992)
Coalition for Immigrant & Refugee Rights & Services Page 2
• Legal immigrants make up 22% of the population of California, but are only 12% of the
population receiving AFDC. Most`are recent refugees from Southeast Asia and the former
Soviet Union. (California Department of Finance, 1992)
• Only 3.8 percent of California's long-term immigrants received welfare, social security, or
other types of assistance, compared with 4.1 percent of native households. (California Senate
Office of Research, 1993)
• A much higher proportion of immigrants are working age as compared to the native born-
population. As a result, more are working and fewer are dependent on social services. For
example, of all foreign-born immigrants who entered between 1980-90, only 1.5% receive
social security, as compared to approximately 13% of U.S.-born residents of California.
(California Research Bureau, 1993)
• While undocumented, less than one percent of immigrants legalized under the 1986 amnesty
program had received general .assistance, social security, supplemental security income,
workers' compensation, or unemployment insurance. Less than one-half of one percent
received food stamps or AFDC. (U.S. Department of Justice,Immigration and Naturalization
Service, 1992)
Myth 4. "Immigrants come here to live off the system. "
FACT: Most immigrants come because there are jobs for them in the U.S., and once
here, are ineligible for and generally avoid public assistance programs.
• There is no evidence that public benefits and services in the U.S. serve as a magnet for
immigrants. People immigrate here because they have relatives, because there are jobs, and
because there is a tradition of migrating to California. (Cornelius, 1992;U.S. Bureau of Labor
Statistics, 1985)
• Immigrants do not receive permission to enter the U.S. unless they can demonstrate that they
are not likely to need public assistance. Most new immigrants are automatically disqualified
from receiving public assistance for three years.
• Immigrants legalized under the 1986 amnesty program were disqualified from Aid to Families
with Dependent Children (AFDC) or Medi-Cal for five years after obtaining legal permanent
residency. (Immigration and Nationality Act Sections 245A(h) and 210(h))
• Undocumented immigrants are ineligible for all public benefits except for emergency medical
and perinatal services and K-12 education. (National Immigration Law Center, 1993)
• Because immigrants can be denied permanent residence based on their likelihood of becoming
a "public charge" (often measured by whether they have received public benefits in the past),
immigrants and their families tend to avoid public assistance. (Immigration and Nationality
Act Section 212(a)(4); California Senate Office of Research, 1993)
Coalition for Immigrant & Refugee Rights & Services Page 3
Myth 5: "Immigrants don't pay their fair share. "
FACT: Throughout their lifetimes, immigrants pay considerable taxes, far more than
they receive in public benefits and services.
• Each year, immigrants pay $90 billion in taxes, and receive only $5 billion in welfare.
(BusinessWeek, 1992)
• Each immigrant, over his or her lifetime, pays $15,000 to $20,000 more in taxes than he or
she receives in government benefits. (Simon, 1989)
k.. • Immigrants' contributions to Social Security are vital to the survival of the financially strained
Social Security system because they pay into the program during their lifetimes, but do not
have a generation of parents collecting benefits. Every 100,000 additional immigrants
contribute $2.4 billion in taxes to the Social Security fund. (Simon, 1989; Alexis de
Toqueville Institution, 1990)
• Although undocumented immigrants are ineligible for almost all public benefits, including
unemployment and Social Security,they are required to pay into these programs through taxes
and payroll deductions.
• For its first several decades, the average immigrant family pays more in taxes than the average
native family, despite lower income. During subsequent years, immigrants begin earning
more, with earnings typically exceeding those of citizens, resulting in higher tax payments and
less use of social services. (Simon, 1989; Chiswick, 1992; U.S. Census)
r
fl
Myth 6: "Our cities and counties are going bankrupt because immigrants don't pay taxes. "
L
FACT: The federal government collects the vast majority of the tax revenue of all U.S.
residents (native and foreign born) even though local governments and states
provide most public services.
• In L.A. County, immigrants paid at least$4.3 billion in taxes during the 1990-91 fiscal year.
But 60% of the tax revenues contributed went to the federal government, while L.A. county
got only 3%. (Los Angeles County Internal Services Department, 1992)
• Over the past 10 years the federal government has reduced its contribution to refugee
assistance in California by 90%, placing enormous burdens on the state and local f
governments.
• Federal funds authorized by the Immigration Reform and Control Act to pay for health and
education of recently legalized immigrants have been deferred for the last three federal F
budgets, costing California an estimated $700 million. (California Assembly Office of
Research, 1992)
Coalition for Immigrant & Refugee Rights & Services Page 4
r
FACT: Recent studies purported to prove the high cost of immigrants to local Californiaf
economies (Los Angeles and San Diego) were seriously flawed, and their results
were misreported.
• The Los Angeles County study underestimated the revenues paid by recent immigrants for
FICA, unemployment, property and state and local income taxes, overestimated costs by $80
to $140 million; and was misreported as finding that new immigrants pay less in taxes than
they receive in benefits. (Urban Institute, 1993)
• The San Diego County study was poorly constructed and methodologically weak, with the
population estimates and net costs estimates implausably high, particularly for education.
(Garcia y Griego & Chavez, 1993; de la Torre; 1993)
Myth 7.• "We would save a lot of money if we stopped paying for free education and health
care for immigrants. "
FACT: Education and emergency health care are essential services that will save money
in the long term.
• Earnings and work opportunities rise significantly and dependence on public assistance drops
dramatically with education. Education is the single most important determinant of need for
public assistance among all populations. (California Research Bureau, 1993; California Senate
Office of Research, 1993)
• Because of fear and misinformation, many immigrants avoid public health services until they
are seriously ill, ultimately making treatment more expensive than if proper preventive care
was provided. For example, every$1 spend on prenatal care saves $3 in costs for babies born
with illnesses. (Los Angeles Times, 1993)
• Lack of accessible sources of prevention and treatment for communicable diseases such as
tuberculosis in immigrant communities unnecessarily threatens public health. (Los Angeles
Times, 1993)
• Current federal requirements to provide emergency care to the undocumented allows federal
governments to share those costs. Eliminating such federal requirements would only shift
100% of these costs to state and local governments.
f
Myth 8: "Our borders our out of control; we are being overwhelmed by immigrants. "
F.
FACT: Immigrants make up a significantly smaller percentage, of the U.S. population
than during much of U.S. history.
• During the last major influx of immigrants, in the early part of the twentieth century,
immigrants comprised nearly fifteen percent of the U.S. population; in 1990 immigrants were f
only eight percent of the U.S. population. (U.S. Census)
Coalition for Immigrant & Refugee Rights & Services Page 5
r
• Eight out of ten immigrants who enter the U.S. each year enter legally. Of these, 75% are
admitted to be reunited with close family members and ten percent are refugees. '
k
• Of the 17.5 million political refugees recognized by the U.N. worldwide, less than,I% find
safe haven in the U.S. each year. (U.S. Committee for Refugees, 1993) F
• Immigrants entering the U.S.under family reunification and refugee programs fill the demand
for immigrant labor at all levels of the economy as well as immigrants admitted specifically
for their skills. (U.S. Department of Labor, 1989; Urban Institute, 1992)
f
• Less than 1.5% of the U.S. population is undocumented. (U.S. Census) !�
I
Myth 9. "Today's immigrants don't learn English and don't want to become Americans. " !
i
FACT: Immigrants are learning English and becoming a part of American culture at the
same rate as past generations of immigrants.
• The evidence is that America's most recent immigrants are assimilating as fast as earlier
groups. Nineteenth century Americans claimed that the Irish, Italian, German and other
immigrants would never become part of mainstream culture. (RAND, 1986)
• Children of immigrants continue the American tradition of social mobility through education,
and are as likely to attend public schools, as unlikely to be dropouts, and as likely to graduate
from high school as children of U.S.-born parents. (Portes, 1993)
• Immigrants today learn.-English at the same rate as all other immigrant groups before them.
(Portes, 1993)
4
• Most immigrants, and almost all children of immigrants, can speak English after a few years
in the U.S.. Approximately two of every three immigrants in California speak English
proficiently. The overwhelming majority of immigrants eventually learn English. (California
Research Bureau, 1993; RAND, 1986; Portes, 1993)
• Reports from throughout the U.S. indicate a tremendous unmet need for English as a Second
Language (ESL) classes, with adult newcomers waiting months or even years before getting
the opportunity to learn English. (National Immigration Forum, 1993)
Coalition for Immigrant & Refugee Rights & Services Page 6
COALITION FOR BZ1IGRANT & REFUGEE RIGHTS & SERVICES
Principles for Discussion of U.S. Immigration Policy
PAGE
RECOGNITION OF "PUSH" AND "PULL"- FACTORS IN MMGRATION 1
1. U.S. immigration policies must be viewed in a global context.
2. The U.S. influences political and economic conditions in many "sending" .
countries.
3. There will be a continued reliance on new immigrant labor in the U.S.
economy.
4. U.S. trade policies must include consideration of the impact of trade
policies on immigration to the U.S.
HISTORICAL RACIAL AND NATIONAL ORIGIN DISCR51INATION IN
U.S. IlVIlMGRATION LAW AND POLICY HAVE NOT YET BEEN REDRESSED 2
1. The history of racial and national .origin discrimination - in U.S.
gration law and policy continues to the present.
2. There is racial and foreign policy bias in U.S. refugee policy.
CITIZENSHIP 3
1. The U.S. should continue to grant citizenship by birth and naturalization
rather than. defining citizenship by blood relationships.
2. The long backlogs in naturalization must be reduced.
3. Citizenship and English as a Second Language should be promoted in
immigrant communities.
4. The residency period to qualify for naturalization should be changed to
three years.
Coalition for Immigrant & Refugee Rights & Services
DYMUGRATION AND FAMILY REUNIFICATION :; :: _ 4
'1. Family reunification must remain the core of our immigration law.
2. The spouses and minor, unmarried children of permanent residents should
be allowed to immigrate as immediate relatives rather than waiting two years
for family reunification. ;
3. The spouses and minor children of individuals who became permanent
residents through the 1986 legalization program should be immediately
reunited with their family members.
4. Battered immigrant women should be allowed to apply for permanent
residences without reliance on their abusive U.S. citizen or permanent
resident husbands.
5. The exclusion of HIV seropositive individuals under the immigration law
should be repealed.
6. Waivers of exclusion and deportation for document fraud should be
available to individuals with family members in the U.S.
7. Unused immigrant visas from the employment categories should be
available in the family reunification categories.
ENFORCEMENT OF LABOR LAWS 5
1. Employers who exploit immigrant workers must be vigorously prosecuted
for violations of wage and hour, safety and tax laws.
2. All workers, regardless of immigration status, must have the right to
organize, strike and be reinstated and the right to be free from retaliation,
deportation or interference by the INS in organizing or strike activities.
3. The employer sanctions imposed by the Immigration Reform and Control
Act of 1986 (IBCA) must be repealed because they are ineffective in deterring
illegal immigration, impose an unreasonable burden on employers and result
in employment discrimination against U.S. citizens and other legal residents
who look or sound foreign.
4. More resources for the enforcement of the IBCA employment sanctions or
state employer sanctions legislation, including asset forfeiture provisions, will
only result in increased employment discrimination without affecting illegal
immigration.
5. Federal and state laws against employment discrimination must be
Coalition for Immigrant & Refugee Rights & Services
vigorously enforced.
6. A national identification card is unnecessary, prohibitively expensive and
would violate the civil rights of all Americans.
7. All workers must have the right to unemployment insurance benefits,
workers' compensation and disability benefits for job-related injuries, and
other employee benefits such as pensions.
ACCESS TO PUBLIC SERVICES 7
1. All indigent persons residing in the U.S. must have access to emergency
and prenatal health care.
2. Any national health care reform plan must guarantee access to health care
for all persons.residing in the U.S., including the undocumented.
3. All children residing in the U.S. must have access to public education.
4. Other essential public services should be available to all immigrants.
FEDERAL REIMBURSEMENT TO STATE.AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS 8
1. Federal reimbursement for refugee resettlement costs should be fully
funded.
2. The State Legalization Impact Assistance Grants (SLIAG) should be
extended and fully funded.
3. Federal tax revenues should be provided to support states and localities
most impacted by immigration.
ASYLUM POLICIES AND PROCEDURES 8
1. The U.S. is bound by international law to guarantee the right to seek
asylum in the U.S.
2. Asylum seekers have a constitutionally protected liberty interest in the
right to seek asylum which cannot be deprived without due process of law.
3. Any expedited or summary asylum procedure must contain due process
protections, including a "nonfrivolous" screening eligibility standard,judicial
review and rational detention.policies.
4. Asylum seekers must not be returned to countries of transit unless they are
firmly resettled in such countries.
Coalition for Immigrant & Refugee Rights & Services
S. Other administrative and legislative alternatives to asylum must also be
considered.
6.. The right of asylum seekers to challenge U.S. asylum policies as a class
must be preserved.
7. Asylum should be granted to asylum seekers persecuted because of gender
or sexual orientation.
BORDER ENFORCEMENT 10
1. Existing laws against illegal entry and violations of temporary visas should
be enforced.
2. An independent and effective civilian review of the U.S. Border Patrol and
the INS must be established.
3. All enforcement activities must meet constitutional requirements of due
process.
4. INS detention policies should be humane and equitable.
S. Existing laws and penalties against smuggling for profit should be
enforced.
6. Any border crossing,,toll must be applied at all borders and at ports of
entry to all nonimmigrants and the revenues. allocated among . all the
departments of the INS.
.K 7. The eligibility date for registry should be advanced to grant legal
immigration status to long-time residents of the U.S.
DEPORTATION OF CONVICTED CRIMINALS 12
1. Existing statutes provide for the immediate deportation of convicted
criminals.
2. Local law enforcement officials should not enforce federal civil
immigration laws.
3. Individuals in the U.S. convicted of serious crimes and found deportable
should only be deported to their countries of origin to complete their criminal
sentences if all appeals in the U.S. are exhausted and there are minimum
standards of humane treatment in the country of origin.
Coalition for Immigrant & Refugee Rights & Services
COALITION-FOR B511GRANT & REFUGEE RIGHTS & SERVICES
Principles for Discussion of U.S. Immigration Policy
RECOGNITION OF "PUSH" AND "PULL" FACTORS IN EVMGRATION
1. U.S. immigration policies must be viewed in a global context.
Immigration is not simply U.S. domestic policy. Immigration to the U.S. must be placed
in the context of world migration patterns, a global economy, the internationalization of
the U.S. work force, U.S. foreign policy and U.S. domestic demand for immigrant
labor. In addition to factors that "push" persons out of their countries, there are "pull"
factors that attract persons to the U.S. Many of these "push" and "pull" factors are
based on the networks of family and friends already in the U.S.
2. The U.S. influences political and economic conditions in many "sending" countries.
The U.S. influences political circumstances that create refugee and migrant flows.
Repression and human rights violations are important "push" factors. As demonstrated
by the recent multinational military interventions in Kuwait, Somalia and Bosnia, the
U.S. has influenced the United Nations to act to prevent further refugee flight. On the
other hand, past U.S. actions and foreign policy interests in countries such as Vietnam,
Laos, Cambodia, Nicaragua, F1 Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti and Iraq have also
contributed to the "push" of.refugees and migrants worldwide.
Similarly, the U.S. has powerful influence with Worldwide financial institutions and
multinational corporations that influence local economic conditions. The persistent
poverty and unequal distribution of wealth in certain-countries will continue to "push"
individuals out of their countries in search of better economic conditions and
opportunities. Without structural changes in the economies of these countries, these
"push" factors will persist. Some governments implicitly support the exportation of part
of their labor force, which then sends capital earned abroad to the home countries.
Enforcement efforts will always have a limited impact against these powerful "push"
factors.
3. There will be a continued reliance on new immigrant labor in the U.S. economy.
Economic pressures encourage immigration as a short-term solution to labor needs rather
than making investments in long-term education and training of U.S. workers. Certain
industries, e.g., agribusinesses, garment manufacturing, food production and hotel and
restaurants, will continue to rely on immigrant labor because immigrants have provided
low-skilled labor at relatively lower wages. The continued profitability of these
industries will continue to be dependent on the availability of immigrant labor. There
also is a continued demand for some skilled and other professional immigrant workers
such as nurses to fill certain labor shortages. The U.S. economy in general, with
Coalition for Immigrant & Refugee Rights & Services Page 1
declining birthrates and a shrinking labor force, also will become increasingly dependent
on younger, tax'=paying immigrant workers to support the retirement benefits of.an aging
population. These strong economic "pull" factors also must be considered in discussions •.,
about U.S. immigration policy.
4. U.S. trade policies must include consideration of the impact of trade policies on
immigration to the U.S.
U.S. trade policies, including the granting of Most Favored Nation Status, the General
Agreement on Trade and Tariffs and the North American Free Trade Agreement, must
be established in the context of a global economy and global migration. For example,
such agreements can provide the context for improving human and civil rights conditions
in certain "sending" countries. Other agreements can address the economic conditions
that "push" migrants out of their countries. Such agreements should.ensure the free
movement of migrants as well as capital. As recent discussions on trade focus on U.S.-
Mexico relations, a binational commission should be convened to"examine the
interdependence of the U.S. and Mexican economies and the effect of U.S. immigration
policies on those economies and make appropriate recommendations for changes in U.S.
immigration policies.
HISTORICAL RACIAL AND NATIONAL ORIGIN DISCRIlVIINATION IN U.S.
MNUGRATION LAW AND POLICY HAVE NOT YET BEEN REDRESSED
1. The history of racial and national origin discrimination in U.S. immigration law and
policy continues to the present.
One of the first U.S. immigration laws was the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, which
excluded Chinese immigration solely on the basis of race and national origin. The Quota
Laws of 1921 and 1924 were passed to stop the shift in immigration from northern and
` western Europe to eastern and southern Europe.. Racial and national origin based
exclusionary laws against Asians and Mexicans persisted until 1943. Restrictions on
Asian and Mexican immigration were not lifted until 1965, resulting in the first
generation of immigrants from those countries. Despite the increasing number of
immigrants from some of these countries, Asian Americans still remain only 3% of the
U.S. population while Latinos are only 9%. Immigration from Africa remains at only 1%
of the total number of immigrants admitted each year. In 1990, only 8'% of the U.S.
population was foreign-born in contrast to 14% in 1910.
Today, the national origin quotas still result in longer backlogs for family reunification
for individuals from Mexico, the Philippines, China, India and the Dominican Republic.
Some of the backlogs are as long as sixteen years for family reunification. Nonetheless,
Congress passed the misnamed "diversity" lottery in 1990, allowing 40,000 individuals
to immigrate to the U.S. (including at least 16,000 from Ireland) annually without regard
to family or needed employment skills in the U.S.
Coalition for Immigrant & Refugee Rights & Services Page 2
2. There is racial and foreign policy bias in U.S. refugee policy.
The U.S. has admitted thousands of refugees since 1980 but very few refugees from
Africa, the continent where the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees counts
the most number of refugees. Cubans interdicted off the Florida coast are welcomed as
refugees while Haitians are now summarily returned to Haiti without any inquiry
regarding their refugee claims. Poles and other Eastern Europeans were welcomed as
refugees in the 1980's while Salvadorans were deported to conditions of persecution.
This disparate treatment reflects a deep-rooted bias in favor of persons fleeing
Communist regimes.
CITIZENSHIP
1. The U.S. should continue to grant citizenship by birth and naturalization rather
than defining citizenship by blood relationships.
Children with undocumented parents who are born in the U.S. should continue to
recognized as U.S. citizens. In countries in which citizenship is determined by blood
rather than birth (e.g. Germany and Japan), there is extreme racial divisiveness and a
permanent disenfranchised underclass. The Civil War was fought and the 14th
Amendment was passed to reject any system based upon a quantification of how much
blood ("free" vs. "slave") entitled an individual to U.S. citizenship.
2. The long backlogs in naturalization must be reduced.
In Northern California, it currently takes between one and two years after application to
become a U.S. citizen. Such delays not only discourage applicants but create longer
waits for family reunification, which often results in "illegal" immigration by family
members who cannot wait. More resources must be provided to restore credibility and
integrity in the citizenship process.
3. Citizenship and English as a Second Language should be promoted in immigrant
communities.
Many permanent residents have not applied for citizenship because of the delays and lack
of community resources to assist them. There have been severe budget cuts and continue
to be long waiting lists for enrollment in English as a Second Language classes. Over
one and a half million Californians who became permanent residents through the 1986
legalization programs will become eligible for citizenship in the next few years. Public
and private efforts to promote citizenship and learning English, including state legislation
that would establish citizenship centers (AB 1791), should be encouraged and supported.
4. The residency period to qualify for naturalization should be changed to three years.
Under current immigration law, the spouse of a U.S. citizen may apply for naturalization
within three years. This residency period of three rather than five years should apply to
Coalition for Immigrant & Refugee Rights & Services Page 3
�i
all permanent residents seeking naturalization. This change would facilitate family I
reunification.
PANIIGRATION AND FANULY REUNIFICATION
1. Family reunification must remain the core of our immigration law.
Many draw a distinction between "legal" and "illegal" immigration. However, "legal"
immigration is illusory for many family members of U.S. permanent residents and U.S.
citizens. There is a two and a half year backlog for spouses and minor children of
permanent residents to reunite with their families. The wait for the brothers and sisters
of U.S. citizens is currently nine and a half years for most, twelve years for Mexicans
and sixteen and a half years for Filipinos. Many "illegal" immigrants are residing in the
U.S. with family members who are U.S. citizens or permanent residents. If there is to E
be genuine immigration reform, these family reunification categories must be preserved Y
and the current backlogs must be decreased.
2. The spouses and minor, unmarried children of permanent residents should be
allowed to immigrate as immediate relatives rather than waiting two years for family
reunification.
Although the 1990 Immigration Act provided more immigrant visas for the spouses and
minor children of permanent residents, the current backlog remains at two and a half
years. That backlog is expected to increase to as much as nine years after October 1994.
Spouses and minor, unmarried children should be considered as immediate relatives
without any waiting period.to obtain an immigrant visa.
3. The spouses and minor children of individuals who became permanent residents
through the 1986 legalization program should be immediatelyreunited with their
family members.
Only those spouses and minor children who entered the U.S. before the arbitrary cutoff
date of May 1988 are eligible for the Family Unity program, which provides them a stay
of deportation and a work permit until their two and a half year waiting. period for
adjustment to permanent residence is completed. That eligibility date should be changed
to include all those spouses and minor children now present in the U.S.
4. Battered immigrant women should be allowed to, apply for permanent residences
without reliance on their abusive U.S. citizen or permanent resident husbands.
Domestic violence occurs in one-quarter to one-half of all marriages in the U.S.,
regardless of race, national origin or class. However, under current immigration law,
battered immigrant women and children often are trapped in the abusive relationship until
the batterer assists them in obtaining legal immigration status. Fear of deportation or
losing custody of her children prevents many of these battered immigrant women from
calling the police, obtaining a restraining order or going to a shelter.
Coalition for Immigrant & Refugee Rights & Services Page 4
Title H, subtitle C of the Violence Against Women Act(H.R. 1133)would allow battered
immigrant women and their children to apply for permanent residence without reliance
on their abusive citizen or permanent resident husbands. The Violence Against Women
Act should be enacted.
5. The exclusion of HIV seropositive individuals under the immigration law should be
repealed.
Both international and national public health authorities agree that there is no danger to
the public health posed by immigrants with HIV. Over 75% of the persons subject to
the HIV exclusion are already in the U.S. HIV seropositive individuals who already
meet the stringent requirements for permanent residence in the U.S. should be allowed
to reunite with their families and loved ones and to remain in the U.S.
6. Waivers of exclusion and deportation for document fraud should be available to
individuals with family members in the U.S.
In 1990, Congress enacted legislation that can result in the deportation and permanent
exclusion from the U.S. of individuals determined to have used false or fraudulent
documents for any immigration law-related purpose. A discretionary waiver of such
harsh consequences for individuals with family members in the U.S. should be enacted.
7. Unused immigrant visas from the employment categories should be available in the
family reunification categories.
In 1990, Congress changed the categories and increased the number of employment-based
immigrant visas to over 160,000 a year. Since the implementation of those changes,
many of those employment-based immigrant visas have been unused. Any unused
employment visas in a particular year should be reallocated to the family reunification
categories.
ENFORCEMENT OF LABOR LAWS
1. Employers who exploit immigrant workers must be vigorously prosecuted for
violations of wage and hour, safety and tax laws.
Undocumented workers are vulnerable to exploitation by employers who may violate
wage and hour, safety and tax laws with impunity knowing that the workers will be
reluctant to report such violations. Vigorous enforcement of these federal and state laws
without regard to the immigration status of the workers will remove the incentive for
employers to exploit immigrant workers. Working conditions will ultimately improve,
making such jobs more attractive and viable for native-born workers. Whistle-blowing
workers who complain about such labor law violations must be protected from retaliation,
including the threat of deportation.
2. All workers, regardless of immigration status, must have the right to organize,
Coalition for Immigrant & Refugee Rights & Services Page 5
strike and be reinstated and the right to be free from retaliation, deportation or
interference by,the INS in organizing or strike activities.
I
Without the right to organize, undocumented workers will become an unprotected
subclass of workers, vulnerable to exploitation. Employers can use the threat of
deportation or actual collaboration of the INS to thwart workers' rights that will
adversely affect the working conditions of all U.S. workers.
G
3. The employer sanctions imposed by the Immigration Reform and Control Act of
1986 (IBCA) must be repealed because they are ineffective in deterring illegal
gration, impose an unreasonable burden on employers and result in .
employment discrimination against U.S. citizens and other legal residents who look
or sound foreign.
The General Accounting Office concluded in 1990 that the federal employer sanctions
provisions had resulted in widespread employment discrimination against"U.S. citizens
and other legal residents. One out of every five employers was found to engage in
employment discrimination as a result of employer sanctions. In 1990, the California
Fair Employment and Housing Commission also found widespread employment
discrimination in California as a result of the implementation of employer sanctions.
4.: More resources for the enforcement of the IRCA employment sanctions or state
employer sanctions legislation, including asset forfeiture provisions, will only result
in increased employment discrimination without affecting illegal immigration.
U.S. taxpayers already have spent millions of•dollars on training the INS and educating
employers about employer sanctions. After seven years, employer sanctions have not
had their intended effect on controlling illegal immigration while employment
discrimination caused by employer sanctions persists. It is time to end this costly and
unnecessary experiment.
5. Federal and state laws against employment discrimination must be vigorously
enforced.
The federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Office of Special Counsel
for Unfair Immigration-Related Employment Practices and the Califomia,Department of
Fair Employment and Housing are understaffed and overwhelmed by their backlogs of
cases. Immigrants and refugees, as well as all workers, need speedy and effective
remedies against employment discrimination based on race, national origin, ancestry,
citizenship and gender.
6. A national identification card is unnecessary, prohibitively expensive and would
violate the civil rights of all Americans.
Requiring a national identification card for either employment or health care would be
extremely costly, would raise serious concerns about maintaining privacy and would
Coalition for Immigrant & Refugee Rights & Services Page 6
result in new forms of discrimination against those who look or sound "foreign." The
Social Security Administration has repeatedly stated that it cannot guarantee the reliability
of using Social Security numbers as a national identifier and that the cost of re-issuing
secure cards would be exorbitant. Once a national identification card is established, it
can be abused by other government and private agencies to screen out certain individuals
from services and benefits. For example, a national health identification card could
contain or access confidential information about one's health status.
7. All workers must have the right to unemployment insurance. benefits, workers'
compensation and disability benefits for job-related injuries, and, other employee
benefits such as pensions.
Employee benefits which are funded by employer and worker contributions should be
available to all workers regardless of immigration status.
ACCESS TO PUBLIC SERVICES
1. All indigent persons residing in the U.S.must have access to emergency and prenatal
health care.
Sound public health policies are in the interest of all. At a minimum, all persons
residing in the U.S. should have access to emergency and prenatal health care. Prenatal
health care is the type of essential preventative care that will save money, up to three
future dollars saved for every preventative dollar spent. The current federal Medicaid
law actually saves state and local governments money by providing federal
reimbursement for emergency medical care costs. Without such a federal mandate, these
costs would still be incurred but solely by state and.local governments.
2. Any national health care reform plan must guarantee access to health care for all
persons residing in the U.S., including the undocumented.
National health care reform will only be effective if there is truly universal access to
health care, i.e., all residents of the U.S. have access to basic health care. If employers
are mandated to provide health care to their employees, that mandate must apply to
undocumented workers. Studies of legalized immigrants showed that as many as 45%
of undocumented workers have private health insurance. At a minimum, all persons,
regardless of immigration status, must have access to emergency, prenatal and
immunization services, as currently available under Medicaid. Finally, any health care
reform plan must ensure that there is linguistic and cultural access to health care.
3. All children residing in the U.S. must have access to public education.
In 1982, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Plyer v. Doe that all children, including
undocumented children, had a federal constitutional right to a public education. Forcing
children out of public schools, which are financially supported by their tax-paying parents
and family members, will not affect illegal immigration and will only exacerbate existing
Coalition for Immigrant & Refugee Rights & Services Page 7
i
f
illiteracy and juvenile delinquency rates. t
I
4 Other essential public services should be available to all immigrants.
k
Whether or not they are documented, immigrants are part of their local communities. It
is in the interest of the health and safety of a community that all its residents comply with
local regulations and participate in their communities. Thus, licenses, permits and other '
f
essential government services should be accessible to all residents regardless of
immigration status.
FEDERAL REEMBURSEMENT TO STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS ;
f
1 Federal-reimbursement for refugee resettlement costs should be fully funded.
3,
In ,1980, Congress committed federal reimbursement for refugee resettlement costs for
thirty-six months. That federal reimbursement has been reduced to between eight and
zero months for various refugee resettlement programs. The level of federal
reimbursement should be restored to thirty-six months. Other federal funds targeted for
job training for refugees also should be maintained.
2. The State Legalization Impact Assistance Grants (SLIAG) should be extended and
fully funded.
In the Immigration Control and Reform Act of 1986 (IBCA), Congress authorized up to
$4 billion in federal government reimbursements to state and local governments for
education; health and welfare costs incurred.by individuals legalized under IRCA but
Congress has only appropriated $2.7 billion for-SLIAG. The time period for SLIAG
expenses should be extended and all the authorized 'funds fully appropriated.
3'. Federal tax revenues should be provided to support states and localities most
impacted by immigration.
Most of the taxes paid by immigrants and refugees are federal taxes while most public
services used by immigrants and refugees are dependent on state and local revenues.
Some of these federal revenues should be made available to those few states and localities
most impacted by federal immigration policies to offset their costs of public services.
ASYLUM POLICIES AND PROCEDURES
1. The U.S. is bound by international law to guarantee the right to seek asylum in the
U.S.
In 1968, the U.S. ratified the United Nations Protocol on Refugees and then implemented
these international refugee standards by enacting the Refugee Act of 1980. Under the UN
Protocol, the United States has assumed an international obligation not to return
individuals to a country where their lives or freedom would be threatened on account of
Coalition for Immigrant & Refugee Rights & Services Page 8
V • I
I
race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion.
The UN Protocol also establishes a definition of a refugee based on a well founded fear
of persecution on account of one of the protected grounds. Under international law,
these asylum decisions are to be made free from foreign policy concerns. The U.S.
should not retreat from its already delayed implementation of international refugee law.
Proposals requiring asylum seekers immediately to present their claims within arbitrary
time limits should be rejected.
i
2. Asylum seekers have a constitutionally protected liberty interest in the right to seek
asylum which cannot be deprived without due process of law.
Asylum seekers have the right to due process, including the right to counsel (at no
expense to the government), the right to an interpreter, the right to an impartial and
trained adjudicator, the right to a written record of the proceedings for the purpose of
appellate review, and the right to at least one level of judicial review by the federal
courts.
An asylum seeker faces great difficulties in presenting his or her application for asylum.
It is critical that asylum seekers have statutory procedural guarantees to a fair
adjudication of their asylum applications. Due process also requires at least one level
of independent and impartial review before the asylum seeker is involuntarily deported
to the country where the alleged persecution took place. Under our current judicial
system, such a review can only be guaranteed by the federal courts. While critical to
due process, such judicial review is rare under the current asylum procedure and not
subject to abuse.
3. Any expedited or summary asylum procedure must contain due process protections,
including a "nonfrivolous"screening eligibility standard,judicial review and rational
detention policies.
Expedited/summary asylum processing is being proposed for asylum seekers who present
fraudulent or no documents when they arrive at airports and other ports of entry.
However, such procedures are unlikely to deter an abusive or fraudulent applicant while
erroneously screening out genuine refugees. The use of fraudulent documents may be
the only way some asylum seekers can safely leave their countries. Often, their
persecutors aregovernment officials from whom they cannot secure passports and visas.
The screening standard for any proposed expedited/summary asylum procedures should
use a "frivolous" or "manifestly unfounded or abusive" standard of proof. A proposed
"credible fear of persecution" screening standard is too burdensome and legally
confusing. It would require a refugee, still traumatized by the persecution suffered, to
demonstrate a "substantial likelihood" of eligibility for refugee status upon arrival. The
"frivolous" screening standard has been used effectively by the INS for screening asylum
seekers for employment authorization purposes. According to INS statistics,
approximately 17% of asylum cases were determined by the INS to be "frivolous." In
addition, several INS memos and court decisions have defined the "frivolous" standard
Coalition for Immigrant & Refugee Rights & Services Page 9
while any new standard would inevitably be subject to costly and time-consuming legal
challenges.
At a minimum, due process requires access to counsel, an interpreter, a written record
of the proceedings, trained and impartial adjudicators and judicial review. Given the
literal life and death consequences of asylum adjudications, these procedural rights must
be statutory protected.
Current INS policies already provide for the indefinite detention and expedited
adjudication of asylum applications from asylum seekers who are stopped at the border
or port of entry. However, some have called for the automatic detention of all such
asylum seekers under an expedited/summary procedure. Such proposals are costly,
punitive and unnecessary. Rather than detaining asylum seekers indiscriminately, the
INS only should detain those individuals who pose a serious risk of flight and a danger
to the community. The INS has recently established an asylum pre-screening program
that provides for the release from detention of those asylum seekers with-credible claims
who are unlikely to abscond and do not pose a threat to the community. Similar
detention screening guidelines should be preserved.
4. Asylum seekers must not be returned to countries of transit unless they are firmly
resettled in such countries.
Both international law and U.S. court decisions recognize that asylum seekers often travel
through several countries before seeking safe haven. Unless an asylum seeker is "firmly
resettled" in a third country, the U.S. should adjudicate his or her asylum application.
The U.S. should not shift'its responsibility for providing asylum to other countries.
5. Other administrative and legislative alternatives to asylum must also be considered.
Any asylum "reform" will be thwarted by the current backlog of asylum cases resulting
from past INS policies. There are administrative and legislative alternatives that could
reduce that backlog, e.g., adjustment of status for the American Baptist Churches cases,
the Salvadoran Deferred Enforced Departure (DED) cases or post-September 1991
Haitian cases, or granting Temporary Protected Status (TPS) to Guatemalans.
6. The right of asylum seekers to challenge U.S. asylum policies as a class must be
preserved.
As a result of unlawful actions by the INS, there have been numerous successful
challenges to specific INS policies and practices regarding asylum seekers. Asylum
seekers should not be denied access to the courts to challenge classwide policies and
practices by the INS that violate their statutory and constitutional rights.
Coalition for Immigrant & Refugee Rights & Services Page to
7. Asylum should be granted to asylum seekers persecuted because of gender or sexual
orientation.
Women, gays and lesbians have raised asylum claims based on gender and sexual
orientation. The INS and the immigration courts should recognize these claims based on
social group and political opinion grounds.
BORDER ENFORCE
1. Existing laws 'against illegal entry and violations of temporary visas should be
enforced.
The U.S. has the right to preserve the integrity of its territorial boundaries. However,
there should be fair and equitable procedures for those seeking admission for political,
economic or family unification reasons. Enforcement resources should target visa abuse
by those temporarily in-the U.S. as well as efforts at the border preventing individuals
from entering the U.S.
2. An independent and effective civilian review of the U.S. Border Patrol and the INS
must be established.
In 1990, Congress expanded the authority of the Border Patrol and other INS officials
to carry firearms and use deadly force, without any oversight. The American Friends
Service Committee has documented hundreds of cases of abuse of authority by the Border
Patrol. For example, in 1992, Border Patrol Agent Michael Elmer fatally shot an
immigrant in the back and then tried to hide the body. Elmer was acquitted of criminal
murder charges and never disciplined.
Without civilian review, increasing the number of Border Patrol agents or using the
National Guard or U.S. military to patrol the border 'will only result in further abuses
because of lack of training, supervision and effective review of abuses. Legislation
(H.R. 2119) that would establish such civilian review of the Border Patrol must be
enacted before there are any additional increases in enforcement resources for the INS.
3. All enforcement activities must meet constitutional requirements of due process.
The INS must be bound by constitutional standards for its arrests and other enforcement
activities. The INS should not detain or arrest individuals solely on the basis of national
origin or appearance. For example, the INS should not engage in general street sweeps
in immigrant communities or raid private homes withoutvalid arrest warrants. Similarly,
the INS should only make arrests at places of employment with valid arrest warrants
naming the specific individuals to be arrested.
Coalition for Immigrant & Refugee Rights & Services Page ll
4. INS detention policies should be humane and equitable.
Only individuals who pose a risk of flight and a danger to the community should be
detained by the INS. In addition, the INS should release minors to the custody of adult
relatives and others such as church-sponsored agencies.
5. Existing laws and penalties against smuggling for profit should be enforced.
There already are harsh penalties for smuggling: up to five years imprisonment for each
person smuggled. In addition, existing statutes provide for the seizure and forfeiture of
vessels, vehicles and aircraft used in smuggling. These existing laws are currently
effective: for example, every crew member of the boats carrying Chinese nationals was
fi arrested and remains in federal prison today.
There is no evidence that increased penalties would have any additional,deterrent effect
on professional smuggling. If there are increased penalties for smuggling, they must be
limited to smuggling for profit or financial gain rather than applied to those seeking to
reunite with their families or escape persecution. In addition, there has been no evidence
demonstrating the necessity of providing the INS with wiretap and other covert
surveillance authority. Finally, asset forfeiture provisions must be implemented with due
process.
6. Any border crossing toll must be applied at all borders and at ports of entry to all
nonimmigrants and the revenues allocated among all the departments of the INS.
Border tolls will neither deter illegal immigration nor raise sufficient revenue for
enforcement. However, if adopted, a $1 border crossing toll must be applied at both the
Mexico-U.S. and the Canada-U.S. border as well as all airports and international ports.
In 1992, the INS reported that 330 million foreign travelers, including 56 million airline `
passengers, entered the U.S.
Other divisions of the INS, especially the "service" divisions, have been traditionally
underfunded. While the INS recently has raised application fees to increase revenue for
these divisions, the money is inevitably diverted to enforcement, leaving applicants with
higher fees and even less "service." In addition, many INS border enforcement
resources are:diverted to other functions such as drug interdiction. The revenue raised
by any border toll should be allocated equitably to all divisions of the INS rather than
only to enforcement.
7. The eligibility date for registry should be advanced to grant legal immigration status
to long-time residents of the U.S.
Under the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA), Congress recognized the
need to balance additional enforcement provisions (employer sanctions) with some
provision for the legalization of those long-term residents already in the U.S. Thus,
IBCA established a legalization program for individuals in the U.S. before January 1982
Coalition for Immigrant & Refugee Rights & Services Page 12
(a date nearly five years before IRCA's enactment) and advanced the eligibility date for
registry to January 1972 (a date nearly fifteen years before IRCA's date of enactment).
Today, in 1993, registry is now limited to those residing in the U.S. for nearly twenty-
two years. If there are to be additional border enforcement measures and an increase in
enforcement resources, the registry eligibility date should be advanced to grant legal
immigration status to long-term residents already in the U.S. to avoid the creation of a
permanent underclass of long-time U.S. residents.
DEPORTATION OF CONVICTED CRBI]NALS
1. Existing statutes provide for the immediate deportation of convicted criminals.
Under the immigration law, an individual convicted of a serious or "aggravated felony"
is subject to deportation hearings while still in state custody and if found deportable, may
be deported immediately upon completion of the criminal sentence. Local law
enforcement officials are required to report these convictions to the INS to facilitate the
deportation process. These existing provisions should be enforced consistent with due
process protections.
2. Local law enforcement officials should not enforce federal civil immigration laws.
Most violations of immigration law are civil violations. Most of the criminal provisions
of the immigration law are limited to smuggling, transporting and harboring
undocumented individuals. The determination of whether an individual is deportable is
a complex one that can only be made by an Immigration Judge after a deportation
hearing. Local law enforcement officials do' nqt:have the training, knowledge or
resources to make decisions based on perceived immigration status._ Such local officials
should not inquire about or report an individual's immigration status unless specifically
required by a federal or state law.
3. Individuals in.the U.S. convicted of serious crimes and found deportable should only
be deported to their countries of origin to complete their criminal sentences if all
appeals in the U.S. are exhausted and there are minimum standards of humane
treatment in the country of origin.
U.S. treaties could allow for the reciprocal exchange of U.S. citizens convicted of crimes
abroad and noncitizens in the U.S. convicted of serious crimes and found deportable.
However, such arrangements should only be implemented after the individual has
completed or exhausted all appeals of both the criminal conviction and the deportation
order and there are guarantees of minimum standards of humane treatment of prisoners
in the country of origin.
Coalition for Immigrant & Refugee Rights & Services Page 13
ATTAMMENT #6
N(lift
NATIONAL COUNQL OF 1A RAYA
ADVOCATE'S
"QUICK REFERENCE" GUIDE
TO
(
IABUG-RATION RESEARCH
Prepared by:
Claudia Jasixk
Immigration Policy Research Associate
i
r
� I
Policy Analysis Center
Office of Research, Advocacy, and Legislation
! National Council of La Raza
Raul Yzaguirre i
I President
i
j
i
810 First Street, N.E.
Suite 300
Washington, D.C. 20002
Telephone: (202) 289-1380
Fax: (202) 289-8173
'E; I
i
m Copyright, August 1993, NCLR
wl;rr. 0
��'
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The author wishes to thank National Council of La Raza (NCLR) Senior Immigration
Policy Analyst Cecilia Munoz for her advice and support. Administrative Assistant Marcus
Johnson assisted greatly with the formatting of this guide.
The author also wishes to thank Demetrios Papademetriou, Senior Associate at the
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, for his insightful comments, and substantive
review of this guide. Finally, the author thanks Frank Sharry, Executive Director of the
National Immigration Forum, for his guidance and help.
This guide was made possible by funding from the MacArthur Foundation and the
Rockefeller.Foundation, who provide support to NCLR's Policy Analysis Center. The views
and opinions expressed are those of the author and NCLR, and not necessarily those of the
report's funders.
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Acknowledgments i
How to Use This Guide 2
Costs and Benefits Associated with Immigrants 3
Health Care and Immigrants 5
Use of Public Services by Immigrants 6
Undocumented Immigrants 8
Economic Impact of Immigrants 10
Effects of Immigrants on Other Workers 11
Impact of Immigration on U.S. Labor Market 12
Effects of Immigrants on Wages 13
Impact of Immigrants on Employment
Opportunities and Unemployment Rate 14
Effects of Immigration on Earnings 15
Labor Force Expansion 16
Job Creation 16
Competition and Revitalization of Industries 17
Education and Skill Levels of Immigrants 18
Immigrant and Native Labor Forces 19
Integration into Society 20
Bibliography 22
ii
HOW TO USE THIS GUIDE
Immigration has become the subject of a major policy discussion, with participants
ranging from newspaper and television reporters, to academics, to policy makers with
varying levels of expertise. Notable in the current debate is a profound lack of accurate
information on this complex issue. The same polls which indicate that most respondents
think the U.S. should accept fewer immigrants also show that these same respondents have
little direct experience with immigrants, and are overwhelmingly misinformed about who
most immigrants are.
The National Council of La Raza (NCLR) has prepared the Advocate's "Quick
Reference* Guide to Immigration Research as a tool for advocates in the immigration`debate
to use in their daily efforts to dispel the many myths about immigrants and present reliable
information about the various effects of immigration. The Guide is not a comprehensive
compilation of all the research done on immigration. Rather, it is a survey of the most
credible studies conducted over the past ten years on the issues which figure most .
prominently in the current debate. In addition, only the most relevant and applicable
conclusions have been pulled out of each study.
The Guide is divided into several sections covering three general areas: costs and
benefits associated with immigrants, economic impact of immigrants, and social integration
of newcomers. Several sources are used in each section, and complete references can be
found in the bibliography.
NCLR hopes that the attached information is useful in;bringing accurate information
to the table in the interest of a rational, constructive debate on immigration policy.
2
COSTS AND BENEFITS ASSOCIATED WITH
EMIIGRANTS
Assessing the costs and benefits associated with immigration is perhaps the most
complex area of the immigration policy debate and the subject of a broad range of academic
research. The spectrum of conclusions ranges from studies which suggest that immigrants
cost billions of dollars more than they contribute, to those which argue the exact opposite.
The most credible research, however, falls somewhere between these extremes. . In general,
analyses of cost and benefit data compare use of public benefits with tax revenues associated
with immigration and conclude that most of the revenues go to the federal government, while
costs are borne primarily by states and localities with large immigrant populations. (See
sections.on use of public services andthe economic impact of immigrants for additional data
on costs and benefits of immigration.)
Julian Simon
Michael Mandel and Christopher
How Do Immigrants Affect Us Economically?, Farrell, "The Immigrants," Business
1985 Week, July 13, 1992
Undocumented immigrants pay five to ten times Immigrants collectively earn $240 billion a
more in taxes than the costs of services they use. year, pay$90 billion a year in taxes, and
receive $5 billion in welfare. Two-thirds
of the taxes paid by immigrants goes to the
The Economic Consequences of Immigration, federal government in the form of social
1989 security and income taxes (1986
RAND/1984 Weintraub and Cardenas).
Immigrants contribute on average $1,300 or
more per year to the public coffers. This is a
result of the fact that a large proportion of
immigrants are in prime labor force ages and
that a small proportion of immigrants are older Kevin McCarthy and R. Burciaga
than 65. Valdez, Current and Future Effects of
Mexican Immigration in California, May
In a 1990 American Immigration'Institute Survey 1986
of economists (ex-Presidents of the American
Economic Association and then-members of the In California, taxes paid by immigrants are
Council of Economic Advisors), four out of five greater than the costs of public services
said that immigrants had a favorable impact on used by them, excluding education.
economic growth. None said that immigrants
had an adverse impact on economic growth.
George Borjas, Friends or Strangers, 1990 z
Although in 1979 total welfare payments to
immigrant households were slightly higher than
welfare payments to native households, this Sidney Weintraub, "Illegal Immigrants
difference is due to immigrants' different in Texas: Impact on Social Services and
residential locations and relatively unfavorable Related Considerations," International
socioeconomic characteristics. (Note: Bodas Migration Review, Vol. 18, No. 3, 1984
does not define what he means by "different
residential locations." We assume that he means In Texas, taxes paid by the undocumented
''immigrants are disproportionately concentrated were greater than the costs to the state of
in California which has more generous welfare providing public services (education,
policies than other states.) health, corrections, and welfare)`:
Estimated cost: $97 million(high)-.$50
million(low). Estimated revenue: $277
million(high)-$171 million(low).
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1985
Immigrants come here to work, not to go on
welfare, and use substantially less services than
people born in the U.S.
Thomas Muller and Thomas Espenshade, The Fourth Wave, 1985
In California, all natives and immigrants fall into the same pattern: they often pay less in taxes than the
cost of services used. This is in great part a result of the progressive ingome tax. That is, those with
lower incomes pay less in taxes and tend to use more services.
Mexican immigrant households receive less than average amounts of public welfare from the state than
the typical household in Los Angeles ($251 versus $575). Excluding education, immigrant households
received less in social services than did native households in Los Angeles: $1,077 versus $1,459.
(Social services include public welfare;health care and hospitals; highways; legislative,judicial; and
executive functions; state prisons; state consumer services; debt services, and assistance to businesses).
* This study was conducted in the midst of an economic boom in California. While the data clearly
demonstrate that immigrates contributed more than they took in benefits during this period, it is possible
that die levels of costs and benefits associated with immigrants vary according to the economic climate.
4
HEALTH CARE AND BIMIGR ANTS =
The national debate on health care reform has stimulated a discussion on the use of
publicly-funded health care services by immigrants. The following reports specify exactly
which categories of immigrants are eligible for medical services funded by Medicaid, and
describe specific use of these services by newly-legalized immigrants during the last year that
they were in the United States without legal immigration status. Consistent with the data on
the use of other public benefits by immigrants, studies on immigrants and health care show
that, even immigrants who are eligible for federally-funded services use them much less than
the general population. For example, despite the fact that undocumented are eligible for
emergency care services funded through Medicaid, in the year before their application for
legalization, only 21% of the legalized alien population's health care was paid for by
Medicare/Medicaid and 4% of their health care was paid through free care. In addition,
47% of the legalized alien population's stays were totally or partially paid.for by private
insurance and 45% by self or family.. In addition, because health care and prescription
medications are less expensive in Mexico, there is substantial evidence showing that,
contray to the conventional wisdom, immigrants and U.S. citizens living in border
communities cross into Mexico to seek affordable health care.
Families USA Foundation, Going to
U.S. Department of Justice, Immigration and Mexico:Priced Out of American Health
Naturalization Service, Report on the Legalized Care, November 1992
Alien Population, 1992
This survey of 242 Mexican doctors and
In the 12 months before their application were 300 persons in communities on the U.S.
submitted for legalization,25% of the legalized side of the border found the following:
alien population's health care cost was paid for
by the government(21% by Medicare/Medicaid ! The physicians and individuals surveyed
and 4% through free care by the hospital). This said that it is common for Americans from
is significantly less than the 53% of all hospital communities surveyed to go to Mexico for
care in the U.S. in 1986 which was government health care.
funded.
• 99% of the Mexican physicians
surveyed have treated U.S. patients; 90%
of those who went to Mexico were either
U.S. citizens or permanent residents.
National Immigration Law Center, Guide to
Alien Eligibility for Federal Programs, 1992 • The main reason people go to Mexico
for health care is cost. Physicians' fees
Legal permanent residents, refugees, asylees, and brand name prescription drugs are
persons permanently residing in the U.S. under substantially cheaper in Mexico than in the
color of law, and amnesty applicants 65 and U.S. Physicians' fees in the U.S. are two
over, disabled, or under 18 are the only persons and a half times as expensive as in Mexico
who are eligible for services funded by and brand name prescription drugs in the
Medicaid. Other amnesty applicants and family U.S. are three times as expensive as in
unity applicants are not eligible for Medicaid Mexico.
until 5 years after the date of application.
Finally, persons with temporary protected status • Half of the people who said they went
or undocumented status are eligible only for to Mexico were insured. Of these, about
emergency medical services funded by 42% had insurance through their employer.
Medicaid. They went to Mexico to save on costs for
uncovered services or for services which
require deductible or copayments.
5
USE. OF PUBLIC SERVICES BY IMMIGRANTS
The government provides cash benefits as a temporary safety net for people who
otherwise make contributions to society. Though there is a great deal of discussion
concerning the costs associated with providing public benefits to immigrants, their actual use
of public services is lower than the native population and is consistent with the general
purpose of such programs. This is explained at least in part by the fact that legal immigrants
must prove, to the satisfaction of the U.S. government, that they are "not likely to become a
public charge" before they are granted an immigrant visa. Undocumented immigrants are
unlikely to approach government authorities for services for fear of being discovered. The
one group of newcomers who receive cash assistance from the federal government is
refugees, who are resettled from abroad. The government provides this assistance
temporarily in order to provide a means for refugees to become economically self-sufficient.
George Borjas, Friends or Strangers,
1990
Because welfare payments (Aid to Families
with Dependent Children, old-age
'Michael Mandel and Christopher Farrell, assistance, general assistance, and
"The Immigrants," Business Week, July 13, supplemental security income) to a family
1992 are relatively inexpensive and because
.immigrants are a small fraction of the U.S.
In 1980, 8.8% of immigrant households received population,new immigrants are unlikely to
welfare as compared to 7.9% of native-born have a major impact on welfare
households. expenditures.
In Los Angeles County, 16% of people on Aid
to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC)
are immigrants, while immigrants make up 30%
of the county's population.
Greenwood, et al., U.S. Department of
Labor, Bureau of International Affairs,
The Labor Market Consequences of U.S.
Immigration: A Survey, August 1990
California State Department of Finance, 1991-
92 All else being equal, immigrant families
are less dependent on welfare and receive
Immigrants make up 22% of California's lower levels of welfare payments than
population, but are only 12% of AFDC natives families.
recipients.
Welfare payments to immigrant male-
headed households were the same as those
to native male-headed households. For
immigrant female-headed households,
transfer payments were 8% less than those
to native female-headed households.
Marta Tienda and Leif Jensen, Immigration Chris Hogeland and Karen Rosen, Dreams
and Public Assistance Participation:Dispelling Lost, Dreams Found Undocumented
the Myth of Dependency, June 1985 Women in the Land of Opportunity (A
Survey Research Project of Chinese, Filipina
Immigrants are less likely than natives to and Latina Undocumented Women), 1991
become dependent on welfare. Recent
immigrants do not use welfare at a higher rate In San Francisco, 23% of undocumented
than.,immigrants who have already been in the Latina women surveyed had U.S. children
U.S, for some time (except for refugees who eligible for AFDC, and only 5% accessed
receive cash assistance from the federal these benefits. Fear of being reported to the
government when they are resettled from INS was the reason 64% of the women
abroad). surveyed did not seek any social services, and
29% of the women surveyed never looked for
Francine Blau found in 1984 that immigrant any services.
families are less dependent on welfare income
than native families with similar socioeconomic
characteristics.
Family income of immigrants is less than native Tom Coifman and Helena Sundman,
family income by $1,700 to$3;800, except for "Refugee Agencies Dodge Funding Crisis,"
Black and spouse-absent White families. One Chicago Reporter, April 1993
would expect significantly higher participation by
immigrants in public assistance programs than Because public services are aimed at helping
natives; however, participation in public refugees become self-sufficient, the service
assistance programs by immigrant families does agencies who resettle refugees saved nearly
not exceed their native counterparts' $2 on welfare payments to refugees for every
participation rate by more than 5%. $1 spent on job placement.
7
UNDOCUMENTED BlMIGRANTS
According to estimates by the U.S. Bureau of the Census, the undocumented
population in the United States consists of about 4 - 5 million persons, and grows at a rate of
200,000 to 250,000 per year. Because this is a population which lives "underground," most
studies on undocumented immigrants are either inferential or speculative. The following data
are unique in that they are the result of surveys of immigrants who legalized during the
"amnesty" program of 1987-88. These surveys provide information about the behavior of
these immigrants in the last year before they gained legal status, contributing valuable
insights into the lives of undocumented immigrants.
U.S. Department of Justice, Immigration and Naturalization Service, Report on the Legalized Alien
Population, 1992
At the time of application, the legalized alien population had used less taxpayer-and employer-supported
social services than the general U.S. population.
Less than 1% of the legalized alien population had received general assistance, social security,
supplemental security income, workers compensation, and unemployment insurance payments.
The study found little illicit use of benefits by the legalized alien population—less than 0.5% had
obtained food stamps and AFDC without an eligible family member.
The legalized alien population unemployment rate was 3.5% (men, 2.2% and women, 5.9%)versus
5.5% for general population(men 5.5% and women 5.6
Of the legalized alien population, 83% had participated in the labor force versus 77% of the general
population. For ages 18-64, 94% of the legalized alien population had participated in labor force versus
88% of the general population.
Legalized alien population males had worked on average two hours per week more than males in the
general population. Legalized alien population women had worked five hours more per week than
females in the general population. Of the legalized alien population, 13% had worked more than 40
hours a week. Of this group, 52% of the males.and 74% of the females said they had not been-,,paid
overtime.
Sidney Weintraub, "Illegal Immigrants in Texas: Impact on Social Services and Related
Considerations," International Migration Review, Vol. 18, No. 3, 1984
Use of AFDC, utilities payment assistance, rent payment assistance, unemployment insurance, workers
compensation, and senior citizens services by undocumented immigrants was 5% or less.
Use of food stamps; Women, Infants and Children (WIC) benefits; and counseling services was between.
129 and 17%.
Comprehensive Adult Student Assessment System for the California Health and Welfare Agency, A
Survey of the Newly Legalized in California, 1989
% Surveyed Who Said Pre-1982 SAW
They Never Used: (General Legalization) (Special Agricultural
Workers Legalization)
Food Stamps 90.5% 94.0%
Aid to Families with 95.6% 98.8%
Dependent Children(AFDC)
Supplemental Security Income/ 98.1% 99.6%
State Supplemental Payments
(SSI/SSP)
General Assistance(GA) 95.7% 99.1%
Women, Infants and 77.3% 98.3%
Children(WIC)
Social Security (SS) Benefits 97.5% 99.5%
Unemployment Insurance 85.1% 88.6%
Workers Compensation 93.3% 94.4%
No more than 4.5% of pre-1982 and 1% of SAW reported that they or their family members had
received AFDC, GA, SS benefits, or SSI/SSP.
National Immigration Law Center, Guide to Alien Eligibility for Federal Programs, 1992
Undocumented immigrants are eligible only for the following programs: emergency medical services,
WIC, school lunch and breakfast, Headstart, federal housing, and social services block grant.
ECONOMIC IMPACT OF D MIGRANT&
The following eleven sections reflect a broad consensus that immigration to the
United States has profound economic benefits, without substantial negative effects on native
workers. Though "conventional wisdom" contends that when they join the labor force,
immigrants must take jobs away from Americans, the economic evidence clearly indicates
that immigrants stimulate local economies and have the net effect of creating jobs.
f�
Kevin McCarthy and R Burciaga
Valdez, Current and Future Effects of
Papademetriou, et al.,U:S. Department of Mexican Immigration in California,May
Labor, Bureau of International Labor 1986
Affairs, The Effects of Immigration on the
U.S. Economy and Labor Market, May 1989 "There is little question that when all
factors are considered, Mexican
The overall economic contributions of immigrants are a definite plus to the local
immigrants exceed their economic liabilities. economy [in Southern California].'
The benefits of immigration are lower product
prices and higher returns to capital. Also, the Tests suggest that consumer prices
Council of Economic Advisors stated that "the decreased for labor intensive goods and
net effect of the increase in the labor supply due services and profits increased as a result of
to immigration is to increase the aggregate low-wage immigrant labor.
income of native-born population."
Immigrants: a) increase aggregate demand by
encouraging investment; b) keep some U.S.
industries competitive by increasing returns to U.S. Census Bureau
capital; c) increase aggregate employment
through higher rates of self-employment; and d) Between 1982 and 1987, Hispanic
increase wages and mobility opportunities for businesses grew 81 , and Asian-American
many groups of U.S. workers. businesses grew 8950. [Note:_Most
Hispanics and Asians are not immigrants,
Immigration is a "flow of productive resources" though immigrants do have a higher
which links domestic and international markets propensity to start new businesses than the
(1986, President's Council of Economic native population.]
Advisors).
In 1987, California's Vietnamese-
Americans operated 11,855 firms and
produced $665 million in revenue.
10
EFFECT OF E"AlIGRANTS ON 'OTHER WORKERS
George Borjas, Friends or Strangers,
1990
Thomas Muller and Thomas Espenshade, The "Recent econometric evidence is that no
Fourth Wave, 1985 study finds any evidence to support the
claim[that] blacks are the one group
There appears to be no relationship between the whose economic progress is most likely to
size of the Hispanic population and Black be hampered by the entry of immigrants
unemployment. Blacks generally, and especially into the U.S." (author's emphasis)
Black teenagers, do not seem to have been
harmed by immigration between 1970 and 1982.
There was rising unemployment in the U.S. and
Southern California at this time. However, the
smallest increases in unemployment were for the Papademetriou, et al.,U.S. Department
Black workforce; thus, this wave of immigration of Labor, Bureau of International Labor
did not affect them. Affairs, The Effects of Immigration on
the U.S. Economy and Labor Market,
May 1989
At the local level, in cities with many
Kevin McCarthy and R. Burciaga Valdez, immigrants, U.S. natives have not
Current and Future Effects.of Mexican experienced widespread displacement.
Immigration in California, May 1986
The aggregate effects of Mexican immigration -
produced no displacement of native workers.
11
IMPACT OF IlVIMIGRATION ON
U.S. LABOR MARKET
Richard Freeman, editor, Immigration, Trade, and the Labor Market, 1988
As a broad generalization, the U.S, labor market adjusted well to immigrant flows, absorbing immigrants
into the local area work forces with little redistributive losses to natives workers.
Immigrants produce offsetting effects on the demand for labor by increasing the demand through the
purchase of goods.
-------------
Papademetriou, et al.,U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of International Labor Affairs, The
Effects of Immigration on the U.S. Economy and Labor Market, May 1989
Regional studies do not support claims of disproportionate effects of immigration on any particular
regional labor market. Research has been unable to establish a causal relationship between immigration
and out-migration or job displacement of native born.
At the aggregate level, the literature concludes that immigrants are successfully absorbed into the U.S.
Iabor market. The data in this report suggests that immigration has played a significant role in the
growth of the labor force since 1970. Immigrants have an important function in this country's economic
restructuring in the face of changing conditions of domestic and international competition.
12
EFFECT OF EMUGRANTS ON WAGES
Thomas Muller and Thomas Espenshade, The
Fourth Wave, 1985
Maria Enchautegui, Immigration and
Although wages fell in California during the County Employment Growth, August
recent wave of immigration,immigrants 1992
absorbed most of the adverse impact.
Immigrants posed only negligible effects
on wages for native workers.
Richard Freeman, editor, Immigration, Trade,
and the Labor Market, 1988
Papademetriou, et al., U.S. Department
The increase in immigrants had a modest of Labor, Bureau of International Labor
adverse impact on the wages of the immigrants Affairs, The Effects of Immigration on
themselves and the wages of earlier immigrants, the U.S. Economy and Labor Market,
but had little,if any, impact on the wages of May 1989
young Black and Hispanic Americans.
Many studies show that an increase in
Robert Topel found that the wages and immigration has little adverse impact on
employment of natives were not sensitive to the wages of native U.S. workers. Small
immigration, and new immigrants were easily negative impacts occur on earlier groups of
absorbed. immigrants and cohorts of new arrivals.
Kevin McCarthy and R. Burciaga Valdez, Current and Future Effects of Mexican Immigration in
California, May 1986
The major negative effect of immigration on wages was lower wage increases for native-born workers,
but this was mainly concentrated among native-born Latinos.
13
IMPACT OF IMMIGRANTS ON EMPLOYMENT
OPPORTUNITIES AND UNEMPLOYMENT RATE
Richard Freeman, editor, Immigration, Trade, Papademetriou, et al.,U.S. Department
and the Labor Market, 1988 . of Labor, Bureau of International Labor -
Affairs, The Effects of Immigration on
Based on a study of 120 cities, in cities with the the U.S. Economy and Labor Market,
larger immigrant populations,employment grew May 1989
more rapidly or decreased more slowly in low-
wage industries. Immigrants may contribute to employment
growth by bringing assets and income,
causing an increase in demand for
infrastructural development, and','
influencing prices and profitability for
Elaine Sorensen, Frank Bean, Leighton Ku, services and capital goods.
and Wendy Zimmerman, Immigrant
Categories and the U.S. Job Market. Do They
Make a Difference?, 1992
Despite the perception that immigrants have a Kevin McCarthy and R. Burciaga
negative impact on the labor market Valdez, Current and Future Effects of
opportunities for natives, empirical research has Mexican Immigration in California,May
not consistently supported this position. 1986
Total employment in Southern California
tvas stimulated by low-wage immigrant
labor.
Gregory Defreitas, "Hispanic Immigration
and Labor Market Segmentation," Industrial
Relations, Vol. 27, No. 2, Spring 1988
Hispanic immigrants who entered the U.S. Julian Simon, How Do Immigrants Affect
between 1975 and 1980 had no ill effect on Us Economically?, 1985
employment opportunities for all native, low-
income males. There was no discernable There is no observable negative effect on
negative effect on the U.S. labor market as a unemployment by immigrants. They
whole, and, more generally, there were positive create jobs through spent earnings and new
effects. businesses opened.
14
EFFECT OF EMA11GR.A.TION ON EARNINGS
George Borjas, Friends or Strangers, 1990
Elaine Sorensen, Frank Bean, Leighton
Immigrants have a small impact on earnings and Ku, and Wendy Zimmerman, Immigrant
employment opportunities of natives workers. A Categories and the U.S. Job Market. Do
10% increase in the number of immigrants They Make a Difference?, 1992
decreases the average wage of natives at most by
0.2%, and has little effect on the labor force The overall effects of immigrants on native
participation rates of and employment earning and employment are very small.
opportunities for all native groups. (However, naturalized and employment-
preference immigrants do have a negative
Research has been unable to establish a single effect on earnings and employment of
instance where an increase in immigrants has natives, and reduce the opportunities of
had an adverse impact on the earning of natives. native males.)
The same applies to undocumented immigrants.
Papademetriou, et al., U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of International Labor Affairs, The
Effects of Immigration on the U.S. Economy and Labor Market, May 1989
At the aggregate level, economic findings suggest that immigrants have small effects on the earnings of
other workers (positive or negative). There are positive effects on employment and wages of women,
and small negative effects on White men.
Immigrant earnings increase in step with U.S. labor force earnings.
English-language ability and skills training are more important in the increase in earnings,than
immigration status.
"It can be concluded that immigrants do not have a pronounced effect on the earnings and employment of
the native born."
15
LABOR FORCE EXPANSION
Thomas Muller and Thomas Maria Enchautegui, Immigration and County
Espenshade, 73ie Fourth Wave, 1985 Employment Growth, August 1992
The most significant economic effect of Between 1970 and 1980, immigrants increased
immigration in the 1970s and early 1980s the labor force in Los Angeles by 67%, in
was the expansion of the labor force. Miami by 38%, and in Chicago by 27%.
JOB CREATION
Maria Enchautegui, Immigration and County Papademetriou, et al., U.S. Department
Employment Growth, August 1992 of Labor, Bureau of International Labor
Affairs, The Effects of Immigration on
The larger the foreign-born population, the the U.S. Economy and Labor Market,
larger the employment gains for natives. May 1989
Immigrants add twice as many jobs to the
country as do natives. Immigrants contribute to Immigrants stimulate entrepreneurial
local employment more than non-immigrants. activity, thus becoming a significant
element of our country's overall economic
structure and offering native-born workers
additional direct and indirect employment
opportunities.
16
COMPETITION AND REVITALIZATION
OF INDUSTRIES
Papademetriou, et al.,U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of International Labor Affairs, The
Effects of Immigration on the U.S. Economy and Labor Market, May 1989
The viability of some firms and industries facing international and domestic competition is dependent on
immigrant labor.
Immigrants enter economic sectors currently unable to supply adequate numbers of native workers. By
accepting lower wages, immigrants keep certain industries competitive, save positions of native workers
in related functions, give domestic workers added mobility, and allow some industries to move into
gradual restructuring.
Immigrants workers can revive and/or prevent further declines of certain failing local industries that face
strong import competition.
Kevin McCarthy and R Burciaga Valdez, Current and Future Effects of Mexican Immigration in
California, May 1986
Mexican immigration in the 1970s and early 1980s provided a boost to California's economy, especially
in the Los Angeles area. It allowed low-wage industries to expand at a time when their'counterpdits '
nationwide were contracting in the face of foreign competition.
17
EDUCATION AND SKILL LEVELS OF 1M 11GRANTS
Elaine Sorensen, Frank Bean, Leighton
Ku, and Wendy Zimmerman, Immigrant
Categories and the U.S.Job Market.Do
Papademetriou, et al., U.S. Department of They Make a Difference?, 1992
Labor, Bureau of International Labor
Affairs, The Effects of Immigration on the Employment-preference and family-
U.S. Economy and Labor Market, May 1989 preference immigrants are equally likely to
work.
Many immigrants admitted to the U.S. for
family reunification have been making valuable
contributions to highly-skilled occupations.
In virtually all professional and technical George Borjas, Friends or Strangers,
occupations, many more immigrants are 1990
admitted under family reunification and non-
economic provisions than under worker Empirical evidence shows that persons who
preferences. migrate as a part of a family unit are more
skilled than the single or unattached
Family reunification and refugee resettlement immigrant.
provisions are by no means inconsistent with the
satisfaction of important U.S. labor needs.
The aggregate educational profile of immigrants
is similar to that of the native bom population. Michael Mandel and Christopher
Farrell,."The Immigrants," Business
Week, July 13, 1992
The percentage of male workers who are
college graduates is 26.6% for recent
immigrants (immigrants in the U.S. for 5
years or less); 24.9% for all foreign born
workers; and 25.1% for native born
workers.
18
EM11GRANT AND NATIVE LABOR FORCES
George Borjas, Friends or Strangers, 1990
The labor market characteristics of an immigrant Robert L. Bach and Doris Meissner,
male are similar to those of a native male. They America's Labor Market in the 1990's.-
have
990's.have the same labor force participation rate and What Role Should Immigration Play?,
unemployment rate, and their hourly wage rates June 1990
vary by only 1%.
Immigrant labor force participation rates
are high. Immigrant unemployment rates
are low compared to the general
workforce.
Richard Freeman, editor, Immigration, ?rude,
and the Labor Market, 1988 Immigrants have a higher than average
propensity to start a new business.
Immigrants complement the skills of some native
workers.
19
INTEGRATION INTO SOCIETY
Throughout the United States' history as an immigrant nation, public perceptions.of
immigrants have always raised concerns that the latest group of newcomers is not learning
English or not exhibiting other intangible signs of "becoming American." Studies of the
most recent groups of immigrants, primarily Latinos and Asians, provide strildng evidence
that these concerns are unfounded. Latino and Asian immigrants tend to learn English and
identify themselves as Americans at the same rate as their earlier counterparts, and show
strong signs of achieving academic and economic success. r
Alejandro Portes and Min Zou, "The New Second Generation: Segmented Assimilation and.,Its
Variants Among Post-1965 Youth," The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social
Sciences, November 1993
The study found that immigrants' children are not growing up 'un-American.' Rather, most of them,
while bilingual,speak English fluently and prefer it to their parents' native language. In fact, in Miami
99% of the children and in San Diego 90% of the children surveyed said they spoke English well or very
well. Surprisingly, 94% of the Cuban-American children said they preferred English to Spanish.
Most children of immigrants hold on to the strong aspiration of social mobility through education. This
may be attributable to strong family cohesiveness.
Linguistic assimilation is evident in the fact that only.12% of the second generation reports speaking
English poorly.
Children of immigrants are as likely to attend public schools, as unlikely to be dropouts, and as likely to
graduate from high school as native parentage youth.
Immigrant youth who remain firmly rooted in their respective ethnic communities may, by virtue of this
fact, have a better chance for educational and economic mobility through use of the material and "social"
capital that their communities make available. Remaining securely tied to their ethnic community may
not be a symptom of escaping assimilation.
A recently completed study of second generation eighth and ninth graders in the Dade and Broward
Counties schools (Cuban, Haitian, Nicaraguan, and West Indian second generation children) showed that
less than one-fifth of the second generation students identify themselves as non-hyphenated Americans
(i.e. they identify themselves as Cuban versus Cuban-American or Haitian rather than Haitian-
American),
At least four-fifths of every group in the study expects to complete college. Roughly 70% of students
from every nationality aspire to professional or business careers.
In the study, the best-positioned socioeconomic group is the one least likely to step out of the ethnic
circle in its inter-personal relationships, while the group in the most disadvantaged position is most likely
to do so.
-o
Frank D. Bean, Jorge Chapa, Ruth Berg, and Kathy Sowards, "Educational and Socioeconomic
Incorporation Among Hispanic Immigrants to the United States," 1991
Immigrants exhibit different characteristics than natives and retain country of origin as the group with
which they most closely identify. The second generation begins to shift its language patterns and
reference groups. The third generation has made the transition almost completely. For example, 84%
of first generation Mexican women have been found to use only Spanish at home(Portes and Rumbaut,
1990). By the third generation, the shift to English has been nearly complete, with 84% of persons
using only English at home and 12% using both English and Spanish (Lopez, 1978). This third
generation also refers to the country of destination as the group with which it identifies most.
Even if educational levels,of:more recent immigrants are declining, the experience of the immigrant
generation may hold few implications.for the ease with which the children and grandchildren of the
immigrants will advance socioeconomically. As Chavez (1989) and others have argued, native-born
Mexican-Americans may make rapid strides socioeconomically even if the prospects for the immigrant
generation itself might be deteriorating. The key test of whether the native-born groups are assimilating
hinges on comparisons between the second and third or later generation with non-Hispanic Whites.
Kevin McCarthy and R. Burciaga Valdez, Current and Future Effects of Mexican Immigration in
California, May 1986
Mexican immigrants are following the classic American pattern for integrating into U.S. society, with
education playing a critical role in the process (integration being defined as the acquisition of English and
familiarity with labor market).
y
J
?1
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bach, Robert L. and Doris Meissner, America's Labor Market in the 1990's: What Role
Should Immigration Play? Washington, D.C.: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace,
June 1990.
Bean, Frank D., Jorge Chapa, Ruth•Berg, and Kathy Sowards, "Educational and
Socioeconomic Incorporation Among Hispanic Immigrants to the United States," prepared for
"Immigrants in the 1990s" Conference, Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute, June 17-18,
1991.
Bor as, George J., Friends or Strangers: The Impact of Immigrants on the U.S. Economy.
New York, NY: Basic.Books, Inc., 1990. w.
Coifman, Tom and Helena Sundman, "Refugee Agencies Dodge Funding Crisis," Chicago
Reporter, April 1993, pp. 3-5.
Comprehensive Adult Student Assessment System, A Survey of the Newly Legalized in
California. Report for the California Health and Welfare Agency, Sacramento, CA, 1989.
DeFreitas, Gregory, "Hispanic Immigration and Labor Market Segmentation," Industrial
Relations, Vol. 27, No. 2, Spring 1988, pp. 195-214.
Enchautegui, Maria, Immigration and County Employrhent Growth. Washington, D.C.: The
Urban Institute, August 1992.
Freeman, Richard B., editor, Immigration, Trade, and the Labor Market. Cambridge, MA:
National Bureau of Economic Research, 1988.
Going to Mexico: Priced Out of American Health Care. Washington, D.C.: Families USA
Foundation, November 1992.
Greenwood, Michael J. and John M. McDowell, The Labor Market Consequences'of U.S.
Immigration: A Survey. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of
International Affairs, August 1990.
Guide to Alien Eligibility for Federal Programs. Los Angeles, CA: National Immigration
Law Center, 1992.
Hogeland, Chris and Karen Rosen, Dreams Lost, Dreams Found: Undocumented Women in
the Land of Opportunity (A Survey Research Project of Chinese, Filipina and Latina
Undocrunented Women). San Francisco, CA: Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights
and Services, 1991.
Mandel, Michael and Christopher Farrell, "The Immigrants," Business Week, July 13, 1992,
pp. 114-122.
22
McCarthy, Kevin and R. Burciaga Valdez, Current and Future Effects of Mexican
Immigration in California. Santa Monica, CA: The Rand Corporation, May 1986.
Muller, Thomas and Thomas Espenshade, The Fourth Wave. Washington, D.C.: The
Urban Institute Press, 1985.
Papademetriou, Demetrios G., Robert L. Bach, Kyle Johnson, Roger G. Kramer, Briant
Lindsay Lowell, and Shirley J. Smith, The Effects of Immigration on the U.S. Economy and
Labor Market. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of International
Labor Affairs, May 1989.
Portes, Alejandro and Min Zou, "The New Second Generation: Segmented Assimilation and
Its Variants Among Post71965 Youth," The Annals of the American Academy of Political and
Social Sciences, November 1993.
Report on the Legalized Alien Population. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice,
Immigration and Naturalization Service, March 1992.
Simon, Julian, How Do Immigrants Affect Us Economically? Washington, D.C.: Center for
Immigration Policy and Refugee Assistance, Georgetown University, 1985.
Simon, Julian, The Economic Consequences of Immigration. Cambridge, MA: Basil
Blackwell, Inc., 1989.
Sorensen, Elaine, Frank Bean, Leighton Ku, and Wendy Zimmerman, Immigrant Categories
and the U.S. Job Market: Do They Make a Difference? Washington, D.C.: The Urban
Institute Press, 1992.
Tienda, Marta and Leif Jensen, Immigration and Public Assistance Participation: Dispelling
the Myth of Dependency. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin-Madison, June 1985.
Weintraub, Sidney, "Illegal Immigrants in Texas: Impact on Social Services and Related
Considerations," International Migration Review, Vol. 18, No. 3, 1984, pp. 733-747.
23
.. `
t
4
.�:
�, `� ' .
� �
/ � M
S � R
3
t.....
.� ,
i+� �.��
.�
Nrt
��
i a
+�1
",w ATTACHMENT #7
w
RECEI'V E 0
OCT -
PACIFICCROSS.CURRE
A 9
-.A Publication of the Padfic Research Institute
s
SUMMER-FALL
Mandate Madness
THE POLITICS OF MEANING
WT
PASSING THE BUCK
ON IMMIGRATION -� � � ANDTHE MEANING OF POLITICS
101
X, ;x
and y now host of the hubbub over Hillary
ativists, open-border advocates
Rodham Clinton's "politics of meaning"
all sides in between are squaring,off � ��'� �� P g
for atooth-and-nail fi ht over immi r speech back in April has begun to subside,
g r��
gration. In the meantime, a quieter, high stakeswe=think that amidst the mirth this episode
s r
confrontation is brewing—not over the imugrants , generated, the most salient aspects of the matter
n
themselves,but over who should pay the costs of� n overlooked.
their assimilation. The great issues of federalism °ti cS eakin at the University of Texas, Mrs.
pu g y
and federal mandates on state and local govern . hntori said that we must redefine who we are as
ment are revived in this controvers�'
Federal "' human''+beings in this post-modern age," which will
3u � ..
immigration is clearly a federal responsibility,--'-,But f srequire remaking the American way of politics,
Washington is passing the buck to the statess< F ' ; government, indeed life."
There is no doubt that immigrants make a` ". - ` However silly the "politics of meaning" may
substantial contribution to our economy and ours &r^ seem`on the surface, it is a mistake to dismiss it as
. ��_ter_ . • „
standard of living. It is true that welfare outlays,for,h Faxmere rhetoric. To the contrary: the idea of a poli-
immigrants may be as high as $5 billion. �ttcs of'meaning" expresses the theoretical center of
immigrants earn$240 billion a year,and paymore modern Progressive liberalism. That center will
than a third of that in taxes—$90 billion a year'I� �to - out to be, on close inspection, nihilistic and
,. MWS ,;[
But there's a catch. Immigrants make most of their tyrannical, even if gilded with soft edges.
public contribution in the form of payroll taxes `Thiel idea of "redefining who we are in this post-
That means that near! two-thirds of their taxes o f modern age implies that there is no human na-
y ture,or that whatever human nature there is
directly to Washington,bypassing the state ander
local governments.
In Los Angeles County alone, illegal irnmi, i defes itself through sheer self-assertion. In other
; o*wrds
sthe human soul can be transformed at will.
,
f� x So for Mrs. Clinton to say that we need to
grants generated almost$3 billion in assorted taxes >t
remake the American way of politics, government,
revenues in 1990-91. But the lion's share of the x� , 5� -j .
funds, $1.7 billion, went straight to the federal and life is to imply that government has the right,
� w ?even the duty, to change man into something he
(continued on pagem" R 4) ' now isnot. She believes that this transformation
an:be.achieved through proper administration.
IN THIS ISSUE
x. `This idea is not new with Mrs. Clinton. Its
'=intellectual pedigree traces back to the Progressive
WhBudget3 v
Political Economy
r era and beyond, to the mostly German thinkers
My the Is Blim ped Out . . . . . . . . . . . � -go thought that history should replace nature as
.the philosophical ground of politics.
The Environment
Green Vigilantes,EPA Risk Assessment,
and the Lucas Case Revisited . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
,.,
�v, (continued on page 3)
�� M
IMMIGRATION (continued from page 1) states, but it has been a promise mainly observed in
the breech.
government in the form of income taxes and contri-
butions to the Social Security fund. The California Conundrum
America absorbed a wave of nearly 10 million
newcomers in the 1980s, exceeded in numbers only The State of California, the ultimate destination
by the last such wave from 1905 to 1915. Seventy- of almost half of the nation's newcomers, provides.
seven percent of these immigrants intend to reside the most dramatic example of how federal policy is
in six states—California,Texas, New York, breaking state budgets. Beginning in 1991, Califor-
Florida,Illinois and New Jersey. Not coinciden- nians have experienced the three largest state
tally, these states are struggling with red ink. budget gaps in American history. Federal immi-
What are the costs of immigration for the gration policy has added billions to these gaps.
states? Look first to the demographics. Immi- That explains California Gov. Pete Wilson's
grants account for a third of all U.S. population request for a $1.4 billion reimbursement as part of
growth. In California alone, immigration has his 1993-1994 state budget proposal. Wilson's
fueled high birth rates, giving the Golden State an request was followed by public recognition of the
average 2.2 percent increase in population every plight of the states by President Clinton in a Feb. 16
year since 1980, or a rate of,population growth that speech over a live satellite feed to an economic
is faster than those of China, India, Indonesia and, summit of California leaders.
in some years,Bangladesh. Budget director Leon Panetta followed up on
Of course, these newcomers arrive with hands March 13 with a specific promise—more than $1
to work as well as mouths to feed. But the costs of billion to help California with education, medical
assimilation are huge, particularly educational care and other services for legal and illegal immi-
costs,because immigrants and their families tend to grants. But the final budget that passed in June
be younger than the U.S. norm. only contains $324 million in funding for
Regardless of how you view this liberalized California's SLIAG costs.
national immigration policy, it is the states, coun- Furthermore, the federal government has no
ties and cities that must provide more social and plans to compensate the states for many other
physical infrastructure for these new Americans. immigration-related costs, including the growing
In the State of Illinois, the costs of providing medi- population of children of illegal aliens born in the
cal services, education, corrections, welfare and United States, or citizen-children. Forty-two
other services for illegal or undocumented aliens percent of all births in New York City are to immi-
alone is almost $50 million. States are liable for grant mothers. In 1992, the County of Los Angeles
other-costs related to immigrants as well. counted 250,000 citizen-children of undocumented
Much of this was foreseen by Congress when it parents. In fact, children born to illegal immigrants
wrote the 1986 Immigration and Reform Control now account for more than 65percent of all births
Act. This mea- at county-run
sure created the (thousands) hospitals in Los
State Legalization 2
(thousands) Immigrants rants Admitted to the U.S. Angeles.
,000 g
Impact Assistance 1900 — 1991 The states find
Grant(SLIAG) 1,800 another cost
program to 1,600 particularly
reimburse state 1,400 galling: that of
and local govern- 1,200 imprisoning
ments for immi- 1,000 illegal immigrants
gration-related 800 convicted of
expenses ranging serious crimes. In
from public 600 California alone,
health programs, 400 these prisoners
to public assis- 200 are costing state
tance, to educa- 0 taxpayers almost
tion. This was $350 million a
1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990
Washington's Source:U.S.Immigration and Naturalization Service year.
promise to the These are just
4
some of the estimated costs
borne by the states, although AFDC Expenditures for Recent
no one knows the full costs of
immigration. For that reason, Immigrants to California
five big state governors are (millions)
appealing to President 300 ; :: ® Refugees - -
f. have
for relief. They o e
Clinton
Y
also organized
informal 1
5 :> > D Citizen Children
1 ed an o
><
u f (Undocumented
wo
rkin roP tate fi-
working
o s
directors to seek
a
2 Parents)
nance
common definition o 0 i f costs.
de
"However Youfeel about
150
immi
gr tidaud
e
f d 1
f h affected 00
' in n the a
ffi i t one o
official
states
"it is
anational policy
li
c
Y
r
h govern-Fede1
50 a
t e
for which
n
i-
r o s
es
nh financial
met as
P
bility. Period." 0
87/88 88/89 89/90 90/91 91/92 92/93 93/94
—By Mark Davis, PRI Public (Fiscal Year) Source:California Department of Finance
Affairs Fellow
Political Economy only lagged badly behind the nation as a whole in
terms of growth in capital expenditures; it has
CALIFORNIA: actually experienced a negative growth rate since
WHY NOTHING GETS BUILT 1975.
This trend is all the more astounding when one
considers that in the 1960s, the state tax burden in
Ever wonder why California is unable to California amounted to about 4.8 percent of per-
provide new roads, schools,sewers, water supplies, sonal income. Today, the state tax burden is over 8
and other kinds of public works necessary to percent of personal income, yet the state cannot
accommodate the state's rapid growth? A recent afford the kind of public works it used to.
report from the California Council for Environmen- We think this trend exposes in dramatic fashion
tal and Economic Balance (CCEEB) contained some the disproportionate shift of public resources into
illuminating numbers. The chart at the lower right social spending that has taken place in the last
shows the precipitous decline in capital expendi- generation.
tures as a portion of total spending in California
over the last generation. Our own research re-
vealed that state spending for road building alone Capital Outlay as a % of State Spending
has declined from 16 percent of the state budget in in California
1963 to about 5 percent today.
As the table below shows, California has not 25.0
20.05
Growth Rate of State & Local 15.0 °
Capital Investment 10.0
Californiaus
5.0`�
1961-1988 .34%/yr 1.76%/yr
0.0%
»::>:.
1975-1988 -1.4%/yr .46%/yr 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980::::::...
Source:Douglas Holtz-Eakin,Regional Science and Urban 1985 1990
Economics,April 1993 Source:CCEEB
5
ATTACHMENT #8
Senate Bill No. 691
CHAPTER 818
An act to add Section 53069.75 to the Government Code, relating
to immigration, and declaring the urgency thereof, to take effect
immediately.
[Approved by Governor October 4, 1993. Red with
Secretary of State October 5, 1993.]
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
SB 691, Kopp. Law enforcement: immigration matters.
Existing state law makes no express provision concerning the
cooperation of law enforcement officers with federal government
agents on immigration matters.
This bill would provide that no local law shall prohibit a peace
officer or custodial officer from identifying and reporting to the
United States Immigration and Naturalization Service any person,
pursuant to federal law or regulation,who is arrested and booked for
the alleged commission of a felony and who is reasonably suspected
to have violated the civil provisions of the federal immigration laws.
This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an
urgency statute.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows.
SECTION 1. Section 53069.75 is added to the Government Code,
to read:
53069.75. In order to comply with state law requirements
mandated by Section 3753 of Title 42 of the United States Code,
which bases eligibility of federal grants under the Omnibus Control
and Safe Streets Act, no local law shall prohibit a peace officer or
custodial officer from identifying and reporting to the United States
Immigration and Naturalization Service any person, pursuant to
federal law or regulation, to whom both of the following apply:
(a) The person was arrested and booked,based upon the arresting
officer's probable cause to believe that the person arrested had
committed a felony.
(b) After the arrest and booking in subdivision (a), the officer
reasonably suspects that the person arrested has violated the civil
provisions of the federal immigration laws.
SEC. 2. This act is an urgency statute necessary for the
immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety within
the meaning-of Article IV of the Constitution and shall go into
immediate effect. The facts constituting the necessity are:
In order to guarantee continued federal support for local law
enforcement activities, it is necessary that this act take effect
94 110
Ch. 818
—2—
immediately.
O
tit v',.q;ern
94 110
ri
4 A--zt
Senate Bill No. 733
CHAPTER 819
An act to add Sections 9601.5 and 9601.7 to the Unemployment
Insurance Code, relating to employment.
[Approved by Governor October 4, 1993. Filed with
Secretary of State October 5, 1993.]
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
SB 733, Russell. Employment: unemployment insurance:
employment services.
Existing law does not provide procedures for government and
private agencies providing employment services to verify the legal
status or work authorization of every individual prior to providing
services to these individuals.
This bill would require each.state or local government agency or
community action agency, or any private organization contracting
with a state or local government agency, that provides employment
services, including, but not limited to, job training, retraining, or
placement, to verify an individual's legal status or authorization to
work prior to providing services to that individual in accordance
with procedures established under federal law. It would specify that,
for purposes of these provisions,proof of legal status or authorization
to work includes, but is not limited to, a social security card,
immigration visa,birth certificate,passport, or other valid document
providing evidence of legal residence or authorization to work in' the
United States. It would also specify that those provisions requiring
verification of an individual's legal status or authorization to work
prior to providing employment services shall not apply to
employment services offered by school districts under secondary
school and adult education programs.
This bill would require each state or local government agency or
community action agency, or any private organization contracting
with a state or local government agency, that provides employment
services, including, but not limited to, job training, retraining, or
placement, pursuant to these provisions, to post in a prominent
location in the workplace a notice stating that only citizens or those
persons legally authorized to work in the United States will be
permitted to use the agency's or organization's employment services
that are funded by the federal or state government, as specified.
This bill would provide that if any provision of the bill or the
application thereof to any person or circumstances is held invalid,
that invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of the
bill that can be given effect without the invalid provision or
application.
92 90
Ch. 819 —2—
The people of the State of California do enact as follows.
SECTION 1. Section 9601.5 is added to the Unemployment
Insurance Code, to read:
9601.5. . Each state or local government agency or community
action agency, or any private organization contracting with a state
or local government agency, that provides employment services,
including, but not limited to,job training, retraining, or placement,
shall verify an individual's legal status or authorization to work prior
to providing services to that individual in accordance with
procedures established under federal law. For purposes of this
section, proof of legal status or authorization to work includes, but is
not limited to, a social security card, immigration visa, birth
certificate, passport, or other valid document providing evidence of
legal residence or authorization to work in the United States. This
section shall not apply to employment services offered by school
districts under secondary school and adult education programs.
SEC. 2. Section 9601.7 is added to the Unemployment Insurance
Code, to read:
9601.7. (a) Each state or local government agency or community
action agency, or any.private organization contracting with a state
or local government agency, that enters into an agreement with the
department to provide employment services including,. but not
limited to, job training, retraining, or placement, shall post in a
prominent location ,in the workplace, a notice stating that only
citizens or those persons legally authorized to work in the United
States will be permitted to use the agency's or organization's
employment services that are funded by the federal or state
government
(b) The notice shall read:
NOTICE: Attention All Job Seekers
The Immigration and Reform Control Act of 1986 (IBCA) requires
that all employers verify the identity and employment authorization
of all individuals hired after November 6, 1986. An employer is
required to examine documents provided by the job seeker
establishing identity and authorization for employment in the
United States. In addition, it is a violation of both state and federal
law to discriminate against job seekers on the basis of ancestry, race,
or national origin.This agency provides employment services funded
by the federal or state government that are available only to
individuals who are United States citizens or who are legally
authorized to work in the United States.
SEC; 3. If any provision of this act or the application thereof to
any person or circumstances is held invalid, that invalidity shall not
-affect other provisions or applications of the act which can be given
effect without the invalid provision or application,and to this end the
92, 130
A
—3— Ch. 819
provisions of this act are severable.
it
y
:e
S,
.t,
)r
.h
is
is
h
)f
is
A
�e
y
:e
.e
A
a
.y
d O
s
e
IS
n
is
,r
:e
�1
d
:o
'y
:0
A
n
to
30 92 130
Senate Bill No. 976
CHAPTER 820
An act to amend Section 12800.5 of,and to add Sections 12801.5 and
14610.7 to, the Vehicle Code, relating to residency.
[Approved by Governor October 4, 1993. Filed with
Secretary of State October 5, 1993.]
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
SB 976,Alquist. Drivers'licenses: identification cards: citizenship
or legal residence.
(1) Existing law requires every application for a driver's license or
identification card to contain specified information.
This bill would require the Department of Motor Vehicles to
require every applicant for an original driver's license or
identification card to submit satisfactory proof that the applicant's
presence in the United States is authorized under federal law. The
department would be prohibited from issuing an original driver's
license or identification card to any person who does not submit
satisfactory proof that the applicant's presence in the United States
is authorized under federal law.
The bill would require the department to adopt regulations to
carry out these requirements,including procedures for (1) verifying
that an applicant's presence in the United States is authorized, (2)
the issuance of temporary licenses pending that verification, and (3)
appeals hearings from denials of licenses. The bill would require the
department,not later than March 1, 1994,to report to the Legislature
on the feasibility of entering into agreements with the Immigration
and Naturalization Service to electronically verify the alien
registration number of applicants. The bill would require the
department each year to submit a specified supplemental budget
report to the Governor and the Legislature.
(2) Existing law prohibits the operation of a motor vehicle by an
unlicensed person.
This bill would prohibit a peace officer from detaining or arresting
a person solely on the belief that the person is an unlicensed driver,
unless the officer has reasonable cause to believe that the driver is
under the age of 16 years.
(3) Existing law makes it a misdemeanor for any person to,among
other things, knowingly make any false statement in any document
filed with the department.
This bill would make it a misdemeanor for any person to knowingly
assist in obtaining a driver's license or identification card for any
person whose presence in the United States is not authorized under
federal law.
Because the bill would create a new crime, it would impose a
94 90
Ch. 820
state-mandated local program.
(4) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse
local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the
state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that
reimbursement.
This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this
act for a specified reason.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows.
SECTION 1. Section 12800.5 of the Vehicle Code is amended to
read:
12800.5. (a) A license issued after January 1, 1981, shall bear a
fullface engraved picture or photograph of the licensee.
(b) A license issued on or after July 1, 1995,including a temporary
license issued pursuant to Section 12506, shall bear the following
notice: "This license is issued solely as a license to drive a motor
vehicle in this state; it does not establish eligibility for employment,
voter registration, or public benefits."
(c) The department may demand proof of age prior to the
issuance of a license.
SEC. 2. Section 12801.5 is added to the Vehicle Code, to read:
12801.5. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the
department shall require every applicant for an original driver's
license or identification card to submit satisfactory proof that the
applicant's presence in the United States is authorized under federal
law.
(b) The department shall not issue an original driver's license or
identification card to any person who does not submit satisfactory
proof that the applicant's presence in the United States is authorized
under federal law.
(c) The department shall adopt regulations to carry out the
purposes of this section,including procedures for,but not limited to,
(1) verifying that the applicant's presence in the United States is
authorized under federal law, (2) issuance of temporary licenses
pending verification of status, and (3) appeals.hearings from denials
of licenses or temporary licenses.
(d) The department shall, not later than March 1, 1994, submit a
report to the Legislature on the feasibility and costs of entering into
an agreement with the United States Immigration and
Naturalization Service to electronically verify the alien registration
number of those applicants who are residents who have been issued
such a number, and to manually verify the status of those applicants
who have not been issued such a number.
(e) On January 10, 1995, and on January 10 of each subsequent
year thereafter, the department shall submit a supplemental budget
report to the Governor and the Legislature detailing the costs of
verifying the citizenship or legal residency of applicants for driver's
94 140
-3— Ch. 820
licenses and identification cards, in order for the state to request
;e reimbursement from the federal,government.
1e (f) Notwithstanding Section 40300 or any other provision of law,
�t a peace officer shall not detain or arrest a person solely on the belief
that the person is an unlicensed driver, unless the officer has
is reasonable cause to believe the person driving is under the age of 16
years.
(g) The inability to obtain a driver's license pursuant to this
section does not abrogate or diminish in any respect the legal
requirement of every driver in this state to obey the motor vehicle
:o laws of this state, including laws with respect to licensing, motor
vehicle registration, and financial responsibility.
a (h) This section shall become operative March 1, 1994.
SEC. 3. Section 14610.7 is added to the Vehicle Code, to read:
y 14610.7. It is a misdemeanor for any person to knowingly assist in
Lg obtaining a driver's license or identification card for any person
)r whose.presence in the United States is not authorized under federal
a, law.
SEC. 4. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to
to Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because the
only costs which may be incurred by a local agency or school district
will be incurred because this act creates a new crime or infraction,
ie changes the definition of a crime or infraction, changes the penalty
.'s for a crime or infraction, or eliminates a crime or infraction.
1e Notwithstanding Section 17580 of the Government Code, unless
al otherwise specified in this act, the provisions of this act shall become.
operative on the same date that the act takes effect pursuant to the
)r California Constitution.
.y
!d
ie
o,
is
's
Is
a
to
►d
►n
,d
is
at
et
of
' s
40 94 160
ATTACHMENT #9 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Probation Department COntl'a RECEIVED Gerald S.suck
County P obation Officer
Administrative Offices Costa OCT 1 3
50 Douglas Drive,Suite 201 County
n Ity
Martinez,California 94553-8500
(510)313-4180 e
(510)313-4191 FAX OFFICE OF
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
To: Date:
Claude L. Van Marter, 10/12/93
Asst. County Administrator co;rq",0 A.
From: Subject:
Gerald S. Buck, Data Regarding Cost of
Coun y Probation Officer Providing County Services
to Illegal Aliens
We do not keep any statistics on services provided in relation to
illegal aliens or immigrants, so all I can do is offer some anecdotal
and experiential feedback.
There are undoubtedly a number of immigrants and illegals that find
their way into our caseloads without our knowledge. Juveniles
detained and committed to facilities and adults and juveniles under
our supervision must include these individuals. In most situations
it matters little to us as they've been arrested/convicted and
ordered to be under our supervision by the Courts we serve.
If we have a juvenile in Juvenile Hall who appears to be- an illegal
alien, we notify INS ( Immigration and Naturalization Services) and
occasionally they can establish the status of the individual and take
custody.
We are particularly concerned if an illegal alien minor is declared a
ward and ordered placed into foster care. In such cases Contra Costa
County must pay 100% of foster care costs which could be up to
$40,000 per year. In such cases we first try to keep them from being
ordered placed and, if they are, we work with INS to establish status
and deportation.
Immigrants with legal status are eligible for AFDC and we have
several of these wards under our care, but we don't keep a tally so
I 'm unable to establish cost.
All in all, the cost to Probation for services to immigrants and
illegal aliens is quite negligible, I believe. This could change as
immigration trends change. A few years ago we almost never saw an
Asian in our facilities . Now they represent nearly 10% of our
residents . We do not know how many are immigrants versus second
generation or third generation Americans . Most, we believe, are
U. S . born second generation Southeast Asians .
C. L. Van Marter - 2 - 10/12/93
You also asked if we had any additional information. I 've attached a
position paper on the impact of criminal aliens in Los Angeles . The
National Association of Probation Executives (NAPE) has endorsed the
Los Angeles position via resolution by its Board on September 18,
1993 .
Finally, you asked if we restrict our services by law or policy. We
do not, but we do work with INS in matters of illegal alienship.
GSB:ds
Attachment
COIIIs^YWIDr CRIXI L JUSTIM COO===TzoIZ coxr►.I'r+'EE (CCJCC)
IAS ANGELES COUM Y
In Los Angeles County a justice system-wide committee has been
formed to address problems of crime, gang violence, court
congestion, and jail and juvenile facility overerowdin5. The
problems and possible solutions are complex and cut across
departmental lines. The committee is n top level,
multi-jurisdictional advisory body convened to improve the
justice system through greater cooperation and coordination. It
includes in its membership, heads of all local criminal justice
agencies, judges, chiefs of police, along with school officials,
elected County and city officials, and local heads of Federal
agencies. The committee is 'headed by the Chairman of the
jurisdiction's Board of Supervisors. The Committee benefits the
system by its ability to: (1) provide a foram for discussion of
issues and sharing of information; (2) foster cooperative efforts
toward solution of mutual problems; and (3) increase mutual
respect and cooperation at policy making levels through personal
contact. systemwide strategies are developed and implemented
faster and more effectively because they are a result of mutually
agreed upon departmental decisions.
i
POS 7 I04"v PAPE;;
IMPAC T OF CRIMINAL ALIENS ON LOCOAL GOVERNMENT
An'ri't 2-1, 1993
County of Los Angeles
10FOUn MV 0C JIListic-0 C00rd',nation Committee
The criminal justice system in Los Angeles County, trie State of Cafifornia, and to a similar
extent, many other states, has been s!ariffiCantiv impacted by criminal aliens, immigrants
who nave entered the United States unlawiuljy and commit crimes while in the country.
Based on recent research, it has been documented that criminal aliens, at, any given time,
cans'Mute approximately I I% of the Los Anneies County .tall population, resulting in over
575 million a year in local justice system costs,. This problem however, is one over which
Los Angeles County and other local iurisdictions throughout the nation have virtually no
control. Deportable criminal aliens are a Federal responsitYltity demanding direct end
immediate relief to state and to-cal covernments.
CRIMINAL ALIEN IMPACT ON THE GOUNT)(
Convicted criminal aliens have added greatly to the local costs and operational burden
of the County's already crowded Jails and congested court system. This impact an the
local justice system was documented in two studies conducted. by the Countywide
Criminal Justice Coordination Commtttee (CCJCC) through the cooperative efforts of the
immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) and the Los Angeles County Sheriff.
The first study, "Criminal Aliens in the Los Angeles County Jail Popuiation, was a
comPrehensive study of the County's Jail POPut-aliOn conducted during 2 one-month
period in 1990. Of the 17,774 inmates that were part of that one-month study, 119
(1,2313) were identified as deportable criminal aliens under current immigration laws. Of
triese deportable aliens, 750.b had been convicted of felonies, 41%of which were drug iaw
violations and 335131�,for crimes against pers04—m. Many nad been p reviousity cie,--.Te---and
over 21% of, the identified deportable aiiens in the study wereaeponable based on past
convictions. From this first study, it is estimated that over ZSOMO'deocrtabie aliens pass
throuch the County's jusj---- system annually.
The second study, "Impact of Repeat Arrests cr, Deportable Criminal Aliens in Los Anceles
County', targeted the group of 1,933 deportable aliens identified in the first study, and
examined their criminal records for a one year period following their release from custody.
The follow-up study determineo that over 50% Of these defendants were returned by
Federai officials to their ccurnry of origin by either voiurmwN removal or deportation. Yet,
aimost 80%of those persons who had been returned to said country of origin had Blegaliy
re-entered the United States and had been rearrested within one year of release, with
IBM of the rearrests ccwrring in Los Angeies Cburity.
-- Supported tic arnendrner .r o`tenera: scrnen;.:nc guidstine�tO permi: rnorE severe
sentencing for re-ent-Y violations of aggravated teions which has resuhed in
significantly increased prison sentences Tor Inose convICIed;
-- Dedicacted local and federal resources to assist the County in irjarni yino and
occumentmg the severity of the criminal aicen problom in its jail popuation an--the
costs to the local criminal Justice system;
Provided access to court conviction documents to expedite deportation
promedings for convicted criminal aliens; end
Implemented the institutional Hearing Program at the County Jail under which
Immigration .fudges conduct deportation hearings for convicted criminal aliens
before they are released tram County custody, the first program of its kind to be
conducted'in a County Jail
FEDERAL RESPONSIBILITY
Immigration policy is established by the Federal government and, as such, aliens who
illegally enter the United States and commit crimes are a national problem and the
responsibility of the Federal govemment, Some initial steps to address the issue have
been taken. For example, Congress has taken action to strengthen Federal efforts
targeting criminal aliens. The Anti Drug Abuse Act of 1988 and the Comprehensive Crime
Control Act of t99D both contain specific provisions to irnensi y Federal•law enforcement.
efforts aimed at improving iderrtfi ration and expediting deportation of criminal aliens.
Similar provisions, as well as other related reforms, have been incorporated into the
Immicration-Act of 1990.
Atthough these legisia'tive responses have eliminated or diminished certain legal
defrcien^ies in the immigraticn lav:, they have no* been accornpanied by an adequate
commitment of funds or manpower needed for full implementation in those regia-ts and
local Juriscirticns that are most severely irnpacted by criminal aliens. These reforms have
also failed to provide fiscal retie`to siate and local governments that have had to bear a
disproportio=e share of justice system costs due to criminal aliens.
NEED FOF3FEDERAL LEGISLAnON
Legislation is needed to establish Federal responsibs?;ty for deportabie criminal aliens.
However, remedial actions and relief should not be firnited to state level govemment.
Local jurisdictions,who are most heavily impacted by criminal aliens,should receive direr:
assistance as they sustain the major portion of overall justice system costs. The
provisions far immure legislation re=mmended below are consistent with the
recommendations adopted by the Los Angeles County Board of, Supervisors and the
.NAPIE
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION O-' PROBATION cXECJTIVES
50 Douglas Dr. , Suite 201
Martinez, CA 94553-8500
(510) 313-4180
September 30 , 1993
Mr. Barry J. Nidorf
Chief Probation Officer
Los Angeles Co. Probation Dept.
9150 East Imperial Highway
Downey, CA 90242
Dear Barry,
The Board of Directors of NAPE has reviewed and discussed the
position paper, Impact of Criminal Aliens on Local Government"
by the Los Angeles County Criminal Justice Coordination
Committee. The Board unanimously voted to adopt a position of
support for the Los Angeles County position on September 18,
1993 .
Please feel free to use NAPE ' s name in support of the position
and any legislation which promotes resolution of the problems
outlined.
Sincerely,
Gerald S. Buck,
President
CSB:ds
J
BOARD OF DIRECTORS:President Gerald S.Buck,Calitomia- Vice President Ronald P.Corbett,Jr.,Massachusetts-Treasurer Dave
Savage,Washington-SecretaryDan R.Seto,Texas-immediate Past PresidentDonald Cochran,Massachusetts-Regions:New England
John Gorczyk,Vermont-Mid-Atlantic Richard A.Kipp,Pennsylvania-Central John J.Robinson,Illinois-SouthemT.Vince Fallin,Georgia
- Westem Elyse Clawson,Oregon-At Large:Don Stiles,Arizona- Robert Bingham, Illinois
MEMO TO: Claude Van Marter, CAO' s Office
FROM: Steve Weir
RE: Services to Illegal Aliens
DATE: October 14, 1993
I have reviewed your memo of October 7, 1993.
The only possible service costs associated with 'illegal aliens
would be in the Clerk' s Office (Clerk of Superior Court) . Many
people file fee waivers. It is possible that illegal, aliens may
be involved in Ii.tigation and may file for a fee waiver.
This would have a cost consequence on the whole court structure.
However, I do not know how we could quantify that impact. My gut
feeling is that such a person would avoid the courts. When there
is a fee waiver, we do ask for proof of- eligibility which could
include: Food Stamp, AFDC, Medical Card, GA..
In addition, if an illegal alien registers: to , vote, they impact
our operations financially by a per voter cost. This number is
in the range of two to three dollars per election. Again, my . gut
feeling is that we do not have reason to suspect a problem in
this area.
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
RECEIVED
OCT g
OFFICE OF
POUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
Contra Costa County
The Board of Supervisors HEALTH SERVICES DEPARTMENT OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR
Tom Powers, 1st District Mark Finucane, Director
Jeff Smith,2nd District
Gayle Bishop,3rd District 20 Allen Street
Sunne Wright McPeak,4th District sE c Martinez,California 94553-3191
Tom Torlakson,5th District 01 (510)370-5003
FAX(510)370-5098
County Administrator
Phil Batchelor
County Administrator
r'd�f '- •'c3'
srA•cooKr�
DATE: November 4, 1993
TO: Claude L. Van Marter
Assistant founty Ad strator
FROM: Mark Finucane
Health Services Director
SUBJECT: DATA REGARDING THE COST OF PROVIDING COUNTY SERVICES
TO ILLEGAL ALIENS
In an October 7 memo to me, you requested data regarding the cost of providing county
services to illegal aliens. Unfortunately, there is not much hard data available regarding
health services. We had previously been targeted to receive about $2 million from the
federal government (SLIAG fund) to pay for health services for newly-legalized immigrants
under the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act amnesty program. These individuals
were presumably previously undocumented individuals, but they by no means comprise the
total population of undocumented persons. As you know, we have not received full
reimbursement under SLIAG despite repeated attempts by our Congressional delegation.
The SLIAG funds were supposed to compensate state and local programs for five years for
services provided to this population of newly-legalized immigrants, since they were not
eligible for Medicaid.
With regard to Medicaid, a 1986 federal law specified that undocumented persons are only
eligible for Medicaid reimbursement for emergency medical services, including labor and
delivery. However, in 1988, the state enacted a law to provide a wider scope of services,
such as follow up and continuation care. These additional services were paid for by the
state alone and did not receive federal cost-sharing. The state estimated that in this fiscal
year, $1 billion will be spent on providing Medi-Cal services to illegal aliens. That led to
the enactment last year of a law repealing the law that expanded the scope of benefits so
that the state and federal laws are consistent.
Undocumented persons are not covered under Clinton's health care reform proposal.
Therefore, they will likely continue to be the responsibility of the county health system when
Merrithew Memorial Hospital&Clinics Public Health • Mental Health • Substance Abuse Environmental Health
Contra Costa Health Plan Emergency Medical Services • Home Health Agency Geriatrics
A-345 (2/93)
they seek emergency care in the clinics or hospital. Because so little is known about this
population, Lewin-VHI and the Kaiser Family Foundation will be conducting a study to
collect and analyze data regarding health services provided to undocumented persons. It
will address their use of health care services, the cost of providing these services and the
relevant sources of financing. The study will also develop general demographic and
socioeconomic characteristics of the population,including country of origin, language, age,
gender, employment history, etc. In addition, it will develop options to deal with the
financing and delivery of health services to this population. Unfortunately, collection of this
information will be some time incoming.
With regard to the cost of providing care to legalized immigrants, we do not separate that
data out. However, because of the language needs of many immigrant populations, we do
provide ethnic specialty clinics at the Richmond, Martinez and Pittsburg clinics. These
weekly clinics are offered in Asian, Afghani, Lao, Vietnamese languages. About 725 visits
per month are provided through these clinics.
If you have any additional questions, please let me know.
Community Services DepartmentChild Development 374-3994
Contra Communty Action 313-7363
Administration Costa Food Service 374-3850
1220 Morello Avenue, Suite 101 I Head Start 646-5540
Martinez,California 94553-4711 C O U n ty Housing and Energy 646-5756
( PATHS 427-8094
510)313-7350
Fax: (510)313-7385 ti f.&L
.loan V.Sparks, -_ CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Director
RECEIVED
°SrA dour OCT 2 0
October 20, 1993
OFFICE OF
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
To: Claude Van Marter, Assistant County Administrator
From: Joan Spark irector CSD
Subject: DATA ON COST TO CSD FOR SERVICES TO ILLEGAL ALIENS
Housing and Energy Division and Community Services Block Grant Programs:
Both the Housing and Energy Division and the CSBG Division provides no services to
illegal aliens. Applicants for these services must complete a state of California form
#2080912 certifying if their eligibility for program benefits,please see attachment. The
Division does not separate immigrants who are legally in this county from nationalized
citizens or U.S. born citizens. Therefore we have no data available on the costs to CSD to
provide services to immigrants or illegal aliens.
Head Start and Child Development Divisions:
The Head Start Program and Child Development divisions do not inquire at the time of
enrolling children whether they are illegal or legally in this country. Therefore we have
no data available on the costs to CSD to provide services to immigrants or illegal aliens.
PATHS Project:
The PATHS Project does not require certification of citizenship when assisting
homeless or potential homeless clients. Therefore we have no data available on the
costs to CSD to provide services to immigrants or illegal aliens.
The Board's resolution to establish a Newcomer Task force is a good idea, however, it
appears to me a duplication of the Human Relations Commission's mandate. Please
call me if you have any concerns or need any additional information.
Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer
• P.02
OCT-14-93 THU 8: 13
Attachment 2
APPLICANT NAME
TO: APPLICANTS FOR LOW INCOME HOME ENERGY ASSISTANCE, PROGRAM
(LIHEAP) DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY (DOE) OR COMMUNITY SERVICES
BLOCK GRANT (CSBG) BENEFIT$
The Immigration and Nationality .-Act as amended by the Immigration
Reform and Control Act of 1986 sates that certain legalized aliens
are temporarily disqualified from receiving benefits under these
three programs* Special Agricultural workers (SAWS) and
individuals eligible for SSI (aged, blind, disabled) continue to be
eligible. If someone in your household has been granted legalized
status, you may still be eligible •for program benefits, if you meet
other criteria. In order to comply with this requirement, please
make a check in the box below in front of the statement that
applies to your household.
❑ 1� certify that no member of this household has been provided
legalized resident status according to Sections 245A (Amnesty
or Legalization) or 210A (Replenishment Agricultural Workers)
of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986.
❑ I certify that a member of my household has been provided
legalized resident status according to Sections 245A (Amnesty
or Legalization) or 210A (Replenishment Agricultural Workers)
of the Immingration Reform and control Act of 1986 AND THAT
THE NECESSARY INFORKATZON On rNCOXV AND HOUSEHOLD JUMERS HAS
BEEN PROVIDED.
❑ Five year period of exclusion from eligibility for
program services has not been completed.
❑ Five year period of exclusion from eligibility for
program services expired •
DATE
O&TE APPLICAliT SIMATM
2040112
ATTACHMENT #10
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra
FROM: Supervisor Jeff Smith }� / Costa
DATE: October 5, 1993 County.� `'
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION OPPOSING ANTI-IMMI RATION PROPOSALS AND SUPPORTING
THE INCLUSIVE PROCESS
1
SPECIFIC REOUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)i BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION .
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
To adopt attached resolution opposing anti-immigration proposals and
supporting inclusive process.
REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION AND BACKGROUND:
During this past year the Governor and some legislators have proposed
severe restrictions on immigration suggesting that we cannot afford
to sustain the same level of immigration that we currently have.
All the evidence shows, however, that immigrants in our society are
more of an asset than a liability.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: __YES SIGNATURE: 9,11116�s
-RECOMMENDATIONOFCOUNTYADMINISTRATOR _RECOMMENDATIONOFSOAR COMMITTEE
APPROVE -OTHER
I
SIGNATUREM:
i
ACTION OF BOARD ON - APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED_ OTHER_
I
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
UNANIMOUS(ABSENT AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN -
AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
CC: Supv. Jeff Smith: attn Nancy ATTESTED
Maria Alegria and Grepry Kepferle PHIL BATCHELOR,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
via Supt/. Smith S office SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
Administration
IN RECOGNITION OF OPPOSING ] RESOLUTION NUMBER
ANTI-IMMIGRANT PROPOSALS/ ]
SUPPORTING INCLUSIVE PROCESSES]
WHEREAS, Contra Costa County has always been an ethnically diverse
county, including the contributions of a rich mosaic of Immigrant
communities; and
WHEREAS, during these difficult economic times , immigrants, ethnic
minorities and poor families and children have become scapegoats
for the state's financial problems; and
WHEREAS, extensive state and national research demonstrate that
immigrants are a powerful benefit to the economy, as well as
contributing more in taxes than using in public services; and
WHEREAS, border control and immigration enforcement are being used
at times against documented and undocumented entrants in an unjust
manner, while denying the right to appeal asylum violates the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; and
WHEREAS, denying children of undocumented immigrants citizenship,
health care, education, and social service violates fundamental
Constitutional and civil laws arld principles, and would create
greater health and safety burdens for residents of Contra Costa
County; and
WHEREAS, requiring a national id ntification card will encourage
discrimination against residents on the basis of name, language,
ethnicity, and color, creating a permanent underclass; and
WHEREAS, effective immigration po icies must address the issue of
economic development of countries of origin as well as effective
enforcement of labor laws in the United States;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Contra Costa County Board
of Supervisors does hereby reject punitive policies and proposals
that prohibit citizenship to children born in the United States;
and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Contra Costa County Board of
Supervisors rejects imprudent policies and proposals to prohibit
access to necessary health care and education currently required by
law for the public health and welfare of residents of Contra Costa
County; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Contra Costa County Board of
Supervisors rejects the proposed national identity card as
discriminatory and placing an undue burden on county staff to
operate as de facto agents of the Immigration and Naturalization ,
Service; and i
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that th� Contra Costa County Board of
Supervisors rejects proposals r stricting the right of asylum
appeal; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that tho Contra Costa County Board of
Supervisors opposes the pending bii.ls in the California Legislature
that would further restrict the rights of immigrants and refugees
residing in California, and directs its State Lobbyist to actively
oppose these proposals; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Contra Costa County Board of.
Supervisors does establish a Newcomer Task Force to study the need
and contributions Of immigrants, the effects of immigration on
Contra Costa County, and to recommend positive policies for the
greater health, safety, and welfare of all residents of Contra
Costa County.
INTRODUCED BY:
JEFF SMITH
Supervisor, District II Witness my hand and the seal of
the Board of Supervisors affixed
this 5th day of-October, 1993.
Phil Batchelor, Clerk of the
Board of Supervisors and
County Administrator.
By
Deputy Clerk
New California Coal itioll
NCC New [mlliigrant Fact Sheet I i
Contrary to the popular opinion that new immigrants have a negative
impact on the economy, here are some facts about the contributions that
new immigrants make to their new home:
® Los Angeles' immigrants pay substantial federal, state, and local taxes - a total of
$4.2 billion in 1992. (Source: *L.A.'s immigrants: Today's'problem,' tomorrow's answer" by Richard
Rothstein, Economic Policy Institute)
® According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (1985), immigrants come here to
work, not to go on welfare, and use SUBSTANTIALLY LESS services than people
born in the U.S..
® Immigrants make up 22 percent of California's population but are only 12% of the
population receiving AFDC. (Source:California State Department of Finance 1991-92)
Immigrants, over their lifetime, pay $15,000 to $20,000 more in taxes than they
receive in government benefits. (Source:Julian Simon, The Economic Consequences of
Immigration, University of Maryland, 1989.)
® Approximately 11 million immigrants are working, earning $240 billion a year, and
pay more than $90 billion in taxes...outweighing by far the $5 billion that
Immigrants receive in welfare. (source: Business Week, July 13, 1992)
Many of the United States' new businesses are started by new immigrants.
Between 19052 and 1987, Hispanic businesses grew 81% and Asian American
businesses grew 89%. In 1987, California's Vietnamese Americans operated
11,855 firms and produced $665 million in revenue.
(Source: U.S. Census Bureau)
® Latino males are more likely to have jobs or to seek work than other Americans, yet
employed Latinos are more likely to be among the nation's working poor.
(Source: "State of Hispanic America', National Council of La Raza)
® Although undocumented immigrants are ineligible for almost all public benefits,
including unemployment and social security, they are required to pay into these
programs through taxes and payroll deductions.
® John D. Kasarda, a sociologist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
states: "there is substantial evidence that immigrants are a powerful benefit to the
economy, and very little evidence that they are negative." (Source: Business Week, July
13, 1992)
Business Week (July 13, 1992) reports: "They [immigrants] are invigorating the
cities and older suburbs by setting up businesses, buying homes, paying taxes,
and shopping at the corner grocery store."
, . .
. .
- i)epuiations through the multiplier effect.
�
A-6 Nitro lw. sq,tvm1wi 17, 10*5 �t _ AN i'R A N C• 1 ti,
L,xpurts say bor*tate shvuld
-invest 0 ' ® O immi'ro,"orants
in its
become more competitive in a their predecessors, and many hold
Rather than fighting global economy — and the educa- several part-time jobs to make
tion of immigrants should be a con- ends meet.
multiculturalism, scious part of that so they can Julia Koppich, deputy director
prepare to move into higher-pay- of Policy Analysis for California
society could be ing,higher-tech jobs,for their own Education, a UC-Berkeley and
sakes as well as for the rest of Stanford project, says California
using newcomers society,experts say. has trouble viewing newcomers as
to mutual benefit a resource.
`immigrants aren't going to leave'
By Susan Ferries Abel Valenzuela, a Massachu- 'Enraged debates'
OF n-E EXAMWER STMF setts Institute of Technology- "Imagine if we took folks who
- trained urban planner, says: "Im- were native Spanish speakers and
The most comprehensive U.S. migrants aren't going to leave.We put them in support positions in
Census study ever on Americas can attempt essen_tFie flow.But language classes (for American-
immigrants confirms conventional what are we going to do with the born students),"she says."Instead;
wisdom:Most immigrants who ar- immigrants here?If we don't start we have these enraged debates over-
rived during the 1980s were Latin training them and investing in whether kids should speak more
Americans, poorly educated with them,what's it going to mean 10 to than one language."
limited English,yet willing to work 15 years from now when people like In Denmark, she says, students
hard in undesirable jobs. you and me will retire and need must speak another language to
California, home to 23 percent Social Security?" even get into college.
of the nation's immigrants,should Turn-of-the-century European If California were more serious
use the census as a guide to shape immigrants, many of them illiter- about having its students learn sec-
immigrant-friendly policies that ate or unskilled,were funneled into and languages, Koppich suggests,
will prepare the state for the,21st the type of manufacturing jobs immigrants could serve as tutors.
century,social analysts say. that no longer exist in the United Koppich says it isn't helpful to
The state needs to upgrade the States, Valenzuela said. Today's be "Pollyannaish" about immi-
skills of its entire work force to— immigrants are paid even less than grants and deny the challenges--
_ t
,
1 -
� � 1
E ima MEN mill
The number of rece::'. :1;gran!c:r the United States,comnared with the number of immigrants of longer residen,.e.
Immigrants Immigrants
Total No.of between Total No.of between
Birthplace immigrants 1987-90 Pct. Birthplace Immigrants 1987-90 Pct.
Japan 290,128 102.754 354 Mexico 4,298.014 803,730 18.7
Nicaragua 169,659 55,412 32.8 France 119.233 18,583 15.6
Soviet Union 3_33,725 93,156 27.9 Vietnam 543,262 84.676 15.6
Guatemala 225.739 54,934 24.3 Philippines 912,674 141,806 15.5 i
EI Salvador 465,433 98.497 21.2 Colombia 286.124 43.014 15.0
China 529,837 ,110.123 20.8 Cambodia 118,833 11.843 10.0
Africa 363,819 74,701 20.5 U.K. 640,175 61,045 9.5
Laos 171,577 34,978 20.4 Ireland 169,827 16,023 9.4
India 450,406 88,179 19.6 Germany 711,929 38,958 5.5
Korea 568,397 109,607 19.3 All 19,767,316 3,136,930 15.9
SOJRCE:1990 U.S,census
I
teachers face instructing the child- cuts.More than 25,000 adults take immediate family members to le- \
_.__ ren of poor Latin Americans and these-class a ----- gally join relatives who had re-
--Southeast Asians. "The investment we make is ceived amnesty in 1987.
Nonetheless,she says,the state paid for in the students being able "This is not the undocumented
is not doing enough to prepare im- to open their own businesses,"said we're talking z?1• nut here," Walker
migrants for the future. Nina Gibson, chairwoman of the said. "California is a multiculture.
college's ESL Department, Until we learn how to realize
Turned away from English classes "They're paying taxes now,but at the potential of this strength,it will
At San Francisco City College, low-paying jobs." be regarded as a problem."
for example, an average of 6,000 Between 1987 and 1990, more
people per semester are turned than 800,000 Mexicans entered the
away from English as a Second United States -the largest num-
Language classes because of budget ber of any immigrant group. The Biological $UCYey
migration followed more than 1.3
million Mexicans who immigrated office #a be set up
between 1980 and 1987, according
to a Census Bureau study on for- oALL s WX)RNM NEws
eign-born population released last DALLAS - The federal gov-
week. ernment is about to set up an office
According to the census, only to detect environmental problems
about 26 percent of Mexican immi- before they become massive policy
grants who entered during the late headaches.
1980s had a high school education
or more. About 84 percent said The National Biological Survey,
they could not speak Engrish well. as the office will be called,will hire
Their average age was 21. scientists to research diversity and
Professor Wendy Walker, of ecosystems and to identify species
UC-Berkeley's School of Social before they are endangered.In the-
Welfare, says the influx of Mexi- ory, it will be modeled after the
cans between 1987 to 1990 was U.S. Geological Survey, one of
probably a result of the familv-uni- eight hureau9 under the llei>art-
�i fication program, which allow-d ment of the Interior.
ATTACHMENT #11
THE BOARD OF S UP E RV=S O R S
O F
CONTRA C O S TA C OUNTSL'� CAL=FO RN=A
RESOLUTION NO. 93/
IN OPPOSITION TO
ANTI-IMMIGRANT PROPOSALS
WHEREAS, Contra Costa County has always been an ethnically diverse
county, including the contributions of a rich mosaic of immigrant
communities; and
WHEREAS, during these difficult economic times immigrants, ethnic ,
minorities and poor families and children have become scapegoats
for the State's financial problems; and
WHEREAS, the cultural diversity of - Contra Costa County and the
State of California have contributed greatly to the strength of our
society;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF
CONTRA COSTA RESOLVED, that the Board abhors and rejects immigrant
bashing, racism, and scapegoating: which are targeted at immigrants
and ethnic minorities; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Contra Costa County Board of
Supervisors hereby establishes a Newcomer Task Force to study the
need and contributions bf immigrants, the effects of immigration on
Contra Costa County, and to recommend positive policies for the
greater health, safety, and welfare of all residents of Contra
Costa County.
Witness my hand and the Seal of
the Board of Supervisors
affixed this 5th day of
October, 1993.
PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk of the
Board of Supervisors and County
Administrator
By
Deputy Clerk
RESOLUTION NO.
' l
COMPETITION AND REVITALIZATION
OF INDUSTRIES
Papademetriou, et al.,U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of International Labor Affairs, The
Effects of Immigration on the U.S. Economy and Labor Market, May 1989
The viability of some firms and industries facing international and domestic competition is dependent on
immigrant labor.
Immigrants enter economic sectors currently unable to supply adequate numbers of native workers. By
accepting lower wages, immigrants keep certain industries competitive, save positions of native workers
in related functions, give domestic workers added mobility,and allow some industries to move into
gradual restructuring.
Immigrants workers can revive and/or prevent further declines of certain failing local industries that face
strong import competition.
Kevin McCarthy and IL Burciaga Valdez, Current and Future Effects of Mexican Immigration in
California, May 1986
Mexican immigration in the 1970s and early 1980s provided a boost to California's economy, especially
in the Los Angeles area. It allowed low-wage industries to expand at a time when their counterparts
nationwide were contracting in the face of foreign competition.
17
EDUCATION AND SKILL LEVELS OF EMMIGRANTS
Elaine Sorensen, Frank Bean, Leighton
Ku, and Wendy Zimmerman, Immigrant
Categories and the U.S.Job Market:Do
Papademetriou, et al., U.S. Department of They Make a Difference?, 1992
Labor, Bureau of International Labor
Affairs, The Effects of Immigration on the Employment-preference and family-
U.S.
amily-
US. Economy and Labor Market, May 1989 preference immigrants are equally likely to
work.
Many immigrants admitted to the U.S. for
family reunification have been making valuable
contributions to highly-skilled occupations.
In virtually all professional and technical George Borjas, Friends or Strangers,
occupations, many more immigrants are 1990
admitted under family reunification and non-
economic provisions than under worker Empirical evidence shows that persons who
preferences. migrate as a part of a family unit are more
skilled than the single or unattached
Family reunification and refugee resettlement immigrant.
provisions are by no means inconsistent with the
satisfaction of important U.S, labor needs.
The aggregate educational profile of immigrants
is similar to that of the native born population. Michael Mandel and Christopher
Farrell,,"The Immigrants," Business
Week, July 13, 1992
The percentage of male workers who are
college graduates is 26.6% for recent
immigrants (immigrants in the U.S. for S
years or less); 24.9% for all foreign born
workers; and 25.1% for native born
workers.
18
EVMGRANT AND NATIVE LABOR FORCES
George Borjas, Friends or Strangers, 1990
The labor market characteristics of an immigrant Robert L. Bach and Doris Meissner,
male are similar to those of a native male. They America's Labor Market in the 1990's.
have the same labor force participation rate and What Role Should Immigration Play?,
- unemployment rate, and their hourly wage rates June 1990
vary by only 1%.
Immigrant labor force participation rates
are high. Immigrant unemployment rates
m are low compared to the general
workforce.
Richard Freeman, editor, Immigration, T}ade,
and the Labor Market, 1988 Immigrants have a higher than average
propensity to start a new business.
Immigrants complement the skills of some native
workers.
19
INTEGRATION INTO SOCIETY
Throughout the United States' history as an immigrant nation, public perceptions of
immigrants have always raised concerns that the latest group of newcomers is not learning
English or not exhibiting other intangible signs of "becoming American." Studies of the
most recent groups of immigrants, primarily Latinos and Asians, provide striking evidence
that these concerns are unfounded. Latino and Asian immigrants tend to learn English and
identify themselves as Americans at the same rate as their earlier counterparts, and show
strong signs of achieving academic and economic success.
Alejandro Portes and Min Zou, "The New Second Generation: Segmented Assimilation and Its
Variants Among Post-1965 Youth," The Annals of the American Academy of Politica!and Social
Sciences, November 1993
The study found that immigrants' children are not growing up 'un-American.' Rather, most of them,
while bilingual,speak English fluently and prefer it to their parents' native language. In fact, in Miami
99% of the children and in San Diego 90% of the children surveyed said they spoke English well or very
well. Surprisingly, 94% of the Cuban-American children said they preferred English to Spanish.
Most children of immigrants hold on to the strong aspiration of social mobility through education. This
may be attributable to strong family cohesiveness.
Linguistic assimilation is evident in the fact that only.12% of the second generation reports speaking
English poorly.
Children of immigrants are as likely to attend public schools, as unlikely to be dropouts, and as likely to
graduate from high school as native parentage youth.
Immigrant youth who remain firmly rooted in their respective ethnic communities may, by virtue of this
fact, have a better chance for educational and economic mobility through use of the material and "social"
capital that their communities make available. Remaining securely tied to their ethnic community may
not be a symptom of escaping assimilation.
A recently completed study of second generation eighth and ninth graders in the Dade and Broward
Counties schools (Cuban, Haitian, Nicaraguan, and West Indian second generation children) showed that
less than one-fifth of the second generation students identify themselves as non-hyphenated Americans
(i.e. they identify themselves as Cuban versus Cuban-American or Haitian rather than Haitian-
American).
At least four-fifths of every group in the study expects to complete college. Roughly 700 of students
from every nationality aspire to professional or business careers.
In the study, the best-positioned socioeconomic group is the one least likely to step out of the ethnic
circle in its inter-personal relationships, while the group in the most disadvantaged position is most likely
to do so.
,)0
Frank D. Beare, Jorge Chapa, Ruth Berg, and Kathy Sowards, "Educational and Socioeconomic
Incorporation Among Hispanic Immigrants to the United States," 1991
Immigrants exhibit different characteristics than natives and retain country of origin as the group with
which they most closely identify. The second generation begins to shift its language patterns and
reference groups. The third generation has made the transition almost completely. For example, 84%
of first generation Mexican women have been found to use only Spanish at home(Portes and Rumbaut,
1990). By the third generation, the shift to English has been nearly complete, with 84% of persons
using only English at home and 12% using both English and Spanish(Lopez, 1978). This third
generation also refers to the country of destination as the group with which it identifies most.
Even if educational levels of more recent immigrants are declining, the experience of the immigrant
generation may hold few implications for the ease with which the children and grandchildren of the
immigrants will advance socioeconomically. As Chavez(1989)and others have argued, native-born
Mexican-Americans may make rapid strides socioeconomically even if the prospects for the immigrant
generation itself might be deteriorating. The key test of whether the native-born groups are assimilating
hinges on comparisons between the second and third or later generation with non-Hispanic Whites.
Kevin McCarthy and R. Burciaga Valdez, Current and Future Effects of Mexican Immigration in
California,May 1986
Mexican immigrants are following the classic American pattern for integrating into U.S. society, with
education playing a critical role in the process (integration being defined as the acquisition of English and
familiarity with Iabor market).
?1
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bach, Robert L. and Doris Meissner, America's Labor Market in the 1990's: What Role
Should Immigration Play? Washington, D.C.: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace,
June 1990.
Bean, Frank D., Jorge Chapa, Ruth Berg, and Kathy Sowards, "Educational and
Socioeconomic Incorporation Among Hispanic Immigrants to the United States," prepared for
"Immigrants in the 1990s" Conference, Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute, June 17-18,
1991.
Bolos, George J., Friends or Strangers. The Impact of Immigrants on the U.S. Economy.
New York, NY: Basic Books, Inc., 1990.
Coifman, Tom and Helena Sundman, "Refugee Agencies Dodge Funding Crisis," Chicago
Reporter, April 1993, pp. 3-5.
Comprehensive Adult Student Assessment System, A Survey of the Newly Legalized in
California. Report for the California Health and Welfare Agency, Sacramento, CA, 1989.
DeFreitas, Gregory, "Hispanic Immigration and Labor Market Segmentation," Industrial
Relations, Vol. 27, No. 2, Spring 1988, pp. 195-214.
Enchautegui, Maria, Immigration and County Employthent Growth. Washington, D.C.: The
Urban Institute, August 1992. ;
Freeman, Richard B., editor, Immigration, Trade, and the Labor Market. Cambridge, MA:
National Bureau of Economic Research, 1988.
Going to Mexico: Priced Out of American Health Care. Washington, D.C.: Families USA
Foundation, November 1992.
Greenwood, Michael J. and John M. McDowell, The Labor Market Consequences of U.S.
Immigration: A Survey. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of
International Affairs, August 1990.
Guide to Alien Eligibility for Federal Programs. Los Angeles, CA: National Immigration
Law Center, 1992.
Hogeland, Chris and Karen Rosen, Dreams Lost, Dreams Found: Undocumented Women in
the Land of Opportunity (A Survey Research Project of Chinese, Filipina and Latina
Undocrunented Women). San Francisco, CA: Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights
and Services, 1991.
Mandel, Michael and Christopher Farrell, "The Immigrants," Business Week, July 13, 1992,
pp. 114-122.
22
McCarthy, Kevin and R. Burciaga Valdez, Current and Future Effects of Mexican
Immigration in California. Santa Monica, CA: The Rand Corporation, May 1986.
Muller, Thomas and Thomas Espenshade, The Fourth Wave. Washington, D.C.: The
Urban Institute Press, 1985.
Papademetriou, Demetrios G., Robert L. Bach, Kyle Johnson, Roger G. Kramer, Briant
Lindsay Lowell, and Shirley J. Smith, The Effects of Immigration on the U.S. Economy and
Labor Market. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of International
Labor Affairs, May 1989.
Portes, Alejandro and Min Zou, "The New Second Generation: Segmented Assimilation and
Its Variants Among Post-1965 Youth," The Annals of the American Academy of Political and
Social Sciences, November 1993.
Report on the Legalized Alien Population. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice,
Immigration and Naturalization Service, March 1992.
Simon, Julian, How Do Immigrants Affect Us Economically? Washington, D.C.: Center for
Immigration Policy and Refugee Assistance, Georgetown University, 1985.
Simon, Julian, The Economic Consequences of Immigration. Cambridge, MA: Basil
Blackwell, Inc., 1989.
Sorensen, Elaine, Frank Bean, Leighton Ku, and Wendy Zimmerman, Immigrant Categories
and the U.S. Job Market: Do They Make a Difference? Washington, D.C.: The Urban
Institute Press, 1992.
Tienda, Marta and Leif Jensen, Immigration and Public Assistance Participation: Dispelling
the Myth of Dependency. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin-Madison, June 1985.
Weintraub, Sidney, "Illegal Immigrants in Texas: Impact on Social Services and Related
Considerations," International Migration Review, Vol. 18, No. 3, 1984, pp. 733-747.
`'3
��.`
4
,1
� {� M
Lf
[ �
(.,.�
r/
`�,■y 'YF
V"�
t-,
0� q:
S!
w �.
3
`i
- ATTACHMENT #7
RECEI V E o
OCT -
. _
PACIFICC"ROSSCURRENT
`")
— s
Mandate Madness
PASSING THE sucx THE POLITICS OF MEANING
ON IMMIGRATION AND THE MEANING OF POLITICS
ativists, open-border advocates and y now most of the hubbub over Hillary
all sides in between are squaring off Rodham Clinton's "politics of meaning"
for atooth-and-nail fight over immi speech back in April has begun to subside,
gration. In the meantime, a quieter, high stakes but we"think that amidst the mirth this episode
confrontation is brewing—not over the immigrants generated, the most salient aspects of the matter
themselves,but over who should pay the costs of have been overlooked.
their assimilation. The great issues of federalism Speaking at the University of Texas, Mrs.
and federal mandates on state and local govern Chntori said that we must "redefine who we are as
ment are revived in this controversy. Federal human;:beings in this post-modern age," which will
immigration is clearly a federal responsibility. But require"remaking the American way of politics,
Washington is passing the buck to the states government, indeed life."
There is no doubt that immigrants make a -< However silly the "politics of meaning" may
substantial contribution to our economy and our seem on the surface, it is a mistake to dismiss it as
standard of living. It is true that welfare outlays`for mere rhetoric. To the contrary: the idea of a "poli-
immigrants may be as high as $5 billion. But tics of,;meaning" expresses the theoretical center of
immigrants earn$240 billion a year,and pay more modern "Progressive" liberalism. That center will
than a third of that in taxes—$90 billion a year ` turn out to be,on close inspection,nihilistic and
But there's a catch. Immigrants make most of their = tyrannical, even if gilded with soft edges.
public contribution in the form of payroll taxes idea of"redefining who we are in this post-
That means that nearly two-thirds of their taxes,go modern age" implies that there is no human na-
directly to Washington,bypassing the state and> ture,or that whatever human nature there is
local governments. y defines itself through sheer self-assertion. In other
In Los Angeles County alone,illegal imxru K� `words the human soul can be transformed at will.
grants generated almost$3 billion in assorted tax So for Mrs. Clinton to say that we need to
revenues in 1990-91. But the lion's share of remake the American way of politics, government,
funds,$1.7 billion,went straight to the federal and life is to imply that government has the right,
even the duty, to change man into something he
(continued on page 4) now is not. She believes that this transformation
can be achieved through proper administration.
IN THIS ISSUE Thi idea is not new with Mrs. Clinton. Its
intellectual pedigree traces back to the Progressive
Political Economy era and beyond, to the mostly German thinkers
Why the Budget Is Blimped Out. . . . .. . . . . . 3
thought that history should replace nature as
philosophical ground of politics.
The Environment
Green Vigilantes,EPA Risk Assessment,
and the Lucas Case Revisited. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
(continued on page 3)
IMMIGRATION (continued from page 1) states, but it has been a promise mainly observed in
the breech.
government in the form of income taxes and contri-
butions to the Social Security fund. The California Conundrum
America absorbed a wave of nearly 10 million
newcomers in the 1980s, exceeded in numbers only The State of California, the ultimate destination
by the last such wave from 1905 to 1915. Seventy- of almost half of the nation's newcomers, provides
seven percent of these immigrants intend to reside the most dramatic example of how federal policy is
in six states—California,Texas, New York, breaking state budgets. Beginning in 1991, Califor-
Florida,Illinois and New Jersey. Not coincides- nians have experienced the three largest state
tally, these states are struggling with red ink. budget gaps in American history. Federal immi-
What are the costs of immigration for the gration policy has added billions to these gaps.
states? Look first to the demographics. Immi- That explains California Gov. Pete Wilson's
grants account for a third of all U.S. population request for a $1.4 billion reimbursement as part of
growth. In California alone,immigration has his 1993-1994 state budget proposal. Wilson's
fueled high birth rates, giving the Golden State an request was followed by public recognition of the
average 2.2 percent increase in population every plight of the states by President Clinton in a Feb. 16
year since 1980, or a rate of population growth that speech over a live satellite feed to an economic
is faster than those of China, India, Indonesia and, summit of California leaders.
in some years,Bangladesh. Budget director Leon Panetta followed up on
Of course, these newcomers arrive with hands March 13 with a specific promise—more than$1
to work as well as mouths to feed. But the costs of billion to help California with education, medical
assimilation are huge, particularly educational care and other services for legal and illegal immi-
costs,because immigrants and their families tend to grants. But the final budget that passed in June
be younger than the U.S. norm. only contains $324 million in funding for
Regardless of how you view this liberalized California's SLIAG costs.
national immigration policy, it is the states, coun- Furthermore, the federal government has no
ties and cities that must provide more social and plans to compensate the states for many other
physical infrastructure for these new Americans. immigration-related costs, including the growing
In the State of Illinois, the costs of providing medi- population of children of illegal aliens born in the
cal services, education, corrections, welfare and United States, or citizen-children. Forty-two
other services for illegal or undocumented aliens percent of all births in New York City are to iimmi-
alone is almost$50 million. States are liable for grant mothers. In 1992, the County of Los Angeles
other costs related to immigrants as well. counted 250,000 citizen-children of undocumented
Much of this was foreseen by Congress when it parents. In fact, children born to illegal immigrants
wrote the 1986 Immigration and Reform Control now account for more than 65 percent of all births
Act. This mea- at county-run
sure created the hospitals in Los
(thousands) Immigrants Admitted to the U.S.
State Legalization 2,000 g Angeles.
Impact Assistance 1900 — 1991 The states find
Grant (SLIAG) 1,800 another cost .
program to 1,600 particularly
reimburse state 1,400 galling: that of
and local govern- 1,200 imprisoning
ments for immi- 1,000 illegal immigrants
gration-related 800 convicted of
expenses ranging serious crimes. In
from public 600 California alone,
health programs, 400 these prisoners
to public assis- 200 are costing state
tante, to educa- 0 taxpayers almost
tion. This was $350 million a
1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1450 1960 1970 1980 1990
Washington's year.
g Source:U.S.Immigrationand Naturalisation Service
promise to the I These are just
4
some of the estimated costs
borne by the states,although AFDC Expenditures for Recent
no one knows the full costs of Immigrants to California
immigration. For that reason,
five big state governors are (millions) —
appealing to President 300 ■ Refugees
Clinton
for relief.
oThey have
e
r=
also organized an informal 250 C7 Citizen Children .....
working group
of h-
(Undocumented
ted
nance directors
t
a see
a
20
a Pare
nt
s
)
mm
co onfiniti
de onf
o
costs
"However
you feel el abo
t
15
0
.........:.....
r
`mmi
1 atson said s a budget'
t
official in one of the affected 100 <
states, "it is a nationalP olic
Y
r
fo which�c
h th fed
eeralv rn-
go e 50
ment has financial responsi-
. :
bility. Period." p
87/88 88/89 89/90 90/91 91/92 92/93 93/94
—By Mark Davis, PRI Public (Fiscal Year) Source:California Department of Finance
Affairs Fellow
Political Economy only lagged badly behind the nation as a whole in
terms of growth in capital expenditures; it has
CALIFORNIA: ' actually experienced a negative growth rate since
WHY NOTHING GETS BUILT 1975.
This trend is all the more astounding when one
considers that in the 1960s, the state tax burden in
Ever wonder why California is unable to California amounted to about 4.8 percent of per-
provide new roads,schools,sewers, water supplies, sonal income. Today, the state tax burden is over 8
and other kinds of public works necessary to percent of personal income, yet the state cannot
accommodate the state's rapid growth? A recent afford the kind of public works it used to.
report from the California Council for Environmen- We think this trend exposes in dramatic fashion
tal and Economic Balance (CCEEB)contained some the disproportionate shift of public resources into
illuminating numbers. The chart at the lower right social spending that has taken place in the last
shows the precipitous decline in capital expendi- generation.
tures as a portion of total spending in California
over the last generation. Our own research re-
vealed that state spending for road building alone Capital Outlay as a % of State Spending
has declined from 16 percent of the state budget in in California
1963 to about 5 percent today.
As the table below shows,California has not 25.07o-
20.0
Growth Rate of State & Local 15.o9a
nx
Capital Investment 10.0
California I 5.0%
1961-1988 .34%/yr 1.76%/yr 0.0
17.
7975-7988 -1.4%/yr .46%/yr 1950
1955
1960 1965 1970
Source:Douglas Holtz-Eakin,Regional Science and Urban 1975 1980 1885
Economics,April 1993 Source:CCEEB 1990
5
ATTACHMENT #8
Senate Bill No. 691
CHAPTER 818
An act to add Section 53069.75 to the Government Code, relating
to immigration, and declaring the urgency thereof, to take effect
immediately.
[Approved by Governor October 4, 1993. Filed with
Secretary of State October 5, 1993.)
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
SB 691, Kopp. Law enforcement: immigration matters.
Existing state law makes no express provision concerning the
cooperation of law enforcement officers with federal government
agents on immigration matters.
This bill would provide that no local law shall prohibit a peace
officer or custodial officer from identifying and reporting to the
United States Immigration and Naturalization Service any person,
pursuant to federal law or regulation,who is arrested and booked for
the alleged commission of a felony and who is reasonably suspected
to have violated the civil provisions of the federal immigration laws.
. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an
urgency statute.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows.
SECTION 1. Section 53069.75'is added to the Government Code,
to read:
53069.75. In order to comply with state law requirements
mandated by Section 3753 of Title 42 of the United States Code,
which bases eligibility of federal grants under the Omnibus Control
and Safe Streets Act, no local law shall prohibit a peace officer or
custodial officer from identifying and reporting to the United States
��'Ot8lklci i6R
Immigration and Naturalization Service any person, pursuant to
federal law or regulation, to whom both of the following apply:
(a) The person was arrested and booked,based upon the arresting
officer's probable cause to believe that the person arrested had
committed a felony.
(b) After the arrest and booking in subdivision (a), the officer
reasonably suspects that the person arrested has violated the civil
provisions of the federal immigration laws.
SEC. 2. This act is an urgency. statute necessary for the
immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety within
the meaning-of Article IV of the Constitution and shall go into
immediate* effect. The facts constituting the necessity are:
In order to guarantee continued federal support for local law
enforcement activities, it is necessary that this act take effect
94 110
Ch. 818
immediately.
O
94 110
Senate Bill No. 733
CHAPTER 819
An act to add Sections 9601.5 and 9601.7 to the Unemployment
Insurance Code, relating to employment.
[Approved by Governor October 4, 1993. Filed with
Secretary of State October 5, 1993.]
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
SB 733, Russell. Employment: unemployment insurance:
employment services.
Existing law does not provide procedures for government and
private agencies providing employment services to verify the legal
status or work authorization of every individual prior to providing
services to these individuals.
This bill would require each state or local government agency or
community action agency, or any private organization contracting
with a state or local government agency, that provides employment
services, including, but not limited to, job training, retraining, or
placement, to verify an individual's legal status or authorization to
work prior to providing services to that individual in accordance
with procedures established under federal law. It would specify that,
for purposes of these provisions,proof of legal status or authorization
to work includes, but is not limited to, a social security card,
immigration visa,birth certificate,passport, or other valid document
providing evidence of legal residence or authorization to work in' the
United States. It would also specify that those provisions requiring
verification of an individual's legal status or authorization to work
prior to providing employment services shall not apply to
employment services offered by school districts under secondary
school and adult education programs.
This bill would require each state or local government agency or
community action agency, or any private organization contracting
with a state or local government agency, that provides employment
services, including, but not limited to, job training, retraining, or
placement, pursuant to these provisions, to post in a prominent
location in the workplace a notice stating that only citizens or those
persons legally authorized .to work in the United States will be
permitted to use the agency's or organization's employment services
that are funded by the federal or state government, as specified.
This bill would provide that if any provision of the bill or the
application thereof to any person or circumstances is held invalid,
that invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of the
bill that can be given effect without the invalid provision or
application.
92 90
Ch. 819 —2—'
The people of the State of California do enact as follows.
SECTION 1. Section 9601.5 is added to the Unemployment
Insurance Code, to read:
9601.5. Each state or local government agency or community
action agency, or any private organization contracting with a state
or local government agency, that provides employment services,
including, but not limited to,job training, retraining, or placement,
shall verify* an individual's legal status or authorization to work prior
to providing services to that individual in accordance with
procedures established under federal law. For purposes of this
section,proof of legal status or authorization to work includes,but is
not limited to, a social security card, immigration visa, birth
certificate,passport, or other valid document providing evidence of
legal residence or authorization to work in the United States. This
section shall not apply to employment services offered by school
districts under secondary school and adult education programs.
SEC. 2. Section 9601.7 is added to the Unemployment Insurance
Code, to read:
9601.7. (a) Each state or local government agency or community
action agency, or any private organization contracting with a state
or local government agency, that enters into an agreement with the
department to provide employment services including, but not
limited to, job training, retraining, or placement, shall post in a
prominent location in the workplace, a notice stating that only
citizens or those persons legally authorized to work in the United
States will be permitted to use the agency's or organization's
employment services that are funded by the federal or state
government
(b) The notice shall read:
NOTICE: Attention All job Seekers
The Immigration and Reform Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) requires
that all employers verify the identity and employment authorization
of all individuals hired after November 6, 1986. An employer is
required to examine documents provided by the job seeker
establishing identity and authorization for employment in the
United States. In addition, it is a violation of both state and federal
law to discriminate against job seekers on the basis of ancestry,race,
or national origin.This agency provides employment services funded
by the federal or state government that are available only to
individuals who are United States citizens or who are legally
authorized to work in the United States.
SEC. 3. If any provision of this act or the application thereof to
any person or circumstances is held invalid, that invalidity shall not
affect other provisions or applications of the act which can be given
effect without the invalid provision or application,and to this end the
92 130
—3— Ch. 819
provisions of this act are severable.
It
y
:e
S,
.t,
)r
h
is
is
h
if
is
A
:e
y
:e
.e
A
a
Y
d O
s
e
�s
n
is
'r
:e
�l
d
:o
.Y
:o
A
:n
to
30 92 130
Senate Bill No. 976
CHAPTER 820
An act to amend Section 12800.5 of,and to add Sections 12801.5 and
14610.7 to, the Vehicle Code, relating to residency.
[Approved by Governor October 4, 1993. Filed with
Secretary of State October 5, 1993.]
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
SB 976,Alquist. Drivers'licenses: identification cards: citizenship
or legal residence.
(1) Existing law requires every application for a driver's license or
identification card to contain specified information.
This bill would require the Department of Motor Vehicles to
require every applicant for an original driver's license or
identification card to submit satisfactory proof that the applicant's
presence in the United States is authorized under federal law. The
department would be prohibited from issuing an original driver's
license or identification card to any person who does not submit
satisfactory proof that the applicant's presence in the United States
is authorized under federal law.
The bill would require the department to adopt regulations to
carry out these requirements,including procedures for (1) verifying
that an applicant's presence in the United States is authorized, (2)
the issuance of temporary licenses pending that verification, and (3)
appeals hearings from denials of licenses. The bill would require the
department,not later than March 1, 1994,to report to the Legislature
on the feasibility of entering into agreements with the Immigration
and Naturalization Service to electronically verify the alien
registration number of applicants. The bill would require the
department each year to submit a specified supplemental budget
report to the Governor and the Legislature.
(2) Existing law prohibits the operation of a motor vehicle by an
unlicensed person.
This bill would prohibit a peace officer from detaining or arresting
a person solely on the belief that the person is an unlicensed driver,
unless the officer has reasonable cause to believe that the driver is
under the age of 16 years.
(3) Existing law makes it a misdemeanor for any person to,among
other things, knowingly make any false statement in any document
filed with the department.
This bill would make it a misdemeanor for any person to knowingly
assist in obtaining a driver's license or identification card for any
person whose presence in the United States is not authorized under
federal law.
Because the bill would create a new crime, it would impose a
94 90
Ch. 820 —2—
state-mandated local program.
(4) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse
local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the
state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that
reimbursement.
This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this
act for a specified reason.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
SECTION 1. Section 12800.5 of the Vehicle Code is amended to
read:
12800.5. (a) A license issued after January 1, 1981, shall bear a
fullface engraved picture or photograph of the licensee.
(b) A license issued on or after July 1, 19951 including a temporary
license issued pursuant to Section 12506, shall bear the following
notice: "This license is issued solely as a license to drive a motor
vehicle in this state; it does not establish eligibility for employment,
voter registration, or public benefits."
(c) The department may demand proof of age prior to the
issuance of a license.
SEC. 2. Section 12801.5 is added to the Vehicle Code, to read:
12801.5. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the
department shall require every applicant for an original driver's
license or identification card to submit satisfactory proof that the
applicant's presence in the United States is authorized under federal
law.
(b) The department shall not issue an original driver's license or
identification card to any person who does not submit satisfactory
proof that the applicant's presence in the United States is authorized
under federal law.
(c) The department shall adopt regulations to carry out the
purposes of this section,including procedures for,but not limited to,
(1) verifying that the applicant's presence in the United States is
authorized under federal law, (2) issuance of temporary licenses
pending verification of status, and (3) appeals hearings from denials
of licenses or temporary licenses.
(d) The department shall, not later than March 1, 1994, submit a
report to the Legislature on the feasibility and costs of entering into
an agreement with the United States Immigration and
Naturalization Service to electronically verify the alien registration
number of those applicants who are residents who have been issued
such a number, and to manually verify the status of those applicants
who have not been issued such a number.
(e) On January 10, 1995, and on January 10 of each subsequent
year thereafter, the department shall submit a supplemental budget
report to the Governor and the Legislature detailing the costs of
verifying the citizenship or legal residency of applicants for driver's
94 140
-3— Ch. 820
licenses and identification cards, in order for the state to request
ie reimbursement from the federal.government.
1e (f) Notwithstanding Section 40300 or any other provision of law,
it a peace officer shall not detain or arrest a person solely on the belief
that the person is an unlicensed driver, unless the officer has
is reasonable cause to believe the person driving is under the age of 16
years.
(g) The inability to obtain a driver's license pursuant to this
section does not abrogate or diminish in any respect the legal
requirement of every driver in this state to obey the motor vehicle
:o laws of this state, including laws with respect to licensing, motor
vehicle registration, and financial responsibility.
a (h) This section shall become operative March 1, 1994.
SEC. 3. Section 14610.7 is added to the Vehicle Code, to read:
T 14610.7. It is a misdemeanor for any person to knowingly assist in
Ig obtaining a driver's license or identification card for any person
)r whose presence in the United States is not authorized under federal
,,t, law.
SEC. 4. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to
to Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because the
only costs which may be incurred by a local agency or school district
will be incurred because this act creates a new crime or infraction,
to changes the definition of a crime or infraction, changes the penalty
.'s for a crime or infraction, or eliminates a crime or infraction.
to Notwithstanding Section 17580 of the Government Code, unless
al otherwise specified in this act,the provisions of this act shall become
operative on the same date that the act takes effect pursuant to the
)r California Constitution.
y
!d
to
o,
is
!�s
Is
a
to
td
►n
A
is
at
et
of
-s
40 94 160
ATTACHMENT #9 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
RECEIVED Gerald S.Buck
Probation Department Contra County P obation Officer
Administrative Offices Costa
OCT 13 I<19C3
50 Douglas Drive,Suite 201 County
Martinez,California 94553-8500
(510)313-4180 OFFICE OF I
(510)313-4191 FAX
�` ' °' COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
To: - R -- Date: 10/12/93
Claude L. Van Marter, 40=
Asst. County Administrator ��STq cbirT LTJ
From: Subject:
Gerald S. Buck, Data Regarding Cost of
Coun y Probation Officer Providing County Services
to Illegal Aliens
We do not keep any statistics on services provided in relation to
illegal aliens or immigrants, so all I can do is offer some anecdotal
and experiential feedback.
There are undoubtedly a number of immigrants and illegals that find
their way into our caseloads without our knowledge. Juveniles
detained and committed to facilities and adults and juveniles under
our supervision must include these individuals . In most situations
it matters little to us as they've been arrested/convicted and
ordered to be under our supervision by the Courts we serve.
If we have a juvenile in Juvenile Hall who appears to be an illegal
alien, we notify INS (Immi.gration and Naturalization Services) and
occasionally they can establish the status of the individual and take
custody.
We are particularly concerned if an illegal alien minor is declared a
ward and ordered placed into foster care. In such cases Contra Costa
County must pay 100% of foster care costs which could be up to
$40,000 per year. In such cases we first try to keep them from being
ordered placed and, if they are, we work with INS to establish status
and deportation.
Immigrants with legal status are eligible for AFDC and we have
several of these wards under our care, but we don't keep a tally so
I 'm unable to establish cost.
All in all, the cost to Probation for services to immigrants and
illegal aliens is quite negligible, I believe. This could change as
immigration trends change. A few years ago we almost never saw an
Asian in our facilities . Now they represent nearly 10% of our
residents . We do not know how many are immigrants versus second
generation or third generation Americans . Most, we believe, are
U. S. born second generation Southeast Asians .
C. L. Van Marter - 2 - 10/12/93
You also asked if we had any additional information. I 've attached a
position paper on the impact of criminal aliens, in Los Angeles . The
National Association of Probation Executives (NAPE) has endorsed the
Los Angeles position via resolution by its Board on September 18,
1993.
Finally, you asked if we restrict our services by law or policy. We
do not, but we do work with INS in matters of illegal alienship.
GSB:ds
Attachment
COUNT WIDE CRIL'INLL JUSTICE COOr.==zATIOIZ CO?).:T'EP (CWCC)
IAS ANCELRS COMMY
In Los Angeles Count), a justice system-hide committee has been
formed to address problems of crime, gang violence, court
congestion, and jail and juvenile fdcility overcrowding. The
problems and possible solutions are complex and cut across
departmental lines. The committee is n top level,
=ultS-jurisdictional advisory body convened to improve the
justice systea, through greater cooperation and coordination. It
includes in its membership, heads of all local criminal justice
agencies, judges, chiefs of police, along with school officl&ls,
elected County and city officials, and local heads of Federal
agencies. The committee is 'headed by the Chairman of the
jurisdiction's Board of Supervisors. The Committee benefits the
system by its ability to: (1) provide a foram for discussion of
issues and sharing of information; (2) foster cooperative efforts
toward solution of mutual problems; and (3) increase mutual
respect and cooperation at policy making levels through personal
contact. system-wide strategies are developed and implemented
faster and more effectively because they are a result of mutually
agreed upon departmental decisions.
'i
s POS, 104N PAPEF, i
IMPAC: OF CRIMINAL ALIENS ON LO:,AL GOVERNMENT
Awrii 4i, �?93
%Ounw o` L--_. Angeles
Countv�,iae 'rirn.na! J:. C-0 Ccor,.nation Committee
The criminal justice system in Los Angeles County, the State of Calttomia, and to a similar
extent, many other states, has been vonificantly impacted by criminal aliens, immigrants
who have entered the United States unlavduliy and commit crimes while in the country.
Based on recent research, it has been documented that criminal aliens, rn any given time,
constitute approximately 11% of the Los Anoeies County Jalt population, resulting in over
S75 miMon a year in local justice systern costs. This problem hnwever, is one over which
Los Angeles County and other local jurisdictions throuonou; the nation have virtually no
control. Deportable cnminat aliens are a Federal responsibifrty demanding direct and
' immediate relief to state and local governments.
CRIMINAL ALiEN IMPACT ON THE COUNZY
Convicted criminal aliens have added greatly to the local costs and operational burden
of the County's already crowded jails and congested court system. This impact on the
local justice system was documented in two studies conducted. by the Countywide
Criminal Justice Coordination Committee (CCJCC) through the cooperative eftor►s Of the
immigration and Naturalization Service (iNS) and the Los Angeles County Sheriff.
The first study, "Criminal Aliens in the Los Angeles County .tail Population" was a
comprehensive study of the County's jai! population conducted during a one-month
period in 1090. Q the 17,717-= inmates trtmt were pari of that one-month study, 11%
(1,533) were identified as dpDortable criminal aliens under current immiaraticn laws. C.
these deportable aliens, 75°. had been convicted of felonies, 41%of which were drug taw
vioiations and 35%for crimes aaains perso Many had been previously dam ter and
over 21% Of, the identified ceportabie aiiens in the study were csportabie bared on Past
convictions_ From this first study, it is estimated the: over 23,000 depormbte aliens pass
tnrouah the Courny's jus-ace system annually.
The se=^,,study,"impart ccf Repent Arrests Of Deportable Criminal Aliens in Los Angeles
County', targeted the group of 1,09M deportabie aliens identified in the first study, and
examined their criminal records for a one vear period foliowino their release from custody.
The fotiow-up study detemtinea that over 50% of these defendants were resumed by
Federal officials to their country of origin by ejiher voluntary removal or, ceportetion. Yet,
almost 80%of those persons who had been returned to said country of origin had Ellegahy
re-entered the United States and had been rearrested within one year of release, wish
57% of the rearrests occurring in L.os Angeles Cburrty.
-- supporte4 Vic annendrnert:G`femero.sernaric,n g;JldsJine:,M pc-rni! more severe:
sentencing for re-entry vidatons of aggravated teiens which ha: resuhed in
signs antiy increased pnson sentences Tx triose comnmed;
-- Dedcated lora! and federal resources to assist the County in idernitying and
oocumentng the severity of the criminal alien probiom in its jail population and the
costs to the local criminal justice system;
— Provided access to court conviction documents to expedite deportation
prooeedings tar convicted criminal aliens; and
Implemerned the institutional Hearing Program at the County ,Jail under which
immigration Judges conduct deportation hearings for convicted criminal aliens
before they are released from Court, custody, the first program cf its kind to be
conducted in a County jail
FEDERAL RESPONSiB TY
Immigration policy is established by the Federal government and., as such, aliens who
illegally enter the United States and commit crimes are a national problem and the
responsibility of the Federai government., Some initial steps to address the issue have
been taken. For example, Congress has taken action tc strengthen Federal efforts
targerting criminal aliens. The Anti Drug Abuse A.^t of 1988 and the Comprehensive Crime
uon=I Acct ofl-IMI both cornain specmc provisions to intensify Federal law enforcement
eftom aimed M. imp;ovhg idenftatbn and expediting deportation of criminal aliens.
Simiiar provisions, as well as other related reforms, have been incorporated into the
Immiamztion A= of 1990.
Although these legislative responses have eliminated or diminished cerain legal
defrc:ienries in the immioration lav,, they have nm been accom=panied by an adequate
commitment of, funds or manpower needed for full implementation in those regions and
lora'jury:irl:*ons the.are r:nost swerely imparted by criminal aliens. These reforms have
also jailed to provide f aai re ie`to state and to cai governments that have had to bear a
disproporti= share of justice sysmm costs due to criminal aliens.
NESS FOR FEDERAL LEGI5lAT10N
Legislation is needed to establish Federal, responsib±?rty for #reportable criminal aliens_
However, remedial actions and relief should not be limited to state level government
1nra!jurisdictons,who are most heavily impacted by criminal aliens,should receive dire=
2ssistance as they sustain the major portion of overall justice system frosts. The
provisions for t 1ture legistation recommended below are consistent with tate
=01 ons adopted by the Los Angeles County Board of, Supervisors and the
NAPE
NATIONA: ASSO--iATIDN, 0: PR35,4TiDN cXE-JTIV=c
50 Douglas Dr. , Suite 201
Martinez, CA 94553-8500
(510) 313-4180
September 30 , 1993
Mr. Barry J. Nidorf
Chief Probation Officer
Los Angeles Co. Probation Dept.
9150 East Imperial Highway
Downey, CA 90242
Dear Barry,
The Board of Directors of NAPE has reviewed and discussed the
position paper, "Impact of Criminal Aliens on Local Government"
by the Los Angeles County Criminal Justice Coordination
Committee. The Board unanimously voted to adopt a position of
support for the Los Angeles County position on September 18 ,
1993 .
Please feel free to use NAPE 's name in support of the position
=" and any legislation which promotes resolution of the problems
outlined.
Sincerely,
Gerald S. Buck,
President
GSB:ds
BOARD OF DIRECTORS: President Gerald S.Buck, Caldomia- Vice President Ronald P.Corbett.Jr.,Massachusetts- Treasurer Dave
Savage,Washington-SecretaryDan R.Beto,Texas-Immediate Past President Donald Cochran,Massachusetts-Regions:New England
John Gorczyk,Vermont-Mid-Atlantic Richard A.Kipp,Pennsylvania-Central John J.Robinson,Illinois-SouthemT.Vince Fallin,Georgia
- Westem Elyse Clawson,Oregon-At Large.Don Stiles,Arizona- Robert Bingham, Illinois
MEMO TO: Claude Van Marter, CAO' s Office
FROM: Steve Weir
RE: Services to Illegal Aliens
DATE: October 14, 1993
I have reviewed your memo of October 7, 1993.
The only possible service costs associated with illegal aliens
would be in the Clerk' s Office (Clerk of Superior Court) . Many
people file fee waivers. It is possible that illegal aliens may
be involved in litigation and may file for a fee waiver.
This would have a cost consequence on the whole court structure.
However , I do not know how we could quantify that impact. My gut
feeling is that such a person would avoid the courts. When there
is a fee waiver, we do ask for proof of eligibility which could
include : Food Stamp, AFDC, Medical Card, GA.
In addition, if an illegal alien registers to vote, they impact
our operations financially by a per voter cost. This number is
in the range of two to three dollars per election. Again, my gut
feeling is that we do not have reason to suspect a problem in
this area.
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY�-�
RECEIVED
r
OCT
ism �
OFFICE OF
"''T`` ADMIP41STRATOR
Contra Costa County
The Board of Supervisors HEALTH SERVICES DEPARTMENT OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR
Tom Powers, 1st District
Jeff Smith,2nd District Mark Finucane, Director
Gayle Bishop,3rd District 20 Allen Street
Sunne Wright McPeak,4th District EE Martinez,California 94553-3191
Tom Torlakson,5th District Nil510 370-5003
( )
FAX(510)370-5098
County Administrator / -
Phil Batchelor
County Administrator
rA couiarr'
DATE: November 4, 1993
TO: Claude L. Van Marter
Assistantounty A 4trator
FROM: Mark Finucane
Health Services Director
SUBJECT: DATA REGARDING THE COST OF PROVIDING COUNTY SERVICES
TO ILLEGAL ALIENS
In an October 7 memo to me, you requested data regarding the cost of providing county
services to illegal aliens. Unfortunately, there is not much hard data available regarding
health services. We had previously been targeted to receive about $2 million from the
federal government (SLIAG fund) to pay for health services for newly-legalized immigrants
under the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act amnesty program. These individuals
were presumably previously undocumented individuals, but they by no means comprise the
total population of undocumented persons. As you know, we have not received full
reimbursement under SLIAG despite repeated attempts by our Congressional delegation.
The SLIAG funds were supposed to compensate state and local programs for five years for
services provided to this population of newly-legalized immigrants, since they were not
eligible for Medicaid.
With regard to Medicaid, a 1986 federal law specified that undocumented persons are only
eligible for Medicaid reimbursement for emergency medical services, including labor and
delivery. However, in 1988, the state enacted a law to provide a wider scope of services,
such as follow up and continuation care. These additional services were paid for by the
state alone and did not receive federal cost-sharing. The state estimated that in this fiscal
year, $1 billion will be spent on providing Medi-Cal services to illegal aliens. That led to
the enactment last year of a law repealing the law that expanded the scope of benefits so
that the state and federal laws are consistent.
Undocumented persons are not covered under Clinton's health care reform proposal.
Therefore, they will likely continue to.be the responsibility of the county health system when
Merrithew Memorial Hospital&Clinics Public Health • Mental Health • Substance Abuse • Environmental Health
Contra Costa Health Plan Emergency Medical Services • Home Health Agency • Geriatrics
A-345 (2/93)
they seek emergency care in the clinics or hospital. Because so little is known about this
population, Lewin-VHI and the Kaiser Family Foundation will be conducting a study to
collect and analyze data regarding health services provided to undocumented persons. It
will address their use of health care services, the cost of providing these services and the
relevant sources of financing. The study will also develop general demographic and
socioeconomic characteristics of the population, including country of origin, language, age,
gender, employment history, etc. In addition, it will develop options to deal with the
financing and delivery of health services to this population. Unfortunately, collection of this
information will be some time in coming.
With regard to the cost of providing care to legalized immigrants, we do not separate that
data out. However, because of the language needs of many immigrant populations, we do
provide ethnic specialty clinics at the Richmond, Martinez and Pittsburg clinics. These
weekly clinics are offered in Asian, Afghani, Lao, Vietnamese languages. About 725 visits
per month are provided through these clinics.
If you have any additional questions, please let me know.
k.T
Community Services DepartmentChild Development 374-3994
Contra Head Start 646-5540
Communty Action 313-7363
Administration
Costa Food Service 374-3850
1220 Morello Avenue, Suite 101
Martinez,California 94553-4711 County Housing and Energy 646-5756
PATHS 427-8094
(510)313-7350
Fax: (510)313-7385
.loan V.sparks, _= CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
I
Director RECEIVED;, ,;a e
erq_cdur'r`
`~ OCT 2 O i99Q
October 20, 1993 "
OFFICE OF
kI
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
To: Claude Van Marter,Assistant County Administrator
From: Joan Spark irector CSD
Subject: DATA ON COST TO CSD FOR SERVICES TO ILLEGAL ALIENS
Housing and Energy Division and Community Services Block Grant Programs:
Both the Housing and Energy Division and the CSBG Division provides no services to
illegal aliens. Applicants for these services must complete a state of California form
#2080912 certifying if their eligibility for program benefits, please see attachment. The
Division does not separate immigrants who are legally in this county from nationalized
citizens or U.S. born citizens. Therefore we have no data available on the costs to CSD to
provide services to immigrants or illegal aliens.
Head Start and Child Development Divisions:
The Head Start Program and Child Development divisions do not inquire at the time of
enrolling children whether they are illegal or legally in this country. Therefore we have
no data available on the costs to CSD to provide services to immigrants or illegal aliens.
PATHS Project:
The PATHS Project does not require certification of citizenship when assisting
homeless or potential homeless clients. Therefore we have no data available on the
costs to CSD to provide services to immigrants or illegal aliens.
The Board's resolution to establish a Newcomer Task force is a good idea, however, it
appears to me a duplication of the Human Relations Commission's mandate. Please
call me if you have any concerns or need any additional information.
Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer
P.02
OCT-14-93 THU 8:13
Attachment 2
APPLICANT NAME
TO: APPLICANTS FOR LOW INCOME HOME ENERGY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
(LIBEAP) DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY (DOE) OR COMMUNITY SERVICES
BLOCK GRANT (CSBG) BENEFITS
The Immigration and Nationality Act as amended by the Immigration
Reform and Control Act of 1986 states that certain legalized aliens
are temporarily disqualified from receiving benefits under these
three programs. Special Agricultural workers (SAWs) and
individuals eligible for SSI (aged, blind, disabled) continue to be
eligible. If someone in your household has been granted legalized
status, you may still be eligible .for program benefits, if you meet
other criteria. In order to comply with this requirement, please
make a chock in the box below in front of the statement that
applies to your household.
❑ 1- certify that no member of this household has been provided
legalized resident status according to Sections 245A (Amnesty
or Legalization) or 210A (Replenishment Agricultural Workers)
of the Immigration Reform and Control, Act of 1986.
❑ I certify that a member of my household has been provided
legalized resident status according to Sections 245A (Amnesty
or Legalization) or 210A (Replenishment Agricultural Workers)
of the Immingration Reform and Control Act of 1986 AND THAT
THE NECESSARY INFORMATION ON INCOME AND HOUSEHOLD XCHdIERS Us
BEEN PROVIDER.
❑ Five year period of exclusion from eligibility for
program services has not been completed.
❑ Five year period of exclusion from eligibility for
program services expired
DATE
OATS APPLXCANt P 151=&TVRE
2o�a731
J• IU
ATTACHMENT #10
To: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS , Contra
FROM: Supervisor Jeff Smith 1," COSta
;;- County
DATE: October S, 1993
SUBJECT; RESOLUTION OPPOSING ANTI-IMMI RATION PROPOSALS AND SUPPORTING
THE INCLUSIVE PROCESS
1
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)i BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
To adopt attached resolution opposing anti-immigration proposals and
supporting inclusive process.
REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION AND BACKGROUND:
During this past year the Governor and some legislators have proposed
severe restrictions on immigration suggesting that we cannot afford
to sustain the same level of immigration that we currently have.
All the evidence shows, however, that immigrants in our society are
more of an asset than a liability.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: _YES SIGNATURE:
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOAR COMMITTEE
..APPROVE -OTHER
i
SIGNATUREIS):
1
ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
1
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
-UNANIMOUS(ABSENT + AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
CC:. Supv. Jeff Smith: attn Nancy I ATTESTED
Maria Alegria and Grepry Kepferle' PHIL BATCHELOR,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
via Supv. Smith s office SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
Administration
IN RECOGNITION OF OPPOSING ] RESOLUTION NUMBER
ANTI-IMMIGRANT PROPOSALS/
SUPPORTING INCLUSIVE PROCESSES]
WHEREAS, Contra Costa County has always been an ethnically diverse
county, including the contributions of a rich mosaic of Immigrant
communities; and
WHEREAS, during these difficult economic times , immigrants, ethnic
minorities and poor families and children have become scapegoats
for the state's financial problems; and
WHEREAS, extensive state and national research demonstrate that
immigrants are a powerful benefit to the economy, as well as
contributing more in taxes than using in public services; and
WHEREAS, border control and immigration enforcement are being used
at times against documented and undocumented entrants in an unjust
manner, while denying the right to appeal asylum violates the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; and
WHEREAS, denying children of undocumented immigrants citizenship,
health care, education, and social service violates fundamental
Constitutional and civil laws ar;d principles, and would create
greater health and safety burdens for residents of Contra Costa
County; and
WHEREAS, requiring a national identification card will encourage
discrimination against residents on the basis of name, language,
ethnicity, and color, creating a permanent underclass; and
WHEREAS, effective immigration policies must address the issue of
economic development of countries of origin as well as effective
enforcement of labor laws in the United States;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Contra Costa County Board
of Supervisors does hereby reject punitive policies and proposals
that prohibit citizenship to children born in the United States;
and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, . that the Contra Costa County Board of
Supervisors rejects imprudent policies and proposals to prohibit
access to necessary health care and education currently required by
law -for the public health and welfare of residents of Contra Costa
County; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Contra Costa County Board of
Supervisors rejects the proposed national identity card as
discriminatory and placing an undue burden on county staff to
operate as de facto agents of the Immigration and Naturalization
Service; and i
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that th� Contra Costa County Board of
Supervisors rejects proposals r stricting the right of asylum
appeal; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Contra Costa County Board of
Supervisors opposes the pending bills in the California Legislature
that would further restrict the rights of immigrants and refugees
residing in California, and directs its State Lobbyist to actively
oppose these proposals; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Contra Costa County Board of.
Supervisors does establish a Newcomer Task Force to study the need
and contributions of immigrants, the effects of immigration on
Contra Costa County, and to recommend positive policies for the
greater health, safety, and welfare of all residents of Contra
Costa County.
INTRODUCED BY:
JEFF SMITH !
Supervisor, District II J
Witness my hand and the seal of
the Board of Supervisors affixed
this 5th day of•October, 1993.
Phil Batchelor, Clerk of the
Board of Supervisors and
County Administrator.
BY
Deputy Clerk
New Calif' 01• 111a Coalitioll
NCC New Iminigrant Fact Sheet f
Contrary to the popular opinion that new immigrants have a negative
impact on the economy, here are some facts about the contributions that
new immigrants make to their new home:
® Los Angeles' immigrants pay substantial federal, state, and local taxes - a total of
$4.2 billion in 1992. (Source: "L.A.'s immigrants: Today's'problem,'tomorrow's answer" by Richard
Rothstein, Economic Policy Institute)
According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (1985), immigrants come here to
work, not to go on welfare, and use SUBSTANTIALLY LESS services than people
born in the U.S..
Immigrants make up 22 pement of California's population but are only 12% of the
population receiving AFDC. (Source: California State Department of Finance 1991-92)
Immigrants, over their lifetime, pay $15,000 to $20,000 more in taxes than they
receive in government benefits. (Source:Julian Simon, The Economic Consequences of
Immigration, University of Maryland, 1989.)
® Approximately 11 million immigrants are working, earning $240 billion a year, and
pay more than $90 billion in taxes...outweighing by far the $5 billion that
Immigrants receive in welfare. (Source: Business Week, July 13, 1992)
IN Many of the United States' new businesses are started by new immigrants.
Between 9°2 and 1987, Hispanic businesses grew 81% and Asian American
businesses grew 89%. In 1987, California's Vietnamese Americans operated
11,855 firms and produced $665 million in revenue.
(Source: U.S. Census Bureau)
Latino males are more likely to have jobs or to seek work than other Americans, yet
employed Latinos are more likely to be among the nation's working poor.
(Source: "State of Hispanic America', National Council of La Raza)
® Although undocumented immigrants are ineligible for almost all public benefits,
Including unemployment and social security, they are required to pay into these
programs through taxes and payroll deductions.
® John D. Kasarda, a sociologist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
states: "there is substantial evidence that immigrants are a powerful benefit to the
economy, and very little evidence that they are negative." (Source: Business Week, July .
13, 1992)
Business Week (July 13, 1992) reports: "They [immigrants] are invigorating the
cities and older suburbs by setting up businesses, buying homes, paying taxes,
and shopping at the corner grocery store."
^ ^
. .
--'-
- pepWations through the multiplier effect.
•z
A-6 %lonA.w.'�eptr lwt 17, 1993 * -- - —- -------- -,'��. i. k A N r l e,
Lxpto,,1;rts say
o - - s - m a ■
-invest in its r
become more competitive in a their predecessors, and many hold
Rather than krhfing global economy — and the educe- several part-time jobs to make
i. tion of immigrants should be a con- ends meet.
multiculturalism, scious part of that so they can Julia Koppich, deputy director
• prepare to move into higher-pay- of Policy Analysis for California
society could be ing,higher-tech jobs,for their own Education, a UC-Berkeley and
sakes as well as for the rest of Stanford project, says California
using newcomers society,experts say. has trouble viewing newcomers as
to mutual benefit . a resource'
`Immigrants aren't going to leave'
By Susan Ferric Abel Valenzuela, a Massachu- `Enraged debates'
OF nE Exp GTW setts Institute of Technology- 'Imagine if we took folks who
- trained urban planner, says: "Im- were native Spanish speakers and
_- The most comprehensive U.S. _migrants aren't going to leave.We put them in support positions in
Census study ever on Americas can attempt lessen-ffie flow.But language classes (for American-
immigrants confirms conventional what are we going to do with the born students),"she says."Instead,
wisdom:Most immigrants who ar- immigrants here?If we don't start we have these enraged debates over
rived during the 1980s were Latin training them and investing in whether kids should speak more
Americana, poorly educated with them,what's it going to mean 10 to than one language."
limited English,yet willing to work 15 years from now when people like In Denmark, she says, students
hard in undesirable jobs. you and me will retire and need must speak another language to
California, home to 23 percent Social Security?" even get into college.
of the nation's immigrants,should ' Turn-of-the-century European If California were more serious
use the census as a guide to shape immigrants, many of them illiter- about having its students learn sec-
immigrant-friendly policies that ate or unskilled,were funneled into and languages, Koppich suggests,
will prepare the state for theMst the type of manufacturing jobs immigrants could serve as tutors.
century,social analysts say. that no longer exist in the United Koppich says it isn't helpful to
The state needs to upgrade the States, Valenzuela said. Today's be "Pollyannaish" about immi-
skills of its entire work force to-- immigrants are paid even less than grants and deny the challenges--
Y ,
Y
rr 1 NAhlIN1.lt
• t +
The number el recent ,:n;pran!s cr the United Slates,conivared with the number of imm crants of longer residence
Immigrants Immigrants
Total No.of between Total No.of between
Birthplace Immigrants 1987-90 Pct. Birthplace immigrants 1987-90 Pct.
.japan 290.128 102.754 35.4 Mexico 4,29S,014 803,730 18.7
Nicaragua X3,.4.659 55,412 32.8 t=rance 119.233 18.583 15.6
Soviet Union 333,725 93,156 27.9 Vietnam 543,262 84,676 15.6
Guatemala 225.739 54,934 24.3 Philippines 912,674 141,806 15.5 1
1
El Salvador 465,433 98,497 21.2 Colombia 286,124 43,014 15.0
China 529,837 .-110.123 20.8 Cambodia 118,833 11,843 10.0
Africa 363,819 74,701 20.5 U.K. 640,175 61,045 9.5
Laos 171,577 34,978 20.4 Ireland 169,827 16,023 9.4
India 450,406 88,179 19.6 Germany 711,929 36,958 5.5
Korea 568,397 109,607 19.3 All 19,767,316 3,136,930 15.9
SotJKiCE:199h US.fR11W5 t
teachers face instructing the child- cuts.More than 25,000 adults take immediate family members to le-
__--ren of poor Latin Americans and them class o---- gally join relatives who had re-
Southeast Asians. "The investment we make is ceived amnesty in 1987.
Nonetheless,she says,the state paid for in the students being able "This is not the undocumented
is not doing enough to prepare im- to open their own businesses,"said we're talking Pbnut here," Walker
migrants for the future. Nina Gibson, chairwoman of the said. "California is a multiculture.
college's ESL Department. Until we learn how to realize
Turned away from English classes "They're paying taxes now, but at the potential of this strength,it will
At San Francisco City College, low-paying jobs." be regarded as a problem."
for example, an average of 6,000 Between 1987 and 1990, more
people per semester are turned than 800,000 Mexicans entered the
away from English as a Second United States -the largest num-
Language classes because of budget be of any immigrant group. The Biological survey
migration followed more than 1.3
million Mexicans who immigrated office to be set Up
between 1980 and 1987, according
to a Census Bureau study on for- MI-ASM0Eir"11
eign-born population released last DALLAS _. The federal gov-
week' ernment is about to set up an office
According to the census, only to detect environmental problems
about 26 percent of Mexican immi- before they become massive policy
grants who entered during the late headaches.
1980s had a high school education
or more. About 84 percent said The National Biological Survey,
they could not speak English well, as the office will be called,will hire
Their average age was 21. scientists to research diversity and
Professor Wendy Walker, of ecosystems and to identify species
UC-Berkeley's School of Social before they are endangered.In tiie-
Welfare, says the influx of Mexi- ory, it will be modeled after the
cans between 1987 to 1990 was U.S. Geological Survey, one of
probably a result of the family-uni- eight Irureau4 under the Depart-
fication program, which allow-d mrnt of the Interior.
ATTACHIENT #11
TH E BOARD OF SUP E RV 2 S 0 RS
OF
CONTRA COSTA C OUNTY CAL=FORN=A
RESOLUTION NO. 93/
IN OPPOSITION TO
ANTI-IMMIGRANT PROPOSALS
WHEREAS, Contra Costa County has always been an ethnically diverse
county, including the contributions of a rich mosaic of immigrant
communities; and
WHEREAS, during these difficult economic times immigrants, ethnic ,
minorities and poor families and children have become scapegoats
for the State's financial problems; and
WHEREAS, the cultural diversity of-Contra Costa County and the
State of California have contributed greatly to the strength of our
society;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF
CONTRA COSTA RESOLVED, that the Board abhors and rejects immigrant
bashing, racism, and scapegoating which are targeted at immigrants
and ethnic minorities; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Contra Costa County Board of
Supervisors hereby establishes a Newcomer Task Force to study the
need and contributions bf immigrants, the effects of immigration on
Contra Costa County, and to recommend positive policies for the
greater health, safety, and welfare of all residents of Contra
Costa County.
Witness my hand and the Seal of
the Board of Supervisors
affixed this 5th day of
October, 1993.
PHIL BATCHELOR, Clerk of the
Board of Supervisors and County
Administrator
By
Deputy Clerk
RESOLUTION NO.
Add in the "Action of the Board" section of I0-7 something along
the lines of:
"Following the receipt of testimony from several individuals, the
Board of Supervisors approved Recommendations # 1 through # 6 and
Recommendation # 8. The attached Resolution 93/ was adopted in
response to Recommendation # 7 and the County's lobbyist is
directed to pursue these legislative policies . "