CALIFORNIA FOCUS
FOR RELEASE: FRIDAY, MAY 31, 2019, OR THEREAFTER
BY THOMAS D. ELIAS
“TRUMP ‘THREAT:’ A FAVOR TO CALIFORNIA, IMMIGRANTS”
FOR RELEASE: FRIDAY, MAY 31, 2019, OR THEREAFTER
BY THOMAS D. ELIAS
“TRUMP ‘THREAT:’ A FAVOR TO CALIFORNIA, IMMIGRANTS”
It was
no coincidence when President Trump, only days before the release date of the
redacted version of the Mueller report, threatened to dump undocumented
immigrants into states and cities with sanctuary laws that protect many of them
from deportation.
Trump,
after all, is a master of misdirection. Creating a furor that distracts
attention from what could be a major crisis for him and his presidency is a
tactic he’s used before and very likely will again.
But the
move he threatened would itself be self-defeating. Yes, Trump floated the idea of saddling heavily
Democratic-voting cities and states, most prominently California, with what he
trumpets as an incredible burden.
“Let’s
see how they like it,” he mused. “Let them deal with it.”
But his
reasoning had two big flaws: First, releasing illegal immigrants in one place
doesn’t mean they stay there. Studies as early as the 1990s, when California
was the first stop for almost half the undocumented immigrants arriving in
America, showed barely half of them stayed here.
Many
thousands even 25 years ago used California points as mere way stations en
route to jobs and family in other states. The results of that secondary
intra-national migration are now clear: Texas currently hosts about 3 million
illegals; Georgia has a quarter million, South Carolina an estimated 100,000,
Illinois and New York many more than that.
These
are a mix of direct migrants and secondary immigrants who went to those places
– mostly Republican-voting states – with no interference from U.S. authorities
because there are virtually no impediments to anyone’s movement within America.
So
releasing thousands of illegals now held in federal facilities near the Mexican
border into the San Francisco district of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, as Trump
specifically threatened, would have little impact. There is virtually no
low-cost housing for them in that district, where rents and home prices are
among the highest-priced anywhere. The undocumented could simply hop a city
streetcar, and head elsewhere quickly, many catching a bus to other states.
So much
for the Trump threat, which would likely end up putting as many illegals in
Republican states as Democratic ones. That’s beside the fact that such dumping
is unconstitutional because the move would be intended to force California and
its cities into helping enforce federal immigration policy. The U.S. Supreme
Court has held at least three times that federal officials cannot coerce states
and cities into assisting its enforcement of national policies.
Then
there’s the implied economic threat. This is based on the longstanding
contention of anti-illegal immigrant groups that the undocumented create vast
financial burdens on locales where they settle, saddling those places with great
expenses.
But a
study this spring from the California Budget and Policy Center reported this
state’s approximately 2.5 million undocumented immigrants pay at least $3.2
billion per year in income, property, sales and other taxes. While many don’t
have Social Security or other tax identification numbers, funds are withheld
from their paychecks and property taxes are paid as part of their rent.
This
all comes to an average of about $1,300 per undocumented person living here,
adult or child, or more than $5,000 for a family of four. It would be hard to
prove that typical illegal immigrants cause more costs than that in using
public services. These numbers, of course, do not include things like transit
fares or other money paid directly to public agencies like museums and state
parks. Nor do they include federal taxes, also withheld from the paychecks of
illegals, whose payments into sometimes phony Social Security accounts that
will never be used help immensely in propping up that system.
A new
influx of the undocumented would likely produce similar amounts of taxes, per
capita.
So this
Trump “threat” turns out to be the tamest of paper tigers. Like much of the
President’s bluster, it was not thought through, nor was it subjected to any
analysis, merely getting tweeted on a Trumpian whim.
All of
which means it will likely be forgotten soon.
-30-
Email
Thomas Elias at tdelias@aol.com. His book, "The Burzynski Breakthrough:
The Most Promising Cancer Treatment and the Government’s Campaign to Squelch
It," is now available in a soft cover fourth edition. For more Elias
columns, visit www.californiafocus.net
No comments:
Post a Comment