FACT SHEET: REACHING OUT TO THE CUBAN PEOPLE

Today, the Obama administration announced a series of changes in U.S. policy to reach out to the Cuban people in support of their desire to freely determine their country’s future. In taking these steps to help bridge the gap among divided Cuban families and promote the freer flow of information and humanitarian items to the Cuban people, President Obama is working to fulfill the goals he identified both during his presidential campaign and since taking office.

All who embrace core democratic values long for a Cuba that respects basic human, political and economic rights of all its citizens. President Obama believes these measures will help make that goal a reality.

Cuban American connections to family in Cuba are not only a basic right in humanitarian terms, but also our best tool for helping to foster the beginnings of grassroots democracy on the island. There are no better ambassadors for freedom than Cuban Americans. Accordingly, President Obama will direct the Secretaries of State, Treasury, and Commerce to support the Cuban people’s desire for freedom and self-determination by lifting all restrictions on family visits and remittances as well as taking steps that will facilitate greater contact between separated family members in the United States and Cuba and increase the flow of information and humanitarian resources directly to the Cuban people. The President is also calling on the Cuban government to reduce the charges it levies on cash remittances sent to the island so family members can be assured they are receiving the support sent to them.

Specifically, the President has directed the Secretaries of State, Treasury, and Commerce to take the needed steps to:

• Lift all restrictions on transactions related to the travel of family members to Cuba.
• Remove restrictions on remittances to family members in Cuba.
• Authorize U.S. telecommunications network providers to enter into agreements to establish fiber-optic cable and satellite telecommunications facilities linking the United States and Cuba.
• License U.S. telecommunications service providers to enter into roaming service agreements with Cuba’s telecommunications service providers.
• License U.S. satellite radio and satellite television service providers to engage in transactions necessary to provide services to customers in Cuba.
• License persons subject to U.S. jurisdiction to activate and pay U.S. and third-country service providers for telecommunications, satellite radio and satellite television services provided to individuals in Cuba.
• Authorize the donation of certain consumer telecommunication devices without a license.
• Add certain humanitarian items to the list of items eligible for export through licensing exceptions.

REACHING OUT TO THE CUBAN PEOPLE

Supporting the Cuban people’s desire to freely determine their future and that of their country is in the national interest of the United States. The Obama administration is taking steps to promote greater contact between separated family members in the United States and Cuba and increase the flow of remittances and information to the Cuban people.

Lift All Restrictions on Family Visits to Cuba

We will lift all restrictions on family visits to Cuba by authorizing such transactions by a general license, which will strengthen contacts and promote American good will. We will ensure the positive reach of this effort by:

• Defining family members who may be visited to be persons within three degrees of family relationship (e.g., second cousins) and to allow individuals who share a common dwelling as a family with an authorized traveler to accompany them;
• Removing limitations on the frequency of visits;
• Removing limitations on the duration of a visit;
• Authorizing expenditure amounts that are the same as non-family travel; and
• Removing the 44-pound limitation on accompanied baggage.

Remove Restrictions on Remittances

We will remove restrictions on remittances to a person’s family member in Cuba to increase Cubans’ access to resources to help create opportunities for them by:

• Authorizing remittances to individuals within three degrees of family relationship (e.g., second cousins) provided that no remittances shall be authorized to currently prohibited members of the Government of Cuba or currently prohibited members of the Cuban Communist Party;
• Removing limits on frequency of remittances;
• Removing limits on the amount of remittances;
• Authorizing travelers to carry up to $3,000 in remittances; and
• Establishing general license for banks and other depository institutions to forward remittances.

Authorize Greater Telecommunications Links with Cuba

We will authorize greater telecommunications links with Cuba to advance people-to-people interaction at no cost to the U.S. government. This will increase the means through which Cubans on the island can communicate with each other and with persons outside of Cuba.

• Authorize U.S. telecommunications network providers to enter into agreements to establish fiber-optic cable and satellite telecommunications facilities linking the United States and Cuba.
• License U.S. telecommunications service providers to enter into and operate under roaming service agreements with Cuba’s telecommunications service providers.
• License U.S. satellite radio and satellite television service providers to engage in transactions necessary to provide services to customers in Cuba.
• License persons subject to U.S. jurisdiction to activate and pay U.S. and third-country service providers for telecommunications, satellite radio and satellite television services provided to individuals in Cuba, except certain senior Communist Party and Cuban government officials.
• Authorize, consistent with national security concerns, the export or re-export to Cuba of donated personal communications devices such as mobile phone systems, computers and software, and satellite receivers through a license exception.

Revise Gift Parcel Regulations

We will expand the scope of humanitarian donations eligible for export through license exceptions by:

• Restoring clothing, personal hygiene items, seeds, veterinary medicines and supplies, fishing equipment and supplies, and soap-making equipment to the list of items eligible to be included in gift parcel donations;
• Restoring items normally exchanged as gifts by individuals in “usual and reasonable” quantities to the list of items eligible to be included in gift parcel donations;
• Expanding the scope of eligible gift parcel donors to include any individual;
• Expanding the scope of eligible gift parcel donees to include individuals other than Cuban Communist Party officials or Cuban government officials already prohibited from receiving gift parcels, or charitable, educational or religious organizations not administered or controlled by the Cuban government; and
• Increasing the value limit on non-food items to $800.

“We applaud the White House, Senator Harry Reid, and Speaker Nancy Pelosi for their vision, leadership, and commitment to passing comprehensive and meaningful immigration reform this year. The United States, now more than ever, needs workable solutions that fix our broken immigration system, support our economic recovery, and allow honest and hardworking people to become lawful and contributing members of our society.

The White House said a key component of comprehensive immigration reform will be the creation of a pathway to legal status for the roughly 12 million undocumented immigrants now living in the United States. Although critics of reform often deride anything short of mass deportation as a blanket ‘amnesty,’ a well-tailored legalization program would, in fact, bring order and legality to bear on what is now a chaotic and unregulated situation. Moreover, legalization would not add new workers to a U.S. economy already reeling from high unemployment. Rather, it would give legal status, and the full protection of labor laws, to workers who are already here. Undocumented immigrants applying for legal status would not only have to register with the federal government, but would also have to meet a number of other requirements, including paying taxes, getting criminal background checks, learning English, and paying a fine.

In addition, comprehensive reform will have to address many of the other flaws and inequities within our immigration system. It will have to reduce the enormous backlog of applications for family reunification, which impose lengthy waiting times on individuals abroad who are trying to rejoin their families in the United States. It will have to create smarter and more targeted enforcement mechanisms that find individuals who pose a danger to public safety or national security, rather than expending resources on chasing workers and breaking apart families. And it will have to consider appropriate legal limits on immigration that rise and fall with the labor needs of our economy, rather than arbitrary numerical caps that bear no relationship to labor demand.

The time is now to resolve this ongoing and complex problem. Fixing our immigration system is an important part of addressing our nation’s economic, healthcare, and homeland security challenges. The White House has taken the first step today and we stand committed in supporting their efforts towards achieving sensible and comprehensive reform this year.”

Join the Cowden Law Amnesty Email List to receive updates on this issue.  We at Cowden Law stand poised and ready to help our immigrants become legal residents here at a price they can afford.  Call us to day for more information at (561) 882-6500 or email us by CLICKING HERE.

CLICK HERE to read the recommendations presented to the Department of Homeland Security on March 18 2009 for issues relating to the EB-5 immigrant visa, designed to help stabilize and energize the program.

Immigrant Policy Project

A Summary of State Studies On Fiscal Impacts of Immigrants
March 17, 2009

—–
Several states and organizations have conducted studies on the fiscal and economic impacts of immigrants or on specific immigration laws. Because of the complexity of researching unauthorized immigrants, studies are limited in scope and size. Some address all foreign-born, while others address only illegal immigrants or Hispanic residents (without addressing citizenship or immigration status). Estimates of tax revenues typically focus on income, sales and property tax. Some studies examine health, education and law enforcement costs, while others focus only on education. A few go beyond traditional assessment of taxes paid versus services used to examine the multiplier effects of immigrants in the labor force and economy.

The following sections summarize fiscal impact studies done in Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Minnesota, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah, Virginia and Washington D.C.

—–

Arizona
Gans, Judith. Immigrants in Arizona: Fiscal and Economic Impacts. Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy. 2007.
This study found that in 2004 the total state tax revenue from immigrant workers was around $2.4 billion, with $1.5 billion coming from unauthorized workers, and $860 million from naturalized citizens. The fiscal cost of education, health care, and law enforcement was $1.4 billion. The total net state fiscal impact of immigrant was positive, $940 million.[1]

—-

Arkansas
Capps, Randy, Everett Henderson, John D. Kasarda, James H. Johnson Jr., Stephen J. Appold, Derrek L. Croney, Donald J. Hernandez, Michael Fix. A Profile of Immigrants: Executive Summary. Winthrop Rockefeller Foundation. April 2007.
In 2004, the net fiscal impact of immigrants on the Arkansas state budget was small and positive. The cost to the state budget, including education, health services, and corrections, was $237 million in 2004. Immigrants paid direct and indirect tax contributions of $257 million, leaving a $19 million surplus to the state.[2]

—–

Colorado
Baker, Robin. Testimony to the Alternative Hearing on Immigration. The Bell Policy Center. August 29, 2006.
Baker, Robin and Rich Jones. State and Local Taxes Paid in Colorado by Undocumented Immigrants. The Bell Policy Center. Issue Brief #3, June 2006.
Immigration: Effects on Colorado and the Nation: a Review of Research. The Bell Policy Center. December 29, 2005.
According to Robin Baker’s Testimony to the Alternative Hearing on Immigration, an estimated 225,000 to 275,000 unauthorized immigrants live in Colorado (2007). Federally mandated services for these immigrants (K-12 education, emergency health support, incarceration) cost state and local governments $225 million (2005). In 2005, undocumented immigrants paid between $159 million to $194 million in state and local taxes, which covers 70 to 86 percent of $225 million for federally mandated services. Unauthorized immigrants cost the state between $31 million and $66 million.[3]
The study Immigration: Effects on Colorado and the Nation: A Review of Research analyzed the cost of checking citizenship documentation and resident status. In total, costs for implementing these services in Colorado would be $4.3 million for FY 2005-06, and $2.6 million in FY 2006-07. Total savings from reducing human services family/children’s programs and child welfare services would be $460,606 for FY2005-06 and FY2006-07. The net costs of checking citizenship and residence status for people applying for government services would be $3.8 million in FY2005-06 and $2.1 million in FY2006-07.[4]

The study State and Local Taxes in Colorado Paid by Undocumented Immigrants, found that the average undocumented worker in 2005 paid $1,265 in sales tax, $105 in property tax, $49 in income tax, totaling $1,861.[5]

—-
Georgia
An Analysis of the Economic Impact of Undocumented Workers on Business Activity in the US with Estimated Effects by State and by Industry. The Perryman Group. April 2008.
Coffey, Sarah Beth. Undocumented Immigrants in Georgia: Tax Contribution and Fiscal Concerns. The Georgia Budget and Policy Institute. January 2006.
According to Undocumented Immigrants in Georgia: Tax Contribution and Fiscal Concerns, the average undocumented family in Georgia pays from $2,340 to $2,470 in state, local, income, and property taxes combined (based on an undocumented population of 228,000 to 250,000). State, local, income and sales tax contributions from undocumented immigrants in Georgia are estimated between $215.6 million and $252.5 million.[6]
An Analysis of the Impact of Undocumented Workers on Business Activity in the US with Estimated Effects by State and by Industry cites that without the undocumented workforce in Georgia (using 2007 dollars for monetary value), in a static scenario, the state would lose $7,120 in expenditures per capita, $2,639 in output losses per capita, and $1,699 in income losses per capita. The static scenario estimates represent the immediate losses resulting from enforcement-only programs. In a dynamic scenario, expenditure losses per capita would be $2,234, $992 for output losses per capita, and $622 for income losses per capita. The dynamic scenario estimates represent losses after market adjustments and new hiring has occurred.[7]

—–

Illinois
Mehta, Chirag; Theodore, Nik, Mora, Iliana; and Wade, Jennifer. Undocumented Immigrants in the Chicago Economy. Chicago: UIC Center for Urban Economic Development. 2002.
Education for All. The Center for Urban Economic Development, University of Illinois at Chicago. March 2003.
According to Education for All, the anticipated state cost of implementing Illinois HB 60, which allowed immigrants to become eligible for in-state tuition in 2003, was $11.6 million in the first year and $46.4 million in four years.[8]
The Undocumented Immigrants in the Chicago Economy study reported that 70 percent of undocumented workers paid their employers payroll taxes; in 2002, Illinois collected $69.2 million in income taxes from undocumented immigrants.[9]

——

Iowa
Pearson, Beth and Michael Sheehan. Undocumented Immigrants in Iowa. Iowa Policy Project. October 2007.
The Iowa Policy Project estimated that each undocumented immigrant family pays $1,671 a year, amounting to a total of tax payments for unauthorized immigrants in Iowa between $40 and $62 million a year, assuming a 50% payment rate.[10]
In terms of the cost of K-12 education for unauthorized immigrants, the Iowa Policy Project determined that between 5,445 to 8,415 unauthorized immigrants are between the ages of 5 and 18. Using the per-pupil education cost in Iowa of $6,497, costs to the state for providing K-12 education to unauthorized immigrants is between $35 million and $54 million (2005).[11]
According to the study, overall, the tax payments made by unauthorized immigrants are 80% of the taxes paid by legally documented families with similar incomes; however, unauthorized immigrants do not qualify for as many services.[12]

—–

Kansas
Illegal Immigrants: Reviewing Studies That Have Assessed Their Economic Impact. Legislative Post Audit Committee. 2008.
This review discusses the costs and revenues associated with immigration in several states. It does not provide statistics specific to Kansas. For more information: http://www.kslegislature.org/postaudit/audits_perform/08pa19.pdf

—–

Missouri
Ehresman, Ruth. Undocumented Workers: Impact on Missouri’s Economy. The Missouri Budget Project. June 2006.
Tax contributions from workers in 2005, including sales, income, and property tax, was estimated between $29 million and $57 million (based on a 50% compliance rate with employers). This study estimated the cost for educating the children of unauthorized immigrant workers between $17.5 and $32.6 million in 2005.[13]

——

Minnesota
Noncitizens and Minnesota Law: A Guide for Legislators, Minnesota House Research. December 2004.
The Impact of Illegal Immigration on Minnesota, Office of Strategic Planning and Results Management, Minnesota Department of Administration. 2005.
The study in Noncitizens and Minnesota Law: A Guide for Legislators found that the cost of K-12 education for unauthorized students and children of unauthorized immigrants in fiscal year 2004 was between $118 million and $158 million.[14] Around 2,500 -3,000 unauthorized students were in enrolled in Minnesota colleges and universities.[15] The Impact of Illegal Immigration on Minnesota found that out of the total students receiving K-12 public education in Minnesota in 2004, 2% were non-citizens.[16]

—–

New Mexico
Undocumented Immigrants in New Mexico: State Tax Contributions and Fiscal Concerns. New Mexico Voices for Children, Fiscal Policy Project. May 2006.
This study estimates that the cost of education for unauthorized students is between $49 million and $67 million, using two studies from the Pew Center and the INS.[17] Each study found a different estimate of tax payments made by unauthorized immigrants.
The Pew Center found $69.26 million were paid in taxes. Using this estimate, the state made $1.814 million from immigrant taxes after the cost of education.[18] The INS estimated $50.371 million were paid in taxes by unauthorized immigrants, so the government gained $1.25 million after the cost of education.[19]

—–

New York
Passel, Jeffrey S., and Rebecca Clark. Immigrants in New York: Their Legal Status, Incomes, and Taxes. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute. 1998.
In 1998, this study found that with respect to average total tax contributions, legal foreign born immigrants in New York City pay roughly the same in taxes as natives ($6,300 compared to $6,500 for natives). Naturalized citizens ended up paying more than non-immigrants ($8,600 compared to $6,400 for non-immigrants). Legal permanent residents and refugees paid the least in average individual taxes ($5,000 and $2,200).
The study also looked at the percentage of income each group paid in taxes. Natives paid 30.7%, while legally present immigrants paid 29.1%. Refugees paid 20.9%, and unauthorized aliens paid 15.4%.
The third way this study measured tax contributions was by household. This measurement revealed that immigrant households pay far less in taxes than natives: legally foreign born households paid $13,300, naturalized citizen households paid $15,600, while native households paid $17, 800.

—–

North Carolina
Johnson, James H. and John D. Kasarda. The Economic Impact of the Hispanic Population on the State of North Carolina. The University of North Carolina. January 2006.
This study looks beyond comparisons of tax contributions and costs of services for Hispanic populations, and examines the implications of Hispanic workers on the total economic output and competitiveness of the state. It provides breakdowns of Hispanic self-employed workers by industry, average personal wages and salary earnings, taxes paid by Hispanics, etc. (The study includes all Hispanics, whether citizen, legal, or unauthorized.)
The study estimates that Hispanics spent $9 billion in in North Carolina in 2004. Total tax contributions from the Hispanic population are estimated at $756 million annually. State costs were estimated at $817 annually (K-12 education – $467 million; health care – $299 million; and corrections – $51 million). This leaves the state with a net cost of $61 million. The report notes that these costs should be put in context of the the broader contributions of Hispanics to the state’s economic output and cost competitiveness [20]

—–

Oklahoma
A Computable General Equilibrium (CGE) Analysis of the Impact of the Okalahoma Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act of 2007. The Economic Impact Group, LLC. Edmonton, Oklahoma: March 24, 2008.
In March 2008, the Economic Impact Group analyzed the possible effects of decline in the Oklahoma workforce, from low to high outflow of foreign born workers, after the passage of SB 1804. If 25,000 foreign born workers leave the state (low impact), in the short run (no offsetting in migration) the outflow would produce a 0.58 percent reduction in the Oklahoma Gross State Product (GSP), or $785.5 million (relative to 2006 production levels). If 50,000 foreign born workers leave the state (medium impact), GSP would decline by 1.32 percent, or $1.8 billion. If 90,000 foreign born workers leave the state (high impact), GSP would decline by 2.27 percent, or $3 billion. According to the study, the 50,000 worker outflow is the most plausible scenario; 50,000 foreign born workers would constitute approximately 3 percent of the Oklahoma labor force.[21]

—-

Texas
Combs, Susan. Undocumented Immigrants in Texas: A Financial Analysis of the Impact to the State Budget and Economy. Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts. December 2006.
The study estimates total revenue, including state revenues and school property tax, from unauthorized immigrants to be $1.58 billion. The total estimated cost of unauthorized immigrants, including education, health care, and incarceration, was $1.16 million leaving the net benefit to the state at $424 million in fiscal year 2005. However, localities incurred costs of $1.44 billion in health care and law enforcement costs not reimbursed by the state. Finally, the report notes that the absence of the estimated 1.4 million unauthorized immigrants in fiscal 2005 would have been a lost to the gross state product of $17.7 billion.[22]
In 2000-2001, the total cost of public education for 125,000 unauthorized immigrant students was $806 million. In 2004-2005, the total cost of public education for 135,000 unauthorized immigrant students was $957 million.[23]

—–

Utah
A Review of the Public Education of Undocumented Children. Utah Legislative Auditor General. 2007.
The 75,000 to 100,000 immigrants living in Utah incurred a cost of $54.9 million to $85.4 million in education costs from the state and local levels. The study did not include the revenues generated by illegal immigrants.

——

Virginia
Fiscal Facts: Tax Contributions of Virginia’s Undocumented Immigrants. The Commonwealth Institute. 2008.
This study found that the estimated 250,00-300,000 illegal immigrants provided $145 million to $174 million in state income, excise and property taxes annually. The study did not address the societal costs of illegal immigrants.[24]

—–

Washington D.C.
Capps, Randy, Everett Henderson, Jeffrey Passel, Michael Fix. Civic Contributions: Taxes Paid by Immigrants in the Washington D.C. Metropolitan Area. The Community Foundation. May 2006.
This study of Washington D.C. found that better-educated households pay higher taxes whether they are headed by immigrants or natives. In 1999–2000, the average tax payment was three times as high for households headed by immigrants with a four-year college degree as for those headed by immigrants without a high school degree: $36,000 versus $12,000. English speaking immigrant households also paid more taxes than natives, but native households paid more taxes than non-English speaking immigrant households. The study asserted that by enhancing English language classes for LEP immigrants, those immigrants could enhance their income and pay more taxes.[25]
Immigrant households in the Washington, DC, metropolitan region had a total income of $29.5 billion in 1999–2000, and they paid $9.8 billion in taxes; representing 19 percent of the region’s total household income and 18 percent of all taxes paid.[26]
Prepared by Kerry Birnbach, State-Federal Relations Fellow, NCSL
Edited by Ann Morse, Program Director, NCSL

—–
Notes
[1] Gans, Judith. “Immigrants in Arizona: Fiscal and Economic Impacts.” Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy. 2007. http://udallcenter.arizona.edu/immigration/publications/impactofimmigrants08.pdf
[2] Capps, Randy, Everett Henderson, John D. Kasarda, James H. Johnson Jr., Stephen J. Appold, Derrek L. Croney, Donald J. Hernandez, Michael Fix. A Profile of Immigrants: Executive Summary. Winthrop Rockefeller Foundation. April 2007. http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/411441_Arkansas_Summary.pdf
[3] Baker, Robin. Testimony to the Alternative Hearing on Immigration. The Bell Policy Center. August 29, 2006. http://www.thebell.org/PUBS/testimony/2006/08-29immigration.pdf.
[4] Immigration: Effects on Colorado and the Nation: a Review of Research. The Bell Policy Center. December 29, 2005. http://www.thebell.org/pdf/IMG-brief12-05.pdf
[5] Immigration: State and Local Taxes in Colorado Paid by Undocumented Immigrants. The Bell Policy Center. June 30, 2006. http://www.thebell.org/PUBS/IssBrf/2006/06ImmigTaxes.pdf.
[6] Coffey, Sarah Beth. Undocumented Immigrants in Georgia: Tax Contribution and Fiscal Concerns. The Georgia Budget and Policy Institute. January 2006.
[7] An Analysis of the Economic Impact of Undocumented Workers on Business Activity in the US with Estimated Effects by State and by Industry. The Perryman Group. April 2008.
[8] Education for All. The Center for Urban Economic Development, University of Illinois at Chicago. March 2003.
[9] Mehta, Chirag; Theodore, Nik, Mora, Iliana; and Wade, Jennifer. Undocumented Immigrants in the Chicago Economy. Chicago: UIC Center for Urban Economic Development. 2002.
[10] Pearson, Beth and Michael Sheehan. Undocumented Immigrants in Iowa. Iowa Policy Project. October 2007. http://www.iowapolicyproject.org/2007docs/071025-undoc.pdf
[11] Pearson, Beth and Michael Sheehan. Undocumented Immigrants in Iowa. Iowa Policy Project. October 2007. http://www.iowapolicyproject.org/2007docs/071025-undoc.pdf
[12] Pearson, Beth and Michael Sheehan. Undocumented Immigrants in Iowa. Iowa Policy Project. October 2007. http://www.iowapolicyproject.org/2007docs/071025-undoc.pdf
[13] Ehresman, Ruth. “Undocumented Workers: Impact on Missouri’s Economy.” The Missouri Budget Project. June 2006. http://www.mobudget.org/Undocumented%20Workers%20Impact%20on%20Missouri%20Economy%20June%2006.pdf
[14] The Pew Hispanic Center, as cited in The Impact of Illegal Immigration on Minnesota, Office of Strategic Planning and Results Management, Minnesota Department of Administration. 2005. http://www.mnforsustain.org/immg_mn_state_illegals_cost_study.htm#A.%20K-12%20Costs
[15] The Urban Institute, as cited in The Impact of Illegal Immigration on Minnesota, Office of Strategic Planning and Results Management, Minnesota Department of Administration. 2005. http://www.mnforsustain.org/immg_mn_state_illegals_cost_study.htm#A.%20K-12%20Costs
[16] Noncitizens and Minnesota Law: A Guide for Legislators, Minnesota House Research, December 2004 .
[17] Undocumented Immigrants in New Mexico: State Tax Contributions and Fiscal Concerns. New Mexico Voices for Children, Fiscal Policy Project. May 2006. http://www.nmvoices.org/attachments/immigrant_tax_report.pdf
[18] Size and Characteristics of the Unauthorized Migrant Population in the U.S.: Estimates Based on the March 2005
Current Population Survey. (http://pewhispanic.org/reports/report.php?ReportID=61) in Undocumented Immigrants in New Mexico: State Tax Contributions and Fiscal Concerns. New Mexico Voices for Children, Fiscal Policy Project. May 2006. http://www.nmvoices.org/attachments/immigrant_tax_report.pdf
[19] Undocumented Immigrants in New Mexico: State Tax Contributions and Fiscal Concerns. New Mexico Voices for Children, Fiscal Policy Project. May 2006. http://www.nmvoices.org/attachments/immigrant_tax_report.pdf
[20] Johnson, James H. and John D. Kasarda. The Economic Impact of the Hispanic Population on the State of North Carolina. January 2006. The University of North Carolina. http://www.kenan-flagler.unc.edu/assets/documents/2006_KenanInstitute_HispanicStudy.pdf
[21] A Computable General Equilibrium (CGE) Analysis of the Impact of the Oklahoma Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act of 2007. Economic Impact Group, LLC. Edmond, Oklahoma. March 24 2008. http://www.tulsaworld.com/webextra/content/2008/EconomicImpactGroup.pdf)
[22] Undocumented Immigrants in Texas: A Financial Analysis of the Impact to the State Budget and Economy. Susan Combs, Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts. December 2006. http://www.window.state.tx.us/specialrpt/undocumented/3education.html
[23] Undocumented Immigrants in Texas: A Financial Analysis of the Impact to the State Budget and Economy. Susan Combs, Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts. December 2006. http://www.window.state.tx.us/specialrpt/undocumented/3education.html
[24] Fiscal Facts: Tax Contributions of Virginia’s Undocumented Immigrants. http://www.hhr.virginia.gov/Initiatives/ImmigrationCommission/09-23-08/Comm_Institute_Imm_Study.pdf
[25] Capps, Randy, Everett Henderson, Jeffrey Passel, Michael Fix. Civic Contributions: Taxes Paid by Immigrants in the Washington D.C. Metropolitan Area. The Community Foundation. May 2006. http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/411338_civic_contributions.pdf
[26] Capps, Randy and Everett Henderson, Jeffrey Passel, Michael Fix. Civic Contributions: Taxes Paid by Immigrants in the Washington D.C. Metropolitan Area. The Community Foundation. May 2006. http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/411338_civic_contributions.pdf

Last Updated March 17, 2009

Reform Agenda at the Department of Homeland Security

Secretary Napolitano ordered an Efficiency Review across the Department of Homeland Security last month – an effort that will make the Department work better by promoting efficiency, reducing duplication, and improving customer service in DHS functions.  Making government more efficient and effective is an important, non-partisan issue.  Government has a responsibility to be a good steward of taxpayer dollars – Americans expect this, and this duty is reflected in President Obama’s goals for fiscal responsibility. Ongoing examples have shown how even smaller efforts at DHS can find significant efficiencies:

Improving Customer Service –

A radio frequency identification system that went live last week at the San Ysidro Port of Entry in California expedites the crossing of low-risk, pre-screened individuals, resulting in greater convenience for the public and more efficient time allocation for CBP.

Building Design –

CBP is working with GSA on standardizing building designs for ports of entry, which will result in costs savings, as well as operational and maintenance efficiencies.

Technology –

DHS Science & Technology partnered with Secret Service, industry, and academia to digitize over 9,000 ink samples improving investigation of criminal and terrorist activities and reducing matching times from days to minutes. DHS is a young department with many opportunities for greater efficiency. Efficiency Review will
look at improving efficiency on a number of fronts within the Department:

Use of contractors –

The use of contractors is often not as efficient as the use of employees, and contractors are overused at DHS. There was a greater need for contractors while DHS was being established, but the Department will make an effort to transfer administrative and program management functions to employees.

Acquisition workforce –

The Department will work to improve the procurement process by building a professional acquisition workforce with expertise, thus reducing reliance on contractors for program management.

Troubleshooting –

DHS has established an in-house Operational Test and Evaluation (OTE) capability that will address operational problems and issues with user-friendliness, identifying and correcting them before a system is implemented, as opposed to addressing issues after the fact.

Independent cost estimation –

DHS is also starting, for the first time, to do independent cost estimations for major acquisitions. This will help prevent delays and cost overruns by making sure costs are well-vetted and trade-offs are known early in a project, when schedules can still be set and adjustments can be made.

This is exciting news for anyone holding an E-2 Investor Visa or anyone contemplating holding one.  We’ve provided the text to this bill which you can access by clicking HERE.  As you’ll read, if this bill becomes law, many E-2 Visa holders could qualify to become lawful permanent residents of the US if they meet certain qualifiers.  Currently, an E-2 visa holder can never adjust status to that of being a lawful permanent resident by changing status directly from the E-2 (unless there are other factors causing the change of status, like bona fide marriage to an American citizen.)

If you’d like more information on the E-2 Visa category, please feel free to visit that page on our information portal site (click HERE), or contact us by email (click HERE) or by phone (561) 882-6500 [outside of the US, please use prefix 001].

FACT: According to a 2007 report from the Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada, Latino immigrants in Nevada paid roughly $2.6 billion in federal taxes and $1.6 billion in state and local taxes (including $500 million in sales taxes) in 2005. The money that Latino immigrants “earn and spend in Nevada accounts for about 25% of the State’s Gross State Product,” and Latino immigrant “employment, income and spending results in the creation of 108,380 jobs in Nevada.”

FACT: The Selig Center for Economic Growth at the University of Georgia estimates that the 2008 purchasing power of Nevada’s Latinos totaled $14.4 billion-an increase of 965.1% since 1990. Asian buying power totaled $6.3 billion-an increase of 1,020.2% since 1990.

FACT: The U.S. Census Bureau’s 2002 Survey of Business Owners found that Nevada’s 9,741 Latino-owned businesses had sales and receipts of $1.6 billion and employed 12,874 people. The state’s 8,872 Asian-owned businesses had sales and receipts of $2 billion and employed 12,713 people.

FACT: Latino immigrants comprised about 16% of the state’s entire workforce in 2005, and an even higher share in select industries: 81% of the agricultural workforce, 47% of the construction and mining workforce, and 22% of the entertainment and tourist services workforce, according to a 2007 report from the Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada.

For more mythbusting facts on this issue read this FACT SHEET from AILF’s Immigration Policy Center.