Texans For Immigration Reduction and Enforcement!
HomeAbout UsThe EffectsEventsLegislationLinksMediaJoinContact UsStore


You are probably wondering how Immigration affects you on a daily basis.
There are a number of ways and we want to inform and educate you.
 

Texans For Immigration Reduction and Enforcement
P.O Box 771014  l  Houston, Texas 77215  l  Phone: 713-612-2617
Email: info@tfire.org

HomeAbout UsThe EffectsEventsLegislationLinksMediaJoinContact UsStore

NumbersUSA - Election Dramatically Shifted Immigration Balance of Power in Congress toward Enforcement & Reductions
by Roy Beck, Wednesday, November 3, 2010, 9:07 AM EST - posted on NumbersUSA

The cause of immigration enforcement and numerical reductions was a huge winner in Tuesday's elections, promising that immigration issues will finally be addressed as job issues in the next Congress. I'm not sure there has been a Congress since 1924 -- and certainly not in the last 50 years -- that had a membership more interested in reductions in overall illegal and legal immigration than will be the one that was elected yesterday. I know that these are big claims. Many observers may have missed this dramatic shift because of the one massively publicized counter-example of amnesty-champion Sen. Harry Reid keeping his seat from immigration-enforcement advocate Sharon Angle in Nevada. Certainly, immigration was a hot issue in that race, and both candidates made it clear that they represented opposite positions. In that case, voters chose the high-immigration candidate over the low-immigration candidate, although several other major factors were involved. Reid's was a case of a pro-amnesty incumbent keeping his seat, and lots of them did. Nonetheless, there are a lot of examples in which pro-amnesty seats did get filled by anti-amnesty candidates. On the other hand, I can't find any example of the opposite happening -- of an anti-amnesty seat being taken by a pro-amnesty candidate. To analyze the results, NumbersUSA in advance of the elections assigned every current Member of Congress and every candidate to one of three categories based on extensive review of their actions, their official stances and statements in the media. The three categories were:

MORE IMMIGRATION:  Support high current levels of new foreign workers, with many favoring letting illegal aliens keep their jobs
UNCOMMITTED:  Immigration positions not clear
LESS IMMIGRATION: Favor stronger enforcement to open up illegal-alien-held jobs for unemployed Americans, with many favoring reductions in legal immigration, too. Here is what voters nationwide did on Tuesday:

IN THE HOUSE  
1. They wiped out a net of three dozen More-Immigration seats in the House.  
2. They knocked the number of More-Immigration seats down to about 170, far below the 218 majority needed to pass legislation, seemingly eradicating any possibility of "comprehensive immigration reform" being considered in the next Congress.  
3. They didn't just go for mild enforcement types. They filled about two dozen of those current More-Immigration seats with Less-Immigration candidates who made explicit promises not only to push stringent enforcement measures but also promised to work to eliminate several categories of legal immigration. 
4. The number of elected Less-Immigration candidates promising stepped-up immigration enforcement looks like it will fall just short of the 218 majority. But most of the final 50 elected candidates classified as Uncommitted appear likely to lean toward more enforcement if presented opportunities and requirements to vote on it. There is no question that a solid pro-enforcement, bi-partisan majority will exist in the new House. 

IN THE SENATE  
1. Five or six of the Senate's most aggressive More-Immigration Members were replaced by Less-Immigration candidates.  
2. That shift puts the More-Immigration bloc about 10 votes short of stopping a filibuster and creates a virtual 50-50 deadlock in the Senate.  

BE SURE TO LOOK AT OUR TV PAGE WITH ALL THE RESULTS AND BLOG ITEMS FROM OUR 10-HOUR LIVE COVERAGE OF THE ELECTION RESULTS AT: http://www.numbersusa.tv

ROY BECK is Founder & CEO of NumbersUSA

NumbersUSA's blogs are copyrighted and may be republished or reposted only if they are copied in their entirety, including this paragraph, and provide proper credit to NumbersUSA. NumbersUSA bears no responsibility for where our blogs may be republished or reposted.

This is really good news after so many years of fighting to be heard, ignored and chastised. We are doing it! We are now in the fore front of the immigration issue and elections are showing where the people stand.

FAIR --The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on United States Taxpayers
Executive Summary

This report estimates the annual costs of illegal immigration at the federal, state and local level to be about $113 billion; nearly $29 billion at the federal level and $84.2 billion at the state and local level. The study also estimates tax collections from illegal alien workers, both those in the above-ground economy and those in the underground economy. Those receipts do not come close to the level of expenditures and, in any case, are misleading as an offset because over time unemployed and underemployed U.S. workers would replace illegal alien workers.

Key Findings
Illegal immigration costs U.S. taxpayers about $113 billion a year at the federal, state and local level. The bulk of the costs — some $84.2 billion — are absorbed by state and local governments.

The annual outlay that illegal aliens cost U.S. taxpayers is an average amount per native-headed household of $1,117. The fiscal impact per household varies considerably because the greatest share of the burden falls on state and local taxpayers whose burden depends on the size of the illegal alien returns. Many are also claiming tax credits resulting in payments from the U.S. Treasury.
Education for the children of illegal aliens constitutes the single largest cost to taxpayers, at an annual price tag of nearly $52 billion. Nearly all of those costs are absorbed by state and local governments.
At the federal level, about one-third of outlays are matched by tax collections from illegal aliens. At the state and local level, an average of less than 5 percent of the public costs associated with illegal immigration is recouped through taxes collected from illegal aliens.

Most illegal aliens do not pay income taxes. Among those who do, much of the revenues collected are refunded to the illegal aliens when they file tax returns. Many are also claiming tax credits resulting in payments from the U.S. Treasury. Entire article available at www.fairus.org

The Effects