Did immigration law cost Arizona a seat in Congress?

Although not specifically about DREAM, the irony of this is too profound to ignore.

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/w...ensus_congress

Many predicted that Arizona's crackdown on immigrants would cost the state in dollars and reputation. It may have also cost the state an extra seat in Congress.

When the final census numbers were released just before Christmas, Arizona was awarded a new seat in the House, thanks to its status as the country's second fastest growing state. As impressive as this seems, it was actually something of a letdown for the state, whose official census count for 2010 (6,392,017) was more than 200,000 people smaller than estimated just a year earlier. That disparity killed whatever hopes Arizona had of replicating the two-seat gain it posted after the last census, back in 2000.

The reason for Arizona's weak census showing is now the subject of some debate. The housing bubble collapse clearly slowed population growth, in part by stemming the flood of native and immigrant workers migrating to the state for jobs in the construction industry -- a phenomenon that seems to have played out in several other burgeoning states. But unlike other boom states, Arizona’s final census count came in far under estimates, which were adjusted to account for the recession’s weak growth.

This has led some to point to a more specific cause: the anti-immigration law that Arizona enacted last year, which requires local police officers to determine the immigration status of a person "where reasonable suspicion exists." Attacked as unconstitutional by some, the law, known as S.B. 1070, set off a fierce national debate and prompted boycott threats. In the state, many undocumented immigrants feared that a routine interaction with local law enforcement could lead to deportation. According to political demographer Kimball Brace, the president of the nonpartisan political data analysis firm Election Data Services, many residents without legal status moved out or simply refused to answer the door when census enumerators knocked.

A second seat for Arizona was "iffy" but long considered a possibility, said Brace. "That possibility clearly went out the window with the immigration crackdown."

Arizona needed 325,139 more people in the 2010 census count to win a second seat. As recently as September, an Election Data Services projection showed the state coming up just 30,157 short.

"What we see in final numbers is that the margin for the second seat was much larger than the estimates were saying," said Brace. "I think the reason they were further away is because of the illegal immigrant controversy that was taking place at the time. That vote on illegal immigrants not being wanted in Arizona was taking place right as the census was being taken."

Anti-immigrant sentiment runs deep in Arizona. S.B. 1070 follows on the heels of a 2008 law that punishes employers for hiring undocumented workers. In Maricopa County, Sheriff Joe Arapio leads posses of deputized civilians on aggressive immigration sweeps through Latino neighborhoods, a tactic that has also drawn Justice Department scrutiny. Ironically, the state's new House seat will likely be located in Maricopa and neighboring Pinal County, thanks to their fast growth.

Some disagree with Brace's analysis, arguing that the collapse of the housing market had a far greater impact.

"Rapid increases followed by rapid declines in the rate of growth in Arizona's population between 2000 and 2010 were driven by the real estate boom followed by the Great Recession," Brian Gratto, a professor of history at Arizona State University, said in an e-mail message. "It is possible that the controversy over S.B. 1070 led to some outmigration, but that highlights a minor factor instead of the major one."

Tom Rex, an economist at Arizona State, says that while Arizona’s anti-immigrant climate did not cost the state a second seat, it was still a major factor in slowing population growth.

"The long and deep recession has had a very substantial impact on Arizona's population growth," he wrote. "But this was captured in the population estimates, which showed much less population growth in recent years than at the mid-2000s peak. The economic conditions do not explain why Arizona's census count was further below its population estimate than in [almost] any state, or why its census count was far below the estimate while neighboring Nevada, which has experienced an even more extreme economic cycle, has a census count higher than the estimate.

"The only way I can explain this is that Arizona's unique anti-immigration laws -- first the employer sanctions law that went into effect at the beginning of 2008, then S.B. 1070 that was debated and passed quite near the April 1 census date -- had the effect of either causing undocumented immigrants to leave the state or causing those that remained to not participate in the census in a greater proportion than the national average."

The housing collapse also had a major impact in states like California, Nevada and Florida, where the boom and bust were similarly turbulent. Nevada, the decade’s fastest growing state, now has an unemployment rate of 14.3 percent, compared to 9.4 percent in Arizona, which experienced the second highest growth rate.

Also, only 69 percent of Arizonans responded to the census' mailed questionnaire, significantly below the national average of 74 percent and below the rates in other centers of the housing bust like Nevada, Florida and California. That could indicate a higher undercount of undocumented immigrants.

"You can't say it was only one and not the other factor," says Brace. "But, of course, the immigrant crackdown was mainly a factor in just Arizona. It really didn't play much a part in other states."

Last May, Latino leaders and local census officials expressed concern that Latino residents of Arizona would be afraid to answer the census or meet with a federal-employed census employee. They cited plummeting Latino attendance at events ranging from parent-teacher conferences to Cinco de Mayo parades. The Census Bureau and local governments mounted an intensive campaign to encourage all residents -- legal or otherwise -- to participate in the 2010 count. The Constitution requires the federal government to count the entire resident population every 10 years.

"There are many anecdotal accounts of families, many immigrant, many mixed among immigrant and U.S. born, who have decided to leave Arizona because of the overall hostile and discriminatory policies toward immigrants and toward Latinos," according to Arturo Vargos, executive director of the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials. "Arizona's policymakers may yet again have cut off their nose in spite of their face."

Also in May, a group of prominent Latino evangelicals called for undocumented immigrants to boycott the census. Most Latino leaders countered that such a boycott would undermine the power of the community’s own congressional representatives, who tend to support immigration reform. But the debate over whether to participate in the census count highlighted immigrants' long-simmering anger over being discounted in Washington.

Nationwide, the impact of undocumented immigrants on reapportionment is undeniable. In Texas, California and New York -- all states with large immigrant communities and outspoken anti-immigrant politicians -- non-citizens, who cannot vote, protected existing House seats and added new ones. According to the nonpartisan political data analysis firm Polidata, Texans can thank non-citizens for two of their four new House seats. The state earned their fourth seat by a margin of 99,000 people. Without non-citizen immigrants, Florida would have gained just one seat instead of two (with a 113,000-person margin), New York would have lost three rather than two, and California, which had a cushion of 118,000 people, would have lost a staggering five seats instead of none. Polidata's statistics combine non-citizen immigrants with and without legal status. Undocumented immigrants make up about half of that total nationwide. The figure also does not include estimates of the number of citizen children born to undocumented immigrants who would have also been counted. Latina immigrants have a fertility rate of 3.1, one point higher than the average. Polidata arrived at its estimate for citizen population by subtracting a projected number of non-citizens derived from the 2009 American Community Survey.

"The irony is that Latino immigration had its biggest impact in improving political representation of those states where anti-immigration sentiment appears to be highest and where Republicans are strongest," said Angelo Falcón, president of the National Institute for Latino Policy. "This means that we can expect a much more complicated political situation on the issue of immigration and general Latino issues."

With Republican legislatures controlling redistricting in many of the states with surging immigrant populations, the GOP could have an opportunity to draw many of the new districts to its own partisan benefit. (In Arizona, though, an independent redistricting commission will redraw the district lines.) The Civil Rights Act of 1964 may forestall the worst attempts at race-based gerrymandering: Arizona and Texas are among the states required to "preclear" new district boundaries with the Department of Justice. The entire state of Arizona was required to submit to preclearance in 1975, thanks to a long history of discrimination against Spanish-speaking and Native American residents, including an English-language literacy test. DOJ has objected to four statewide redistricting plans since 1982, though objections plummeted under the Bush administration. This time around, any attempts at gerrymandering will have to pass muster with Attorney General Eric Holder.

November’s GOP sweep rewrote the country’s political balance of power. But December’s census data shows that the new conventional wisdom might require a second look. After all, anti-immigrant politics may fire up today’s Republican base -- but they also alienate Latino voters and voters-to-be. In this sense, the 2010 census count may benefit Republicans in the short-term, even as it points to trouble down the road.

Daniel Denvir is a journalist in Philadelphia. More: Daniel Denvir

But what the article does not mention is the fact from a budgetary since Arizona wanted all these people out of the state more than they cared to have extra seat in the Senate. Even though they are still in the red in Arizona if you look at the numbers having all the illegals move saved them billions in benefits they were paying for education ,health care and imprisonment for illegals. These are the points of these state laws is to stop paying for the education of the children , stop the outrageous cost of medical bills and the out of this world cost of keeping them in jail. Most illegals in jail get more benefits then you and I do you know how much quality dental work they get for free and top of the line medical care because the state does not want to be sued. Know one out here in the real world illegal or legal get that kind of treatment. Its a shame and why all these states are sitting there ready to file there on SB1070 and more because states are broke and want to cut the cord on these bills. Either legalize them and have them pay full taxes or get them out of here.

I think you are wrong here, buddy.

Looking only at the costs illegal immigrants impose is a highly selective and ultimately biased analysis of the impact of these immigrants.

What about their benefits? The savings they pass down to their employers and ultimately the consumers? The stimulus their labor provide to the economy? The stimulus their spending provides to the economy? The taxes they pay? The higher taxes their employers pay as a result of an increase in revenue?

Why aren't these facets being considered?

If Arizona wanted to save money on incarcerating undocumented immigrants, maybe the legislators shouldn't have passed such a draconian law. To the extent undocumented immigrants pay sales and property tax (taxes that subsidize educational costs), they are paying to educate their children. Also, studies have shown that undocumented immigrant's use of health care is de minimis, which can be intuited given the dangers of exposing one's status. Finally, even the most politically conservative learned economists agree that all immigration is financially beneficial to the host country. But putting all science and statistics aside, if you have ever worked with or served along side immigrants, you know in your heart that their contributions are virtually unparalleled.

For a minute, you had me thinking that you actually believed the anti rhetoric.

[quote=Invictus;205013]I think you are wrong here, buddy.

Looking only at the costs illegal immigrants impose is a highly selective and ultimately biased analysis of the impact of these immigrants.

What about their benefits? The savings they pass down to their employers and ultimately the consumers? The stimulus their labor provide to the economy? The stimulus their spending provides to the economy? The taxes they pay? The higher taxes their employers pay as a result of an increase in revenue?

Why aren't these facets being considered?[/QUOTE

The stimulus goes to Mexico in the Amount last year of 24 billion dollars it is the second largest money maker of Mexico even surpassing Pemex, You put that stimulus back into the country we might be able to discuss different issue on this but nothing out weigh what the state of Arizona is paying out to have illegals there or they would not be willing to spend all the tax dollars taking this to the supreme court. Here in Texas were we have better system than anyone on immigration are looking at these Arizona laws so that we can get health care stopped of illegals coming into texas having a baby and leaving. were looking into cutting the education and all ESL classes. were looking into getting rid of the cost of paying for illegals to be in prison at a cost of 30 thousand a year a piece and nearly 40 percent of our state penitentiary is Hispanic or illegal. In texas we are the most friendly immigrant state of them all but with a forecast that we are going to get an additional 25 million residents in the next 10 years from illegals coming from Arizona to Tx to people coming over the border illegal we are screwed. Everyone homeowner taxes have nearly doubled in the past 4 years because we are paying for these cost. Its not fair that people have to work harder to pay more and take it away from there own family so someone can be here illegally not paying full taxes like everyone else. If we knew they were all going to be legalized in near future than it would not be a problem but as it stands now that is not happening for a long time. So I would do my research before you start talking about the stimulus part in a recession and 40 million americans out of work and stick to the ethical part that is correct.

You're portraying immigrant costs, and complaining about it. Let me ask you again, what about their benefits?

Illegals pay 9 billion dollars a year to social security. What do you feel about that?

Add on federal and state taxes, sales tax, property tax, in some cases even income and payroll taxes. Between 96 and 2003, IRS collected 50 billion dollars in taxes from illegals. Here's the article.

Is that a burden?

Studies show that on average, immigrants contribute $80,000 more to social services than they consume per capita. Check it out!

You may complain about all the Hispanics in your prison, but look at the studies comparing the incarceration rates of US citizens vs foreign born minorities. Almost universally, US citizens are more likely to commit crimes. Check out the study here.

The fact that immigrants are more law abiding than Americans is a problem?

Don't buy the bullshit. Immigrants make this country great.

The real problem is with the culture that pushes American-born Hispanics into poverty and crime. Immigrants who don't have this culture do great.

Just add him to your ignore list,....I did so a while back.

Dont ever believe what anyone tells you find out for yourself. But some of your points are skewed/ Republicans represent big corporations they do not represent the people who gained from illegal immigration? Large muliti national companies who want cheap labor so they make more profit and dont have to worry about paying for then normal benefits. Is why politics is in play here. If you think paying sales tax cover the medical and education let me send you my home tax bill this year of 6,000 dollars on mere 2200 square foot home when I bought it with a VA loan my taxes was 2800 dollars in 2004. Texas home taxes goes directly to education and people with no insurance that use Parkland hospital for instance in my county that cost us over 1 billion dollars last year for just having 8000 illegal babies the most in the country. So when my wife had our child that I pay higher and higher insurance cost every year she had to stay two extra days from complication which is not approved by almost all medical insurance anymore you know babies have to be born and mom out of the hospital in three days. Because of this my bill for the extra days was $6,200 dollars. Now you tell me what is fair about that when somebody without citizenship can go and stay in parkland for as long as they want to have there child here for free. When I have to not only pay the exorbant taxes for that , I have to pay the high insurance premium, then pay the extra $6200 or lets say pay it out because middle class people like myself $6200 dollars is a lot of money when you add on mortgage ,gas, electric, mortgage insurance, over and over. Again tell me about the stimulus were all getting. And once you do legalize everyone you no the very first thing there going to do is get more illegals to take there place because they dont want to pay you more now because they can pay an illegal half that.
This is why the country wants all the protection of E=verify, no chain migration, no birth right citizenship, etc passed because they don't want to be in this situation ever again. So on a moral clause yes we should do this but there is no economic stimulus to this its just a play on numbers. Again my education is in political science and Economics so I could so more in debt about it if you need be but believe me there is absolutely no stimulus for citizenship just look again at the 24 billion dollars Mexico gets from remittance every year there second largest income stream of there nation. Taking 24 billion out of the American economy is a flat loser to the idea of stimuli that means we are paying for another country to survive and having to pay for all the services used as well. That is why Dreamers need to understand why American must have E=verify. no chain migration. all these specific parts passed to pass dream act because they cannot let this happen again. giving 12 million citizenship is extraordinarily gracious no other country in the world would do this none of them would dare take on this task r u kidding Mexico would never do this they treat there own migrants like dogs and the people passing through there country from Central America.

Here is a article by the liberal Austin American statesmen. Topic of discussion is what would happens if Texas passed a Arizona type law to our prison system. We would fill every country jail in the whole state so see how numbers our skewed. I am sure you know how big Texas is you can fit any other 5 states your choice into texas so think about the cost of that.And these quotes are from people that are fighting for the dream act.
My state Texas is the most immigrant friendly state in the union illegals can come here and be safe and work we do it better than anyone. But now we are having problems keeping up. I am 100% behind the dream act but I am also 100% behind that is it. We here in Texas dont mind if the dream act gives everyone there citizenship we just cant take anymore.On a side note Texas gives anyone graduating from high school legal or not legal in the top 5% of there class free college tution at any state school.

http://www.reporternews.com/news/201...ants-tab-250m/

man....those immigrants contribute so much money that califas has so much money up da wazzooo....and look at all them anchor babies such fine examples those gangs...oops I mean civic organizations have contributed so much to their neighborhoods. duela a quien le duela es la pura neta.