One day, California wakes up and every single Latino has inexplicably disappeared. No business owner, doctor, nurse, soldier, teacher, entertainer, athlete or politician can be found. No bus driver, farm worker, cook, gardener or nanny. All gone. California -- the ninth largest economy in the world -- grinds to a halt because Latinos have vanished. Chaos and tragedy follow. This scenario is what Sergio Arau's satiric film, "A Day Without a Mexican," explores.
This modern-day fable provides a cautionary tale on the assumptions we make about the 11 million unauthorized immigrants who live and work in America every day.
An oft-repeated mantra used to malign these "economic refugees" -- a term that more closely defines who they actually are, rather than the inflammatory "illegal immigrant" -- is that they don't pay taxes. They send their kids to our schools, and they don't pay taxes. They earn their wages, and they don't pay income tax. Such incendiary assertions are coded language designed explicitly to generate a negative reaction. The facts, which most people don't know, refute such claims entirely.
Sales tax. Like everyone in the country, every time a refugee goes to a store and buys something, they pay sales tax. They buy milk; they pay sales tax. They buy shoes; they pay sales tax. They buy a television; they pay sales tax.
Property tax. When refugees rent -- whether it's in an apartment building, a room in a house or a house -- a portion of that rent is passed on to the landlord, who pays property tax to the state.
Payroll tax. President Reagan's 1986 immigration reform law penalizes employers who knowingly hire undocumented workers. This policy has generated a black-market business for fake identity documents. In less than an hour you can obtain a fake green card, Social Security number and driver's license. Most refugees, then, do provide the necessary documents -- fake or otherwise -- to employers and when they get their paycheck, up to 15% of their earnings goes to Uncle Sam to pay Social Security and Medicare.
But since it's illegal for them to receive Social Security and Medicare benefits, this creates a windfall for Uncle Sam. The "Earnings Suspense File," used to track names and Social Security numbers that don't match government records, grew an average of $67 billion per year from 2000 to 2007 (the most recent years for which data is available), three times faster than the file grew in the 1990s. In 2007, $11.2 billion went into the Social Security Trust Fund and $2.6 billion went into Medicare, for a total that year of $13.8 billion.
Given the financial climate in America these past years, these are funds we can ill afford to do without. This week, in his testimony to the Congressional Budget Committee, Stephen Goss, chief actuary of the Social Security Administration, said that because of the country's growing aging population and decline in birth rates, the Disability Insurance Trust fund reserves will be depleted by 2018 and the Social Security Trust Fund will follow suit by 2036. Goss told The Washington Post recently that the windfall from economic refugees has saved the retirement system from insolvency.
A similar phenomenon holds true on the state level. In December 2006, Texas was the first state to conduct a comprehensive financial analysis of the impact of undocumented immigrants on a state's budget and economy. The stunning results showed that "undocumented immigrants produced $1.58 billion in state revenues, which exceeded the $1.16 billion in state services they received." Carole Keeton Strayhorn, the former Texas Comptroller, said, "Bottom line, undocumented immigrants in the state of Texas are adding $17.7 billion to our gross state product ... we net $428 million at the state level because of the taxes they're paying in."
A few years ago, the Congressional Budget Office evaluated the impact of economic refugees on the budgets of state and local governments. It concluded, "Over the past two decades, most efforts to estimate the fiscal impact of immigration in the United States have concluded that, in aggregate and over the long term, tax revenues of all types generated by immigrants -- both legal and unauthorized -- exceed the cost of the services they use."
The film "A Day Without a Mexican" was made in 2004. No Mexicans -- or Colombians or Argentines or Guatemalans or Panamanians, for that matter -- have mysteriously disappeared from our country. In the long run, a day without Mexicans would deal a devastating blow not just to California, but to the U.S. economy. It is time to cease the mantras that enforce the idea that illegal immigrants are nothing more than leeches to our society, and embrace the realities of what these people actually contribute to our economy: a financial fountain we would be foolish to shut off.
An earlier version of this post appeared on CNN.
Follow Charles Garcia on Twitter: www.twitter.com/@charlespgarcia
Imagine getting your car insurance bill, and "uninsured motorist" coverage is not more expensive than your liability coverage...
This is pointless solipsism because 37.6% of a population is not going to disappear overnight. Removing ANY 37.6% would cause short-term disruption. Guess what, though? Imagine a day with a 60 million California population. It's coming and due to mass immigration, both legal and illegal. Picture that and try not to weep.
Why do Dems in Congress work so hard to damage working poor Americans, poor American families, and poor American children as a way to reward exploitative employers and dishonest foreign nationals here illegally?
That CBO report states:
"The tax revenues that unauthorized immigrants generate
for state and local governments do not offset
the total cost of services provided to those immigrants.
Most of the estimates found that even though
unauthorized immigrants pay taxes and other fees to
state and local jurisdictions, the resulting revenues offset
only a portion of the costs incurred by those jurisdictions
for providing services related to education,
health care, and law enforcement."
and
"A related effect is that lower-paying jobs also result in
unauthorized immigrants’ having less disposable income
to spend on purchases subject to sales or use taxes. State
and local governments typically rely more heavily on revenues
from those and other sources (such as property
taxes) than revenues generated by taxes on income."
and
"Analyses from several states indicate that the costs of educating students who
did not speak English fluently were 20 percent to
40 percent higher than the costs incurred for native-born students"
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/87xx/doc8711/12-6-Immigration.pdf
According to the SAME CBO report the author cites regarding illegal aliens and our tax base:
"Another report—prepared by the state comptroller of
Texas—estimated that, in 2006, the state collected
$424 million more in revenue from unauthorized immigrants
than it spent to provide education, health care, and
law enforcement activities for that population.47 However,
the state estimated that local governments incurred
$1.4 billion in uncompensated costs for health care and
law enforcement." (emphasis added)
The $428 milion that the author crows about inappropriately is DWARFED by the additional $1.4 BILLION that illegal aliens Cost Texas tax payers at the local levels.
California welcomes illegal aliens and American taxpayers foot the bill for it.
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/feb/02/local/me-cap2
".... Add them all up and the state spends well over $5 billion a year on illegal immigrants and their families.
Of course, illegal immigrants do pay state taxes. But no way do they pay enough to replenish what they're drawing in services. Their main revenue contribution would be the sales tax, but they can't afford to be big consumers, and food and prescription drugs are exempt.
.... Meanwhile, California should be honest about the costs. Illegal immigrants are not the sole cause of the state's deficit. But they are a drain." (emphasis added)
It's not at all honest to misrepresent the sources directly cited in the article. It's clear the author is aware of the sources and the data but deliberately chose to misrepresent the facts. The American people deserve an honest debate about an issue that has such huge negative effects on our tax base (and therefore on our infrastructure and schools), our economy and families, and our future.
How about no longer making it profitable for thousands American manufacturing Corporations in Mexico to pay it's workers less then $6. for a ten hour shift. In one year (1982 and 1983), wages in Mexico were cut in half (from $1.38 to $.67 per hour). Since passage of NAFTA wages have decreased 30% while the cost of living increased 250% p Instead of improving lives of Mexican workers as was intended, the new wealth created by NAFTA flowed to the North as superprofits for American capitalism.
How about repealing NAFTA and ending corn subsidies to American farmers who flooded Mexican markets? After decades of subsistence farming, Mexicans can no longer make a profit. Why? Because "free market America" is really "corporate-welfare for agribusiness America".
How about repealing the "Merida Initiative" which give Calderon billions of dollars to fight Americas drug war in Mexico at the expense of Mexican lives.
Drug profits, are secured through the ability of the cartels to launder and transfer billions of dollars through the US banking system. According to US Justice Department records, one bank alone, Wachovia Bank (now owned by Wells Fargo), laundered $378.3 billion dollars between May 1, 2004 and May 31, 2007 (The Guardian, May 11, 2011). Every major U.S. bank has served as an active financial partner of the cartels.