Thread: Migrant expenses may fall to states

Migrant expenses may fall to states
So far, federal plan excludes relief for education, health costs
By Michelle Mittelstadt
The Dallas Morning News, May 15, 2006

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent ... 278db.html

Washington -- As the Senate inches toward votes on a plan that would legalize millions of immigrants, one topic remains unaddressed: What would be the effect on state and local governments?

The fiscal burdens of illegal immigration have long fallen heavily on state and local taxpayers, initially in Texas and other high-immigration states but more recently in places such as Georgia and Utah as migration spreads.

State and local governments pick up the tab for everything from indigent care at hospitals to rising classroom enrollments as well as the majority of incarceration costs for illegal immigrants convicted of crimes in the U.S.

Texans spend more than $4.5 billion yearly on education and health care for illegal immigrants, according to estimates cited by Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas.

So, it might seem intuitive that converting many of the country's nearly 12 million illegal immigrants into legal residents would ease the pinch on city hall and statehouse budgets. But that's not necessarily the case, say the National Conference of State Legislatures, the National Association of Counties and other government groups. And they're asking Congress for relief.

They note that the greatest costs – health care, education and public safety – would remain regardless of their residents' legal status.

In fact, some say, a legalization plan could impose new costs.

As illegal immigrants become citizens, they'd be eligible for food stamps as well as joint federal-state low-income benefits such as Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates the Senate bill would cost $27 billion over its first decade in increased federal spending alone on Medicaid, food stamps and tax credits for low-income taxpayers. And the price tag could balloon in the second decade as the new citizens become fully eligible for a range of government benefits, Mr. Cornyn contends.

'What is clear is that a large-scale amnesty like the one in the current Senate proposal would cost U.S. taxpayers tens of billions of dollars, and the true impact may not be felt for years to come,' the Texas Republican said at a recent congressional hearing as he detailed his opposition to the bill.

Possible benefits

Legalization supporters argue that the Congressional Budget Office estimate ignores the gains that would accrue if illegal immigrants come out of the shadows: more tax payments, greater worker productivity and the prospect that some would move to better-paying jobs with health insurance.

'I hope we also get some credit [in cost estimates] for how much these people are going to be working and how much they are going to be paying in taxes,' said Sen. Sam Brownback, a Kansas Republican who strongly supports the Senate legalization plan.

'Immigration study after study has shown this is a powerful, positive force in this economy.'

The federal coffers stand to benefit, some experts say, because just 55 percent to 65 percent of illegal workers are believed to pay taxes currently. State and local governments, which tend to rely more on sales and property taxes, would see less of a boost. That would be particularly true for Texas, which has no state income tax.

Still, it's difficult to add up the ledger of benefits versus costs.

'It's a question that's easy to ask but in some ways really has no answer,' said Jeffrey Passel, a Pew Hispanic Center demographer who has studied immigration's fiscal impacts.

That's in part because legalization may roll existing costs from one branch of government to another, Dr. Passel said. 'There may be some cost shifting,' he said.

In Texas, county taxpayers bear much of the indigent care cost. Legalization could help hospitals such as Parkland Memorial Hospital in Dallas by making more people eligible for Medicaid, said Randy Capps, an Urban Institute senior research associate.

'That would be a net plus at the local level,' Mr. Capps said, if not for state and federal budgets.

But the picture isn't always clear-cut.

Medicaid already bears some of the costs related to health care for illegal immigrants. Parkland, for example, gets partially reimbursed for delivering the babies of illegal immigrant mothers, who account for 70 percent of the hospital's 16,000 annual deliveries, said chief financial officer John Gates.

It's too soon, Mr. Gates said, to predict any effect on his hospital or others. 'This could be a good thing for us and this could be a bad thing for us and it could be anything in between. It really depends on what exactly Congress does.'

The National Association of Counties and other government associations fear, however, that legalization could impose new burdens on state and local taxpayers.

'In the long run, you have probably more costs than income – no question about that,' said Ed Rosado, legislative director for the National Association of Counties.

While his organization supports a comprehensive immigration bill with a legalization plan, Mr. Rosado said states, cities and counties are pressing for some relief from Washington.

'We, from the county perspective, want to make sure whatever legislation comes out, bottom line, doesn't strap us with more unfunded mandates,' Mr. Rosado said. 'And we hope the Congress could understand that.'

Federal reimbursement

There's precedent for that, said Ann Morse, director of the National Conference of State Legislatures' Immigrant Policy Project.

In 1986, when Congress granted amnesty to nearly 3 million illegal immigrants, lawmakers recognized that legalization could add burdens on state and local taxpayers. So, they approved a $4 billion grant program to defray health care, education and other costs.

The 1986 aid 'was pretty minimal,' Ms. Morse said, noting that it amounted to less than $1,500 per illegal immigrant. 'Now we are talking about four times as many people, and we're not getting very far with getting a reimbursement program done,' she said.

So far, there's nothing of the kind in the bill the Senate will debate beginning Monday.

'We need to appropriate whatever money is necessary,' one of the bill's leading champions, Arizona Sen. John McCain, a Republican, said when asked why reimbursement isn't under consideration.

'Right now, the state and local governments are bearing huge and inordinate costs.'

Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, agreed.

'That's a very important point,' she said, 'particularly for Texas where we have a large population that doesn't have health coverage and obviously we treat them in emergency rooms.'

Mr. Cornyn has drafted an amendment that would impose a $500 surcharge on all illegal immigrants granted legal status, with the funds funneled to states for health care and education. But it's unclear if his plan will get a vote.

Some say prospects for the immigration bill, which is already controversial, aren't likely to improve if a huge new price tag is attached.

URRGHHHHHHHHHH

CORNYN IS SUCH A HYPOCRIT

Nothing but snake speak!