Thread: UNC Study MISLEADS PUBLIC On Impact Of Illegal Immigrants

UNC Study MISLEADS PUBLIC On Impact Of Illegal Immigrants in NC

4/4/2007
by retired State Senator Fern Shubert of Marshville, NC
Writing for the JWP Civitas Institute of North Carolina


Roughly a year ago, the Frank Hawkins Kenan Institute of Private Enterprise, part of the Kenan-Flagler Business School at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, released a study on "The Economic Impact of the Hispanic Population on the State of North Carolina." Since that time, the study has been widely quoted, usually in a misleading manner.

Of course, the very first news release from UNC carried the headline: "North Carolina's Hispanic immigrants contribute more than $9 billion to economy, cost state budget net $102 per Hispanic resident, new study shows." While that statement is completely untrue, the misrepresentation was soon exaggerated even further.

The reference to the state budget quickly disappeared, and Dr. James H. Johnson, Jr., one of the study's authors, characterized the study as showing "... the Hispanic population in 2004 had
an economic impact of about $9.3 billion on our economy and when we look at the cost to the state it is about $61 million or about $102 per Hispanic resident in the state. When you factor in the $9.3 billion in economic impact based on their consumer spending, we found that the
Hispanics contribute far more to the state's economy than they cost us."

The message of a net cost to the state of "about $102 per Hispanic resident" and an overall positive benefit was repeated again and again by the proponents of illegal immigration. The $102 number was so bogus that UNC needs to do what it did in 2003 when it was determined that a "UNC scientist falsified data for journals," they need to tell the authors to issue a retraction or retitle the study.

A more accurate title for the study would be: "The Economic Impact of Hispanic Immigration on Three Items in the State Budget That Don't
Begin to Capture the Cost to North Carolina Taxpayers of Hispanic Immigration Offset By Imaginary Numbers, Including An Arbitrary Multiplier Effect and Local Taxes That Are Not Available for
Offset Because They Pay for Expenses that are Not Included," but that might not be as useful for misleading the public.

Occasionally the North Carolina Bankers Association has been named as the source of funding for the study, but the study document admits that the idea for the study and the selection of the people to do the study did not come from the Bankers Association. When Dr. Johnson said, "we think
and we found that the Hispanics contribute far more to the state's economy than they cost us," it sounds like he had an opinion before he conducted the study, and he found what the people who picked him to do the study wanted to find.

Since the Consulate of Mexico in Raleigh and the Chairman of the North Carolina Hispanic Chamber of Commerce picked the study's authors before they approached the Bankers Association to ask for funding, some might think the study results are hardly surprising. Clearly, the Mexican Consul and the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce would have a vested interest in persuading the public and business community at-large of the importance of the Hispanic community and minimizing the cost
of illegal Hispanic immigrants.

When Nolo Martinez, who served as an advisor to former Governor Jim Hunt on immigration issues and serves as a senior policy advisor to El Pueblo (a non-profit statewide advocacy and policy group dedicated to strengthening the Latino community), told the Montgomery County Commissioners:

"The latest research from 2004 showed that immigrants in North Carolina contributed over $755.5 million in taxes … (and) the net cost to the state was over $61 million annually, or about $102 per immigrant," he was making an untrue statement. When he predicted that North
UNC Study MISLEADS PUBLIC On Impact Of Illegal Immigrants The UNC studywas suggested by the Consulate of Mexico in Raleigh and the Chairman of the North Carolina Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, and funded by the North Carolina Bankers Association.

If the Bankers Association paid for a serious academic study on "The Economic Impact of the Hispanic Population on the State of North Carolina," they should ask for a refund.

Carolina may "become the Hispanic capital of the eastern United States," he could be right. Clearly, by using the study to minimize the true costs of illegal immigration, he is helping achieve that goal.

Few would question the positive contributions that legal Hispanic immigrants are having on our state and country. But, by failing to distinguish between legal and illegal immigrants, the study uses the positive benefits of legal immigration to offset the astounding cost of illegal immigration.

Unfortunately, the only way the authors could even come close to showing a positive net benefit from Hispanic immigration when illegal immigrants were included was to ignore certain basic facts and mix apples and oranges.

If the Bankers Association paid for a serious academic study on "The Economic Impact of the Hispanic Population on the State of North Carolina," they should demand a refund. That may sound harsh, but
the study's authors were made aware of the following deficiencies shortly after the study was released. It is hard to imagine they were unaware of them before the study was released.

Even if we accept their decision to ignore any cost/benefit differences between legal and illegal Hispanic immigrants, the study is still fatally flawed. The most obvious flaw is that no matter how you define "State of North Carolina," the study does not accomplish what it claims to accomplish.

Most people think the study measures the economic impact of Hispanic immigration on the people of North Carolina, but it does not. Some may think it measures the impact in terms of the cost to North Carolina taxpayers, but it does not. Some think it measures the cost to the
state budget, but it does not. If you read the study, it claims to determine the "net cost" while limiting cost to only three items in the state budget, but it doesn't even do that.

Education

As a former chairman of the House Education Committee, I was shocked by the education cost numbers in the study. Since the study shows that Hispanic enrollment was 101,380 in 2004,I knew there was no way the cost of educating Hispanic students could be just $466,847,000, the cost used in the study, or less than $5,000 per student, when the average per pupil cost per public school student in North Carolina in 2004 was more than $7,000, excluding construction costs.

The study stated that Hispanics "are not nearly as well educated as non-Hispanics" and "poverty rates are much higher among Hispanics."

These two factors, alone, indicate that Hispanic students would cost more to educate than the state average cost, even ignoring language barriers. Yet the study simply used the percent of Hispanic students in the total K-12 student population applied to what it called the total cost, without recognizing that such an approach clearly understated the cost.

The study also found that "Hispanic students accounted for 57 percent of the total growth in the North Carolina Public Schools," yet, there is no way the study's cost numbers could possibly include construction costs, which were close to $1 billion in 2004.

In frustration, I contacted the study's authors and asked where they found their cost numbers. They directed me to the Post-Legislative Budget Summary 2004-2005, published by the Office of State Budget and Management. Checking the summary revealed that the authors intentionally ignored costs paid by North Carolina taxpayers through federal and local taxes, even though those numbers were readily available in the same chart.

The study did not include state educational costs attributable to Hispanic students that were not directly reflected in the K-12 budget, such as costs to the community colleges and universities, and the amazing impact of the influx of non-English speaking students who require more resources than English speaking students.

Those costs were clearly economic impacts affecting the state and the state budget, yet, they were ignored. In other words, the education cost numbers are not even close to the true costs of providing educational services to Hispanic students, and no serious attempt was made to approximate the true cost of providing educational services to Hispanic students.

That revelation caused me to look more closely at the other two cost numbers, and I found they were just as incredibly understated. As with education, you can look at the state budget and find line items that can be used to arrive at the costs used in the UNC study. But credible researchers
should know that a few random budget numbers do not represent the total cost to the state, or even to the state budget, on the impact illegal Hispanics have on the cost of health care and law enforcement.

Healthcare

The health care piece completely ignores the cost shifting that occurs because of the way our country funds health care. Local hospitals are required to treat patients who do not have insurance or the ability to pay, but the state budget does not capture the impact on taxpayers
for the full cost of treating the uninsured. North Carolina even requires counties to pay a portion of Medicaid costs. Once again, the authors ignore the costs paid by North Carolina taxpayers that do not flow through one small part of the state budget, even though the budget item clearly understates “the economic impact of the Hispanic population” on health

Law Enforcement

The cost of law enforcement is also understated, since the report acknowledges that the authors simply applied the percentage of Hispanic prisoners in state prisons to the state budget cost for corrections. The percent of Hispanic prisoners in state prisons seriously understates the number of Hispanics who are breaking the law and burdening our courts and law enforcement system. The effect of deportation in reducing the number of criminals who reach the state prisons is a factor, of course, but because of our legal system, it takes time for the rising tide of Hispanic crime to affect the state prisons.

NORTH CAROLINA FACT SHEET
U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration

“COCAINE . . . shipments transported into North Carolina by Mexican organizations are used to supply crack cocaine distribution networks that further present an enormous social threat to North Carolina’s inner city communities. . . .

“METHAMPHETAMINE . . . Most methamphetamine in North Carolina is imported in multi-pound quantities
from Mexico through the Southwest Border states, but a significant amount also comes from Mexican sources of supply based in Northern Georgia . . .

“MARIJUANA . . . Mexican trafficking organizations
control most of the wholesale market in foreign-grown
marijuana throughout the state . . .”
SOURCE: http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/pubs/states/northcarolina.html

As Mecklenburg County Sheriff Jim Pendergraph said: “The average citizen has no idea how much illegal immigrants are costing them in the criminal justice system alone. My jail system is 20percent illegal immigrants and rising quickly, and most of those illegal immigrants are Hispanic.”
Furthermore, while the cost of incarceration is high, we build prisons because the cost of letting criminals roam freely is even higher. Most law enforcement in North Carolina is handled through police departments, sheriff departments and local jails. Once again, these costs are completely ignored by the study. The effect of Hispanic immigration on the drug trade (see www.dea.gov) and gang membership is also well known, but it wasn’t even mentioned in the study, nor are the traffic accidents and deaths attributable to illegal Hispanic DUI offenders, even though all of these impose negative economic impacts on the state.

Local Taxes

Even if some people might think it is acceptable to ignore most of the burdens imposed on North Carolina taxpayers in determining “economic impact,” the study does one thing that is clearly unacceptable in an academic study. While excluding the costs of education, health care and law enforcement paid by the federal government (funded by North Carolina tax-payers) or local governments, the study includes all local taxes paid (directly or indirectly) by Hispanic residents as an offset to state budget costs.

In other words, even though Mecklenburg County may spend more on education, health care and law enforcement for Hispanics than they produce in local taxes, every dime Hispanics pay in local taxes is assumed to be an offset to the costs identified in the state budget.

Is logic taught at UNC? The study is guilty of double counting. It is hard to imagine that the study’s authors would make such an obvious error.

Ignoring obvious and easily obtainable costs is questionable; double counting is completely unacceptable.

Conclusion

If there is any question of intent, the inclusion of the motor vehicle use tax without inclu-sion in the study of any transportation costs from the state budget drives the point home. The UNC study was clearly designed to encourage support for Hispanic illegal immigration by ignoring costs and/or overstating benefits.

Imagine the public’s reaction if, after being repeatedly encouraged to support lifting the moratorium on new hog lagoons based on a study of “The Environmental Impact of Pork Production on the State of North Carolina” by two N.C. State University professors that was funded by the N.C. Bankers Association, the citizens learned that they picked the professors to conduct the “study” and that the “study” had omitted little details like water pollution.

Would there be an outcry from the public, politicians and the news media on the veracity of the study? Do you think that study would be receiving the attention and accolades the UNC study is receiving? The study that claims to measure “The Economic Impact of the Hispanic Population on the State of North Carolina” does nothing of the sort. Producing such a study cheapens the reputation of the UNC System and damaged the full disclosure of the real impact illegal immigrants are having on North Carolina taxpayers and all levels of government.

An honest study would have been helpful, but instead, we got a total misrepresentation of the facts.

http://www.jwpcivitasinstitute.org/news ... gazine.pdf

ALIPAC Activists.

Senator Fern Shubert, the author of this report, is one of the founders of ALIPAC and a member of our board.

William Gheen

Thanks for this William.

It will be interesting to see what Kenan-Flagler has to say about this deceptive study with their name all over it.

This is a VIDEO of Senator Shubert, the author of this piece, representing ALIPAC

http://www.alipac.us/modules.php?name=F ... 810#334810