Thread: Texas recession if all illegal aliens deported

Chuck Todd says there are estimates of a Texas recession if all unauthorized immigrants deported

By W. Gardner Selby on Friday, January 9th, 2015 at 5:43 p.m.

In this December 2014 interview, NBC's Chuck Todd said there'd been estimates that mass deportations would send Texas into recession (Republican Governors Association post).

An NBC reporter made us wonder about mass deportations touching off a Texas recession.
Chuck Todd, who hosts the "Meet the Press" program, quizzed Texas Gov.-elect Greg Abbott on a December 2014 edition of the program about the costs to Texas of schooling and otherwise serving individuals living in the state and country without legal authorization.

But, Todd suggested, the same immigrants support the state’s economy, adding: "There have been some estimates that if you deported everybody who is in Texas illegally, it would actually be an economic—it would create an economic recession for the state of Texas."

Abbott replied by saying legal immigration has been good for the country.

We didn’t hear back from Todd’s office about which estimates he was thinking of to conclude that if every resident not authorized to live in Texas was deported, the state’s economy would be hammered.

Meantime, the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas told us through spokesman James Hoard it’s unaware of research on the economic impact should every unauthorized resident of the state be deported. But a bank economist, Pia Orrenius, said by email: "If you take a million workers out of the Texas labor force, economic activity will contract."

Another expert on the Texas economy, Southern Methodist University economist Bernard Weinstein, said he was unaware of fresh looks at the effects of deporting all unauthorized Texas workers. Generally, he emailed, "Texas has had the most robust economy of any large state over the past five years, accounting for about 30 percent of all the jobs created nationwide. Without question, our large immigrant population—both legal and illegal—has contributed to that growth. I don’t know that deporting all of Texas’ undocumented workers would cause an outright recession, but it would certainly impose some real pain on a number of industries such as agriculture, hospitality (hotels and restaurants), and residential construction/maintenance."

Robert Wood, a spokesman for the Texas Association of Business, replied to our inquiry by pointing out a May 2008 Houston Chronicle news story on a study overseen by economist Ray Perryman of Waco as possibly relevant. According to the story, Perryman calculated that Texas would lose more than 1 million residents if all unauthorized workers vanished overnight, costing the economy.

Wood also noted a May 2013 Texas Tribune news story quoting data compiled by a Washington, D.C., think tank, the Immigration Policy Center, stating that mass deportations in the state, home to an estimated 1.6 million unauthorized immigrants, would cost the economy billions of dollars. "If all unauthorized immigrants were removed from Texas, the state would lose $69.3 billion in economic activity, $30.8 billion in gross state product, and approximately 403,174 jobs, even accounting for adequate market adjustment time," the center said.

We followed up with Perryman, who emailed his firm’s April 2008 report to us while cautioning that all its figures and projections would be different by now given changes over time.

Sudden deportations, sudden recession?
The 2008 Perryman report didn’t predict a recession anywhere in the U.S. in the event of mass deportations. Still, it said, the "undocumented workforce comprises a notable percentage of total workers in many industrial and occupational categories, which are becoming increasingly difficult for employers to fill. Without undocumented workers, notable labor shortages would emerge, and significant economic dislocations would occur."

Whether Texas went into a recession, Perryman told us by email, "would depend on the circumstances. If the entire workforce were removed quickly with no time to adjust, it would cause a recession. That outcome is very unlikely. If it were done on a more-phased basis with time to respond, it would still likely take a heavy toll, but an all-out recession might be avoidable," he wrote.

Perryman continued: "The difficulty lies in the percentage of the Texas workforce filled by undocumented workers." The 2008 report estimated unauthorized residents to comprised 9 percent of Texas workers in 2007, compared with 5 percent nationwide.

In his email, Perryman went on: "Even if every unemployed person in the Texas labor force today could and would fill one of those slots (which is obviously not the case), the state would be short several hundred thousand workers. Those jobs would have to be filled by recruiting from other areas (which would also be facing similar situations, though in most cases not as severe) or, replaced by technology (which takes time, etc.). It would also disproportionately affect some key industries that support growth and exports (such as construction and agriculture).

"I guess the bottom line is that, under any circumstances, it would cause a lot of disruptions. Under most circumstances, it would cause a recession with the magnitude and duration depending on the specific plan.

Under a few programs (a very gradual phase-in combined with mechanisms to replace the workers with ‘documented’ ones, which would require real, comprehensive immigration reform), a recession could be averted.

Whatever the politics, the sheer numbers make a quick deportation very difficult to manage," Perryman said.

2012 study
Also to our inquiry, spokesman Ed Sills of the Texas AFL-CIO pointed out an August 2012 report from the liberal Center for American Progress estimating that in Texas or any of six other states, "deporting even a portion of the unauthorized immigrants would lead to significant losses in gross state product, worker wages and tax revenues."

The report, undertaken by Raul Hinojosa-Ojeda, an associate professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, said unauthorized immigrants comprised 7.2 percent, or 1.02 million, of Texas workers and accounted for $14.5 billion in taxes paid in the state in 2010.

(The report said its population estimates drew on the U.S. Census Bureau and Pew Hispanic Center.)

The report didn’t use "recession" in its description of probable Texas outcomes. Still, it said, removing "all of the undocumented immigrants from Texas would have substantial, indeed devastating, consequences for everyone remaining in the state. Driving undocumented immigrants out of Texas would lead to substantially diminished earnings, decreased gross state product and lost tax revenue for the state government." The state’s gross state product, the report said, would be reduced by more than $77.7 billion, or 6 percent, if the "undocumented population were driven from the state."

Another voice
We also consulted Bob Dane of the Washington, D.C.-based Federation for American Immigration Reform, which focuses on the costs of immigration, particularly illegal immigration. Dane suggested the idea of sudden mass deportations is obviously absurd.

Still, if they happened, Dane said by phone, there would be short-term inconveniences, even chaos. But over time, he said, vacancies would be filled by job-seeking legal residents—and wages would rise.

The Perryman report said that nationally mass removals would result in the immediate loss of 8.1 million jobs, but the reduction would shrink to 2.8 million jobs once businesses and remaining workers adjusted. In Texas, the report said, there would ultimately be 403,174 jobs wiped out, compared to 1.15 million jobs lost immediately after unauthorized residents were removed.

Our ruling
Todd, addressing Abbott, said there had been "some estimates that if you deported everybody who is in Texas illegally… it would create an economic recession for the state."

It’s hard to overlook that Todd’s statement was premised on hypothetical mass deportations no one expects to occur. That glitch aside, economists have said the Texas economy would suffer without its unauthorized workers, but we didn’t find "recession" estimates.

On balance, we rate this claim Half True.

---

HALF TRUE – The statement is partially accurate but leaves out important details or takes things out of context.

Click here for more on the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check.

http://www.politifact.com/texas/stat...exas-recessio/

Any claims that the rule of law causes recessions is justification for economic reasons to support all crime. The "studies" that somehow miraculous tally a "recession" by enforcing US immigration law are frauds. 58% of all immigrants are on welfare, and the majority of the rest are just a few bucks or a few hours of work or drug money above it, so please tell me how Texas or any state in the country can claim economic benefits from an immigrant population that can't even support itself? The morons who look at contrived assumptions like the ones used by those who did these studies as well as the idiots who review them with their brains on OFF are the same type of people who thought the world was flat, that slavery was needed to support an economy and that women should be at home barefoot and pregnant.

The Texas unemployment rate is 4.9%, a good rate by most standards, but likewise Texas ranks second in the use of welfare by immigrant households with children (between 61% and 62%), so sure illegal aliens are apparently a boon to Texas by exploiting federal taxpayer funded programs to pick up the tab on the unsustainability of its large immigrant (legal and illegal) population, hardly something to crow about as our unpaid spending soars to over $18 trillion in national debt. And lest we forget the poor Americans who are either unemployed or severely underemployed because of the outrageous number of excess immigrants pouring into Texas and robbing the jobs, benefits and services designed to assist American citizens.

The states where immigrant households with children have the highest welfare use rates are Arizona (62 percent); Texas, California, and New York (61 percent); Pennsylvania (59 percent); Minnesota and Oregon (56 percent); and Colorado (55 percent).

http://cis.org/immigrant-welfare-use-2011

One of these days, hopefully, this year, Americans touting "growth" in our economy will be able to understand or at least see the difference between "growth" in population and "growth" in wealth and well-being. The "growth" Americans need and want is the latter, not the former and it's time these stupid politicians understood the difference and pursued the growth we want and need, which is a citizen population that sustains itself, not one that lives on jobs stolen from Americans by imported labor and debt payments made by future generations.

Texas Welfare Rate Among Lowest in Country

By NATHAN BERNIER
7:31 PM TUE SEPTEMBER 2, 2014

• A map showing the percentage of households that received public assistance in the past 12 months.
  U.S. Census Bureau

Texas has one of the nation's lowest rates of people on welfare, according to a new report from the U.S. Census Bureau. It says 1.8 percent of Texas households received benefits through the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) program in 2012.

Only Wyoming (1.7 percent), South Carolina (1.6 percent), North Dakota (1.5 percent) and Louisiana (1.5 percent) had lower welfare rates than Texas. The United States average is 2.9 percent. The tally did not include food stamps or Social Security benefits.

"I think that these numbers are good thing, because it shows that Texas's healthy economy is really a pathway to prosperity for more people, not more government handouts," says Chuck DeVore, vice president for policy at the conservative Texas Public Policy Foundation.

"Texas has created a lot of jobs and as a result, less people need to resort to welfare," he says.

But some advocates say fewer people are on welfare in Texas because eligibility requirements are difficult to meet and benefits are minimal.

"It's extremely limited," says Anne Dunkelberg, associate director of the left-leaning Center for Public Policy Priorities.

Most Texas households on welfare received an average monthly check of $171 in July.

"I think it still represents a vital lifeline to some really struggling families who really deserve help," she says. "For example, grandparents who are raising grandchildren [or] a family that has recently escaped a domestic violence situation."

The Census Bureau's review of American Community Survey data revealed that 160,952 Texas households received TANF benefits in 2012. It also says about 4.5 million Texans were living in poverty that year.

http://kut.org/post/texas-welfare-ra...lowest-country

UpChuck Todd thinks that Texas will be in a recession if the illegals leave? More blathering from the Obama regime's Pravda. Ask the people in Texas that have to deal with the illegals and pay for them if they would like for them to go home.

The liberal MSM, especially the networks that have relatives and spouses working for Obama tend to function as as the propaganda machines for the administration's agenda. JMO

Originally Posted by JohnDoe2

Texas Welfare Rate Among Lowest in Country

By NATHAN BERNIER
7:31 PM TUE SEPTEMBER 2, 2014

• A map showing the percentage of households that received public assistance in the past 12 months.
  U.S. Census Bureau

Texas has one of the nation's lowest rates of people on welfare, according to a new report from the U.S. Census Bureau. It says 1.8 percent of Texas households received benefits through the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) program in 2012.

Only Wyoming (1.7 percent), South Carolina (1.6 percent), North Dakota (1.5 percent) and Louisiana (1.5 percent) had lower welfare rates than Texas. The United States average is 2.9 percent. The tally did not include food stamps or Social Security benefits.

"I think that these numbers are good thing, because it shows that Texas's healthy economy is really a pathway to prosperity for more people, not more government handouts," says Chuck DeVore, vice president for policy at the conservative Texas Public Policy Foundation.

"Texas has created a lot of jobs and as a result, less people need to resort to welfare," he says.

But some advocates say fewer people are on welfare in Texas because eligibility requirements are difficult to meet and benefits are minimal.

"It's extremely limited," says Anne Dunkelberg, associate director of the left-leaning Center for Public Policy Priorities.

Most Texas households on welfare received an average monthly check of $171 in July.

"I think it still represents a vital lifeline to some really struggling families who really deserve help," she says. "For example, grandparents who are raising grandchildren [or] a family that has recently escaped a domestic violence situation."

The Census Bureau's review of American Community Survey data revealed that 160,952 Texas households received TANF benefits in 2012. It also says about 4.5 million Texans were living in poverty that year.

http://kut.org/post/texas-welfare-ra...lowest-country

Apparently they aren't counting Medicaid either. And that's a pretty big ticket that averages almost $5,000 a year per person enrolled in Medicaid. Lets see, if there are 4.5 million "Texans" living in poverty, and there are 4.6 million people in Texas signed up for Medicaid, then ... yep .... they receive on "average" over $5,171 a year in government benefits per person, before food stamps, etc. and then if you multiply that by the number of people in the family on Medicaid, WOW, does that add up in a hurry especially for large families. And that's before you count the food stamps and free school lunch and subsidized housing and etc., etc., etc., which for some bizarre reason they didn't count in their "studies". Who would possibly do a study counting the number of people on welfare and not include Medicaid, Food Stamps, Free School Lunch and Subsidized Housing??!!! Frauds trying to lie to the American People, that's who.

http://kff.org/health-reform/state-i...ip-enrollment/

So what percent of the population of Texas is really on welfare? Well, whatever 4,679,930 is of 26,448,193 which according to my HP is 17.7%. Wow. That's almost 20% more than the national poverty rate.

So listen here, Texas, if you think you're fooling all the people all the time, well, think again. Take federal payments out of your state and you'll have a misery index worse than Mississippi's. Texas used to be a proud, hard-working and independent thinking state, when your word was your bond, business was done on a hand-shake, and driving 90 on a interstate was expected. Now look at you, full of poverty-ridden illegal aliens and immigrants, living off the dole and future generations, while your "leaders" quack "look at us, we're booming". Booming my ass, you're sliding into the Rio Grande like a pebble caught in a flash-flood mud swirl.

Time to wake up, Texas. All new job growth in the US goes to illegal aliens and immigrants, 58% of whom are on welfare, with illegal aliens leading the pack on welfare at 71%, which is the kind of job growth we don't want, we don't need, we can't afford and we must stop it all, once and for all.

And the FACT is, Texas is the third highest welfare state in the country based on Medicaid recipients, behind only California and New York, which makes Texas the Top Ranking Welfare Red State.

So who in Texas wants to crow now about your "booming immigrant economy"?

That's what I thought. There's a time to talk and ... yes, a time to sit down and shut-up. Most Americans believe one should clean up their own house before pointing at others to clean up theirs. Texas might take a lesson from them.

I noticed another article from KUT.org when I checked the link. It seems that the liberal Californians have migrated to Texas and of course, as they did in Colorado, gotten into government to work to make it just like their previous home.

The liberals that have been fleeing the consequences of their political and economic follies in California seem to move like locusts to the next pasture. They came to Colorado in the late 80's and 90's in droves and set about to make Colorado "just like home".

The comment at the article is very telling.

Fifty Years After Start of War on Poverty, Texas Has Room for Improvement


By VERONICA ZARAGOVIA

• Today marks 50 years since President Lyndon B. Johnson called on Congress and the nation to fight poverty. Texas – President Johnson’s home state – often touts its growing economy. But the state has one of the highest rates of poverty in the U.S.
  LBJ Presidential Library at the University of Texas

Today marks the 50th anniversary of President Lyndon B. Johnson's call to Congress, and the nation, to fight poverty.

Texas – President Johnson’s home state – often touts its growing economy. But the state has one of the highest rates of poverty in the U.S.

While we don’t have a number of how many people in Texas lived in poverty in 1964 — back then, the Census Bureau released data every 10 years — a look at 1970 data shows that roughly 2 million people lived in poverty in Texas in 1969 -- about 18 percent of the state's population.

In 2012, that number was about 4.6 million, still about 18 percent, though 3 points above the national average. According to federal guidelines, a family of four is considered poor if their family income is $23,000 or less.
Ann Beeson, executive director of the Center for Public Policy Priorities in Austin, says the poverty rate would be much higher in Texas if it weren't for programs launched during Johnson's era.

"It’s currently the case that 1 in 12 Americans live in Texas," Beeson says. "And we have one of the highest rates of poverty among children in the country – one in four Texas children is poor under the federal guidelines. So what that means is if we don’t fix poverty, here in Texas, we’re going to have an even bigger problem nationally."

Chuck DeVore, a policy analyst with the Texas Public Policy Foundation and former California lawmaker, says California has 45 percent more people in poverty than does Texas. "You couldn't have two states with more polar opposite public policies," DeVore says. "In California they have far more welfare, far higher taxes, far more regulation. [In] Texas, you have more jobs."

Beeson with CPPP says Texas could reduce its poverty numbers by increasing the minimum wage and expanding Medicaid, to reduce the rate of uninsured in the state.

"Our Governor [Rick Perry] has refused federal dollars that would immediately lift over 1 million people out of poverty because it would give them access to health care for the first time," she says.

DeVore with the TPPF says "beyond a shadow of a doubt," the "best poverty reducing programs are those programs that equip people to work and encourage economic prosperity."

He says the state needs to improve its K-12 education system, especially in urban areas, and allow parents to send their children to other public or private schools, if they're learning in a failing school district.

http://kut.org/post/fifty-years-afte...om-improvement



COMMENT AT THE ARTICLE:

Peter • a year ago

It's simply dishonest to write an article on poverty and Texas without mentioning the border. This is the sort of thing that's been destroying the media's credibility.

Abbott says Texas is being ‘California-ized’

By Kevin Schwaller
Published: January 9, 2015, 10:10 pm
Updated: January 10, 2015, 9:54 am

AUSTIN (KXAN) — Governor-Elect Greg Abbott criticized city bans this week and said reducing “regulatory burdens” would make Texas a better state.

“The truth is Texas is being California-ized and you may not even be noticing it,” said Abbott as he spoke Thursday. “It’s being done at the city level with bag bans, fracking bans, tree cutting bans. We’re forming a patchwork quilt of bans and rules and regulations that is eroding the Texas model.”

If you live in Austin, you’ve likely had an experience with the plastic bag ban.

“I realized that something that I originally thought was a hassle is something that I now appreciate,” said Robert Schmidt, in support of the bag ban in Austin.

Other shoppers haven’t come around to the changes.

“I never know if my bags are in my truck or in my van,” said another shopper.

Texas has already seen attempts from the legislature to limit city rules. A bill failed last session known as the “Shopping Bag Freedom Act,” which aimed invalidate city bag bans. This year another bill would require certain city ballot measures to go in front of the attorney general before it could go to a vote.

The governor will have to use his influence to accomplish changes. Clinical Professor at the LBJ School of Public Affairs Sherri Greenberg says she believes Abbott has support — given the makeup of at the Capitol.

“The governor comes in his new position. He’s in his honeymoon period,” said Greenberg. “He won overwhelmingly. He also has Republican control, all the statewide offices and the House and the Senate.”

Greenberg says the issue raised by Abbott is a continuation of a long-standing debate in Texas about local control and the amount of regulations in the state.

“[Unchecked over-regulation by cities] is contrary to my vision for Texas,” said Abbott. “My vision is one where individual liberties are not bound by city limit signs. I will insist on protecting unlimited liberty to ensure that Texas will continue to grow and prosper.”

http://kxan.com/2015/01/09/abbott-sa...lifornia-ized/