Contributions of International Immigrants in MO

7/27/2019 Contributions of International Immigrants in MO

1/61

UMKCCENTERFORECONOMICINFORMATION

EconomicandFiscal

ContributionsofInternationalImmigrants

intheStateofMissouri

Dr.PeterEaton

1/10/2013


2/61

Acknowledgements

The Greater Kansas City Hispanic Development Fund, an affiliate of the Greater Kansas City

Community Foundation, wishes to thank the generous support from the foundation and business

communities for sponsoring this study for Kansas and Missouri.

We are especially grateful to our lead researcher Dr. Peter Eaton, Ph.D. from the University of

Missouri-Kansas City as well as consultants to the research Dr. John Leatherman from Kansas

State University and Dr. Joshua Rosenbloom from the University of Kansas.

Brotherhood Bank & Trust

DeBruce Companies

Greater Kansas City Community Foundation

Greater Kansas City Hispanic Development Fund

H. Tony & Marti Oppenheimer Foundation

Kansas City Southern Charitable Fund

Maritz Holdings Inc.

Sprint Foundation

W.K. Kellogg Foundation Trustee Donor-Advised Fund


3/61

i

ExecutiveSummary

Thisisastudyoftheeconomicandfiscalimpactofinternationalimmigrationinthestateof

Missouri.ThestudyconcludesthatimmigrantsareanintegralpartoftheMissourieconomy.

Substantiallyreducingthenumberofforeignbornindividualswhohavejobsinthestateof

Missouriwouldhavenegativeconsequencesfornativeemploymentandincomeaswellas

causingasignificantdeteriorationofthestatesfiscalsituation.Othermajorfindingsare:

InternationalimmigrationisresponsibleforalmostalloftherecentpopulationgrowthofthestateofMissouri.

TheinternationalimmigrationprocessinMissouriisselectiveofyoungmalesfromallovertheworld.

Unauthorizedimmigrationhasincreasedinrecentyears. ImmigrantsinMissouriareconcentratedinthelargercitiesofthestate. Immigrantsaremorelikelytohavejobsthannonimmigrants. Immigrantsareoverrepresentedintheconstructionandmanufacturingindustries. Immigrantsarealsooverrepresentedinboththehighestskilledoccupationsandthe

lowestskilledoccupationsandtheyarealsoconcentratedatbothendsofthespectrum

ofeducationalattainment.

Thelinkagesofimmigrantjobswiththerestoftheeconomyaresuchthatanimmigrantjobcreatesmorethanoneadditionaljob.

Immigrantspayslightlylessstateandlocaltaxespercapitathandoesthenonimmigrantpopulation.ImmigrantsfromMexicoandCentralAmericaalsopayslightly

less,and

unauthorized

immigrants

pay

about

89%

of

non

immigrant

per

capita

state

and

localtaxes.

Eachdollarofstateandlocaltaxrevenuegeneratedbytheaverageimmigrantjobresultsinmorethananadditionaldollarofstateandlocaltaxes.

ThecostofeducatingnativechildrenofimmigrantsintheK12publicschoolsystemismuchlargerthanthecostofeducatingimmigrantchildren.

Unauthorizedimmigrantspayforthestateservicestheyusewiththetaxrevenuetheirjobsgeneratedirectly

CenterforEconomicInformation

KansasCity,January10,2013


4/61

ii

TableofContents

Introduction 1

ImmigrantProfile. 2

TheEconomicContributionofImmigrantsintheStateofMissouri. 16

AggregateEconomicContributionsofImmigrants19

IndustrySectorImpact..20

StateandLocalTaxRevenueEffects26

ImmigrantUseofStateandLocalGovernmentServices..28

Education(K12)Services28

HealthServices..30

HigherEducationandTransportationServices30

LongTermAdjustmentstotheLossofUnauthorizedImmigrantJobs.. 31

Bibliography..33

AppendixTables.35


5/61

iii

Forward

Earlyin2009,researchersattheUniversityofMissouriKansasCity,KansasStateUniversity,and

theUniversityofKansaswerecontactedbytheGreaterKansasCityCommunityFoundation,toexplorethepossibilityofconductingastudyoftheimpactofimmigrantsontheKansasand

Missourieconomies.Overthenextseveralmonthsresearchersatthethreeuniversities

developedanoverallanalyticalframeworkforsuchastudyandsubmittedaformaloutlineof

thisprojecttothecommunityfoundation.Theinitialplancalledforresearchersineachstate

toconducttheanalysisfortheirrespectivestates.Asplanningprogressed,however,itbecame

apparentthisapproachwouldresultinconsiderableduplicationofeffort.Italsowas

recognizedtheopportunityforvaluablecomparisonsacrossthetwostateswouldbe

diminished.Oncethisbecameapparent,itwasdeterminedthebulkofworkontheproject

shouldbeundertakenbyresearchersatasingleuniversity,withconsultationandinputfromtheotherscholarswhohadbeeninvolvedinformulatingtheoriginalresearchplan.Asaresult,

Dr.PeterEatonoftheUniversityofMissouriKansasCityassumedresponsibilityforconducting

theresearchwithDrs.JohnLeatherman(KansasStateUniversity)andJoshuaRosenbloom

(UniversityofKansas)actingasconsultants.

ThereportthatfollowsreflectsprimarilytheeffortsofDr.Eaton,butwithadviceand

suggestionsfromDrs.LeathermanandRosenbloom.Itmaintainsthestructureandframework

ofanalysisthatwasdevelopedbytheoriginalresearchteam.Inadditiontoconsultationon

researchdesign,Drs.LeathermanandRosenbloomprovidedextensivereviewcommentsofthe

preliminaryresearchreportand,now,offerthisassessmentofthefinalreport.Ultimately,Dr.

Eatonmadeallfinaldecisionsregardingapproach,assumptions,andanalysis.

Giventheavailabledatasources,certainanalyticassumptionswerenecessary.Theresimplyis

nowaytoquantitativelyverifyahypothetical.Thus,manyimportantassumptionsare

necessary.Theassumptionsmadeinvariablyaffectanalysisoutcomes.Therelative

conservativenessoraggressivenessoftheunderlyingassumptionswillgreatlyaffectthe

reportedoutcomes.Itisthechallengeandchoiceoftheanalysttoensuretheassumptionsare

clear,reasonable,anddefensible.

Indevelopingtheinitialplansfortheresearch,weandDr.Eatonreviewedalargenumberof

relatedstudieswhichhaveprecededthiseffort.Wefoundawiderangeofoutcomes,someof

whichlackedtransparencyoftheunderlyingassumptions.Webelievethereportsproducedby

Dr.Eatonreflectthetransparencynecessarytoallowthereadertounderstandhowthe

underlyingdatagiverisetothereportsconclusions.Further,webelievetheassumptions

thereinarewithintheboundsgenerallyacceptablewithintherealmofqualifiedandcareful


6/61

iv

academicresearch.Webelievethattheresultsprovideareasonableandaccuratereflectionof

thefactsatthetimeofthestudyandthatthemethodsusedtoinfertheeconomicimpactsof

KansasandMissouriimmigrantshavebeenappliedinthegenerallyacceptedmanner.

JohnC.Leatherman

ProfessorofAgriculturalEconomics

KansasStateUniversity

JoshuaL.Rosenbloom

ProfessorofEconomics

UniversityofKansas

10January2013


7/61

1

Introduction

Thisisastudyoftheeconomicandfiscalcontributionofinternationalimmigrantstothe

economyofthestateofMissouri.ThestudywascommissionedbytheGreaterKansasCity

CommunityFoundation.Studiesfromresearchinstitutesonboththeright(theCatoInstitute)

andthe

left

(Immigration

Policy

Center)

have

demonstrated

the

benefits

that

accrue

to

Americancitizensasaresultofimmigration.Therehavebeenstudiespublishedforseveral

stateswhichattempttoquantifythegeneraleconomicconsequencesandfiscalimpactof

immigration(Decker2008,Strayhorn,2006). Thisstudyaddressestheseissuesforthestateof

Missouri.Inparticular,amajorpolicyquestionthatisaddressediswhatwouldbetheresult,

forthestateofMissouri,ofasubstantialreductionintheamountofimmigration?Inrecent

yearssomestateshaveenactedpolicieswiththeintentofsubstantiallyreducingunauthorized

immigration.ThisstudyusesamodelofthestateofMissouritoquantifythecontributionsofall

immigrants,andimmigrantsfromMexicoandCentralAmericatotheeconomyofMissouri.

Fromthese

estimates

the

study

estimates

the

contribution

of

unauthorized

immigrants

to

the

economyofMissouri.

Thefirstsectionofthisstudyproducesdescribestheimmigrantpopulationinthestateof

Missouri.ThedataforthissectioncomesmostlyfromtheAmericanCommunitySurvey.The

descriptivedatainthetablesandmapsoftheimmigrantprofilesectioninformthesecond

sectionofthestudy,whichanalyzesthegeneraleconomicimpactofimmigrationinthestate.

Thefinalsectionexaminestheimpactofimmigrationonstateandlocaltaxesinthestateof

Missouri.Thecostofthemajorcategoriesofstateandlocalgovernmentservicesfor

immigrants

is

then

compared

with

the

tax

revenue

resultant

from

immigration.


8/61

2

ImmigrantProfile

Forthepurposeofthisstudy,aninternationalimmigrant(hereafterimmigrant)isdefinedasa

personwhowasnotbornintheUnitedStates.1Thestudyaddressesfirstgeneration

immigrantsonlyandthereforedoesnotaddresstheethnicityofallMissouriresidents.Itdoes

addresstheethnicityofMissouriresidentswhowerenotbornintheUnitedStates.

Thefirstsectionofthestudypresentsaprofileofimmigrants.Inmanycasesitmakessenseto

compareimmigrantswiththenativebornpopulation,andthereforemanyofthedatatables

includeinformationregardingthenativebornpopulation.Bynativeborn,wemeanborninthe

UnitedStates,orbornabroadtoparentsatleastoneofwhomisaUScitizen.Inthisstudywe

willrefertothreeimmigrantcategoriesallimmigrants,immigrantsfromMexicoandCentral

America,andunauthorizedimmigrants.Table1andChart1showthenativityofimmigrantsin

thelastthreeyearsforwhichdatawasavailableatthetimeofwriting.Immigrantsmadeup

almost3.9%ofthepopulationofthestateofMissouriin2010.SlightlylessthanonequarterofimmigrantsarefromMexicoandCentralAmerica.

2Theimmigrantpopulationisgrowing

significantlyfasterthanthenativepopulation.AmoredetailedlistoforiginsofMissouri

ImmigrantsisincludedinDataAppendixTableA.1.In2010therewereroughlythesame

numberofimmigrantsfromMexicoasfromthenextthreemostfrequentcountrysourcesof

immigrants(India,ChinaandYugoslavia)combined.

Table1

BirthplaceofMissouriResidents

RegionofNativity 2008 2009 2010 Growth+

Mexico&CentralAmerica 38549 53350 56151 45.66%

Asia 50331 61374 69307 37.70%

Europe 62074 51301 55869 10.00%

Africa 10432 17290 16986 62.83%

SouthAmerica&Caribbean 11200 10559 16004 42.89%

MiddleEast 13241 11551 5673 57.16%

Canada 21470 4940 7312 65.94%

Other 5034 1533 5000 0.68%

AllImmigrants 212331 211898 232302 9.41%

UnitedStates 5699274 5775682 5763229 1.12%

Source:USCensusBureau,AmericanCommunitySurvey,&authorscalculations.

1TheonlyexceptiontothisdefinitionisindividualswhoarebornabroadwithoneormoreUScitizensasparents.2Allsurveydataaresubjecttosamplingerror.Thereadershouldinterpretsurveyresultsasamidpointofan

interval.Thesizeoftheintervaldependsnumberoffactors.Broadlyspeaking,themoreinformationwehave

aboutsomething(samplesize)thesmallertheinterval(inpercentageterms).SoinTable1,forexample,wecan

speakwithmoreprecisionabouttheimmigrantpopulationfromMexicoandCentralAmericathanwecanabout

theimmigrantpopulationfromtheMiddleEast.


9/61

3

+percentagegrowthfrom2008to2010

ThePEWHispanicCenterhasdevelopedamethodologyforcountingunauthorizedimmigrants

(Passel&Cohn,2009,AppendixD)thatmakesPEWwidelyacceptedasthebestavailable

sourcefordataregardingunauthorizedimmigrants.PEWcitesMissouriasoneofthestates

withthelowestpercentageofunauthorizedimmigrantsasapercentofthepopulation(41stof

50states).PewestimatesthenumberofunauthorizedimmigrantsinMissouriwas

approximately55,000in2010.

Thisnumberisanincreaseof10,000since2008,whentheestimatednumberofunauthorized

immigrantswas45,000(PasselandCohn,2011,p.23).In2010,Missouriranked33rd

among

statesintheestimatedcountofunauthorizedimmigrants.Nationwide,PEWestimatesthat

70%ofunauthorizedimmigrantscomefromMexico(59%)andCentralAmerica(11%)(Passel

andCohn,2009,p.21).Thesepercentageshavebeenrelativelystableoverthelastdecade.This

probablyoverestimatesthepercentageofunauthorizedimmigrantsfromMexicoandCentral

AmericainMissouri,giventhehighpercentageofimmigrantsfromAsia.

CombiningthePEWestimateswiththedatainTable1,therecenttrendinthestateofMissouri

appearstobetowardanincreaseinunauthorizedimmigrationasapercentageoftotal

immigration(from

21%

in

2008

to

24%

in

2010).

DatafromtheAmericanCommunitySurveycanbeusedtomapthelocationofimmigrants.The

smallestgeographicalunitforwhichthiscanbedoneiscalledaPUMA(PublicUseMicrodata

Area).APUMAisdefinedsuchthatitincludesapopulationofatleast100,000persons.Inrural

partsofthestate,aPUMAwillcontainseveralcounties.Inurbanpartsofthestate,several

PUMAsmaybeincludedinonecounty.Maps1and2showimmigrantpopulationasapercent

96%

1%1%

1%

1%

0%0%

0%0%

4%

Chart1:

Birthplace

of

Missouri

Residents,

2010

US Mexico&CentralAmerica Asia

Europe Africa South

America

&

CaribbeanMiddleEast Canada Other

AllPercentagesareroundedtothenearestpercent.Avalueof0%meansless than1/2ofone%.


10/61

4

ofPUMApopulationin2009,andimmigrantpopulationfromMexicoandCentralAmericaasa

percentoftotalPUMApopulationin2009,respectively.Itisobviousthatthereisnotarandom

distributionoftheimmigrantpopulation.ImmigrantsareconcentratedinKansasCity,St.Louis

andColumbia.ImmigrantsfromMexicoandCentralAmericaareconcentratedinthe

southwesternPUMAandinurbanPUMAs.Thereasonforthisconcentrationisthatthese

locationshavejobsthatuseimmigrantlabor.Wewilladdressthisinmoredepthinthesections

oftheprofilethatdealwiththelaborforcecharacteristicsofimmigrants.


11/61

5


12/61

6


13/61

7

Thedemographicsoftheimmigrantpopulationaredramaticallydifferentfromthoseofthe

nativepopulation..Charts2Aand2Bareagepyramidsforthetwopopulationgroups.The

differencesareobvious,withtheimmigrantpopulationmuchmoreconcentratedinagesthat

areeconomicallyactive.

Table2shows

similar

information

for

the

age

and

gender

distribution

of

three

groups:

all

immigrants,immigrantsfromMexicoandCentralAmerica,andUSnatives.Intheimmigrant

population,therearemoremalesthanfemales,whereastheoppositeistrueinthenative

population.Intheimmigrantpopulationthereisamuchsmallerpercentageofthepopulation

intheveryyoungandveryoldagecategories.Over74%oftheimmigrantpopulation,andover

79%oftheimmigrantpopulationfromMexicoandCentralAmerica,arebetweentheagesof19

Percent

Age Chart2A:AgePyramidforMissouriImmigrants(2009)

Female

Male

75+

7074

6064

5054

4044

3034

2024

1014

04

20 10 0 10 20

Percent

Age Chart2B:AgePyramidforMissouriNonImmigrants(2009)

Female

Male

75+

7074

6064

50

54

4044

3034

2024

1014

04

20 10 0 10 20


14/61

8

and65(theagecohortthatincludesthegreatmajorityofthelaborforce).Thisistrueforboth

malesandfemales.Thiscompareswithapproximately60%ofnativemalesand58%ofnative

females.Thisdramaticdifferenceintheworkingagepopulationisareflectionofoneofthe

longrecognizedLawsofMigration,thathasbeennotedbysocialscientistssincethe19th

Century(Ravenstein,1885).Namelythatimmigrationisprimarilycausedbyeconomicforces.

Table2

BasicDemographicsofMissouriImmigrantsandNatives,2009

Age Male Female All

Immigrants

05 1515 1.42% 1972 1.88% 3487 1.65%

618 11542 10.80% 11640 11.10% 23182 10.94%

1935 38683 36.19% 31729 30.26% 70412 33.23%

3665 45625 42.69% 46398 44.18% 92023 43.43%

65+

9509

8.90%

13285

12.65%

22794

10.76%

Total 106874 100.00% 105024 100.00% 211898 100.00%

Mexican&CentralAmericanImmigrants

05 599 1.76% 415 1.90% 1014 1.81%

618 3765 11.04% 2866 13.12% 6631 11.85%

1935 15734 46.15% 9219 42.19% 24953 44.60%

3665 12900 37.83% 8095 37.05% 20995 37.35%

65+ 1097 3.22% 1254 5.74% 2351 4.20%

Total 34095 100.00% 21849 100.00% 55944 100.00%

Natives

05

247357

8.77%

231886

7.85%

479243

8.30%

618 520868 18.47% 494895 16.74% 1015763 17.59%

1935 637132 22.60% 645988 21.85% 1283120 22.22%

3665 1076781 38.18% 1120534 37.91% 2197315 38.04%

65+ 337747 11.98% 462494 15.65% 800241 13.86%

Total 2819885 100.00% 2955797 100.00% 5775682 100.00%

Source:USCensusBureau,AmericanCommunitySurvey2009

ThereisinsufficientinformationintheAmericanCommunitySurveytoanalyzeseparatelythe

age/gendercompositionofunauthorizedImmigrantsinthestateofMissouri.Howeverif

Missouri

follows

national

trends,

then

the

same

pattern

would

prevail

of

a

high

percentage

of

workingagemales,andalowpercentageoftheveryyoungandveryold,thatprevailsforthe

immigrantpopulationasawholeinMissouri.Wetakethisasevidencethattheunauthorized

immigrantsofMissourifollowasimilarage/genderbreakdownastheUnitedStatesasawhole.

Inthecountryasawhole,only1.2%ofunauthorizedimmigrantsare65yearsofageorolder,

comparedwith12%ofnatives(PasselandCohn,2011,p.6).Similarly35%ofunauthorized


15/61

9

immigrantsaremalesbetweentheagesof18and39,comparedwith14%ofthepopulationof

natives.

Theeconomiccausesforimmigrationarealsoreflectedinthelaborforcestatusofimmigrants,

especiallymales,whencomparedtothatofnatives.Table3showsthatthemalelaborforce

participationrate

(percent

employed

plus

percent

unemployed)

is

77%

for

immigrants

versus

65%fornatives.Thefemalelaborforceparticipationrateisslightlyhigherfornativesthanfor

immigrants,duetothefactthatimmigrantfemalesaremorelikelytobeyoung,haveyoung

children,andstayathometocareforthosechildren(Fortuny,etal.,2009,p.1).ThelaborforceparticipationrateforimmigrantmalesfromMexicoandCentralAmericais81%.Combining

Tables2and3clearlydemonstratesthattheimmigrationprocessisselectiveofworkingage

males,andthatthisprocessisaccentuatedforimmigrantsfromMexicoandCentralAmerica.

Theseresultsareconsistentwithnationaltrends.Althoughthereisnodirectestimateofthe

laborforceparticipationratesofunauthorizedimmigrantsinMissouri,nationaldataindicate

thatthe

labor

force

participation

rate

is

higher

for

unauthorized

immigrants

than

for

all

immigrantsfromMexicoandCentralAmerica(PasselandCohn,2009,pp.1213).

Table3

LaborForceStatusinMissouriofIndividualsover18yearsofAge2009

EmploymentStatus Male Female All

AllImmigrants

Employed 72130 76.88% 51325 56.15% 123455 66.65%

Unemployed 5103 5.44% 3430 3.75% 8533 4.61%

Notinlaborforce 16584 17.68% 36657 40.10% 53241 28.74%

Total 93817 100% 91412 100% 185229 100%

Mexican&CentralAmericanImmigrants

Employed 24121 81.13% 10601 57.09% 34722 71.89%

Unemployed 2074 6.98% 891 4.80% 2965 6.14%

Notinlaborforce 3536 11.89% 7076 38.11% 10612 21.97%

Total 29731 100% 18568 100% 48299 100%

Natives

Employed 1324251 64.55% 1272893 57.11% 2597144 60.67%

Unemployed 137296 6.69% 103088 4.62% 240384 5.62%

Not

in

labor

force

590113

28.76% 853035

38.27% 1443148

33.71%

Total 2051660 100% 2229016 100% 4280676 100%

Source:USCensusBureau,AmericanCommunitySurvey2009

RecallthattheimmigrantpercentageofthepopulationinMissouriwas3.5%in2009.Inthe

sameyear,immigrantsmadeup4.5%ofemployment. Immigrantmalesmakeup3.6%ofthe


16/61

10

Missourimalepopulation,and5.2%ofemployedmales,whereasimmigrantfemalesmakeup

3.4%oftheMissourifemalepopulationand3.9%ofemployedfemales.

ThesameinformationinTables2and3areavailablefor2008.TheyareincludedintheData

AppendixasTablesA.2andA.3.Theyreflectthefactthat2009wasthesecondyearofa

prolongedrecession.

For

all

population

groups,

the

employment

rate

was

higher

in

2008

than

in

2009. TherateofunemploymentwashigherforallgroupsexceptmalesfromMexicoand

CentralAmericain2009thanin2008.Thelowerunemploymentratecombinedwithalower

employmentrateforthesamegroupmaybeevidencethattherewasanincreasein

discouragedworkersthataccountsforthereductionoftheunemploymentrate.

AlsonotableinTable3isthefactthattheunemploymentrateisslightlyhigherforimmigrants

fromMexicoandCentralAmericathanfornatives.Thisisconsistentwithnationaldata,andisa

reversaloftrends(PasselandCohn,2009,p.14).TheconcentrationofimmigrantsfromMexico

andCentralAmericaintheconstructionindustry(seeTable4below),asectorthatwas

disproportionallynegatively

affected

by

the

recession

that

began

in

2008,

explains

most,

if

not

all,ofthischangeintrend.

Table4

ParticipationinEmploymentofBroadIndustrialCategoriesbyImmigrantStatus&Gender(MO2009)

AllImmigrants

ImmigrantsfromMexico&

CentralAmerica Natives

Male Female Male Female Male Female

Agriculture,Forestry,Fishing&Hunting 2.69% 0.94% 1.88% 0.29% 81.18% 15.18%

Mining 0.00% 1.45% 0.00% 0.00% 94.53% 4.02%

Utilities 0.53% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 81.72% 17.75%

Construction

3.17% 0.02% 2.46% 0.10%

88.01% 8.80%

Manufacturing 3.85% 2.50% 1.48% 0.81% 65.69% 27.96%

WholesaleTrade 1.62% 0.60% 0.55% 0.08% 69.96% 27.81%

RetailTrade 1.39% 1.57% 0.14% 0.17% 42.37% 54.67%

Transportation&Warehousing 2.48% 0.74% 0.37% 0.03% 75.38% 21.40%

Information&Communication 1.32% 0.51% 0.17% 0.00% 50.65% 47.52%

Professional,Scientific,Management* 3.65% 2.07% 0.94% 0.42% 50.18% 44.10%

Finance,Insurance&RealEstate** 1.81% 2.19% 0.12% 0.25% 39.62% 56.37%

Educational,Health&SocialServices 1.65% 2.09% 0.11% 0.25% 21.27% 74.99%

Arts,Entertainment,Recreation+ 3.98% 3.23% 2.09% 1.15% 41.74% 51.04%

OtherServices(ExceptPubAdministration) 1.72% 2.99% 0.53% 0.50% 45.39% 49.90%

PublicAdministration 0.65% 0.59% 0.13% 0.00% 51.56% 47.20%

ActiveDutyMilitary 1.99% 0.59% 0.95% 0.00% 77.47% 19.95%

Source:ACS,2009

*AlsoAdmin&WasteManagementServices

**AlsoRental&Leasing

+AlsoAccommodatn&FoodServices

Table4presentsabreakdownofparticipationinthejobsinbroadindustrialsectorsby

immigrants,immigrantsfromMexicoandCentralAmerica,andnatives.Eachcellinthetable


17/61

11

showsthepercentageoftotaljobsinthatsectorthatisrepresentedbythespecifiedgender

andimmigrantstatusindicated.So,forexample,ofalljobsintheconstructionindustryin2009,

2.46%wereheldbyimmigrantmalesfromMexicoorCentralAmerica.Thesumofjob

percentagesheldbyallimmigrants(maleandfemale)andallnatives(malesandfemale)is

100%foreachsector.

ThepercentofimmigrantjobsheldbyimmigrantswhoarefromMexicoorCentralAmericacan

beinferredfromTable4.Forexample,wecaninferthat78%ofjobsheldbyimmigrantmalesin

constructionwereheldbyimmigrantsfromMexicoorCentralAmerica(2.46%/3.17%).

TheclassificationoftypeofindustryinTable4isbroadsectorsoftheNorthAmericanIndustrial

ClassificationSystems(NAICS).Withineachofthesebroadcategories,thereistypicallya

subcategoryinwhichtheindustryusesimmigrantlabordisproportionatelyinthestateof

Missouri.Forexample,intheManufacturingbroadcategory,immigrantlaboris

disproportionatelyusedintheanimalprocessingandslaughteringsubcategory.Restaurants,

construction,highereducationandhospitalsaretheotherthreeindustriesthatuseimmigrant

laborthemostinMissouri.Amoredetailedversionoftheindustriesthatemployimmigrant

laborisincludedintheDataAppendixasTableA.4.

Twodifferentdimensionsofthejobsofimmigrantsareimportant: 1)thetypeofindustryin

whichimmigrantsholdjobsand2)theoccupationsofimmigrantswithinthoseindustries.

Occupationsobviouslyalignwithindustries,sotheoccupationsthatshowupmostfrequently

forimmigrantsareconsistentwiththeindustrieswithinwhichimmigrantswork.Tables5and6

containoccupationsforwhichthereweremorethanonethousandjobsheldbyimmigrantsof

eachgender

in

2009.

The

occupation

categories

used

are

from

the

1990

Standard

Occupation

codes.ThetablesalsocontainthecountofoccupationsheldbyimmigrantsfromMexicoand

CentralAmerica.AcompletelistofimmigrantoccupationsiscontainedintheDataAppendixas

TablesA5andA6.

Tables46paintapictureofthediversityofimmigrantoccupationsandindustriesinthestate

ofMissouri.Thereisarealdichotomyofimmigrantoccupations.Therearemanylowskilled

occupations,especiallyamongimmigrantsforMexicoandCentralAmerica.Buttherearealso

manyhighskilledimmigrantoccupations.Amongmen,theoccupationsthatranksecondand

thirdarephysicianandcomputersoftwaredeveloper,respectively.Ofthenineteen

occupationalcategories

held

by

more

than

1000

immigrant

males,

six

would

be

classified

as

highlyskilled,sixwouldbeclassifiedaslowskilledandtheremainderwouldbeinthemiddle.

Ofthetwentyoccupationalcategoriesheldbymorethan1000immigrantfemales,fivewould

beclassifiedashighlyskilled,tenwouldbeclassifiedaslowskilledandtheremainderwouldbe

inthemiddle.Nooccupationalcategoryformorethan1000maleorfemaleimmigrantsfrom

MexicoandCentralAmericawouldbeclassifiedashighlyskilled.


18/61

12

Table5

MissouriOccupationswith>1000MaleImmigrantsover18YearsofAge

OccupationCategory1990SOC AllImmigrants

ImmigrantsfromMexico

&CentralAmerica

Cooks,variouslydefined 3827 3058

Physicians 3555 89

Computersoftwaredevelopers 3258 128

Truck,deliveryandtractordrivers 3104 278

Subjectinstructors(HS\College) 3014 0

Managersandadministrators,n.e.c. 2960 503

Miscfoodprepworkers 2531 1901

Machineoperators,n.e.c. 2367 1620

Cashiers 2169 312

Laborersoutsideconstruction 1929 1462

Gardeners

and

groundskeepers

1873

1283

Computersystemsanalystsandcomputerscientists 1787 0

Constructionlaborers 1733 1375

Roofersandslaters 1383 1383

Supervisorsandproprietorsofsalesjobs 1173 0

Painters,constructionandmaintenance 1155 991

Janitors 1146 241

Weldersandmetalcutters 1108 813

Mechanicsandrepairers,n.e.c. 1055 788

Source:AmericanCommunitySurvey,2009

Thefindings

of

this

study

with

respect

to

industrial

and

occupation

distribution

of

the

immigrantlaborforceinthestateofMissouriareconsistentwiththefindingsofarecent

nationalstudybytheBrookingsInstitution(Singer,2012).


19/61

13

Table6

MissouriOccupationswith>1000FemaleImmigrantsover18YearsofAge

OccupationCategory1990SOC

All

Immigrants

Immigrantsfrom

Mexico&Central

America

Cooks,variously

defined

3451

1043

Housekeepers,maids,butlers,stewards,&lodgingquarterscleaners 3416 1942

Hairdressersandcosmetologists 2872 44

Nursingaides,orderlies,andattendants 2829 659

Retailsalesclerks 2146 0

Cashiers 1909 623

Managersandadministrators,n.e.c. 1760 94

Registerednurses 1702 0

Subjectinstructors(HS\College) 1702 0

Packers,fillers,andwrappers 1618 1363

Physicians

1584

101

Childcareworkers 1414 981

Gradersandsortersinmanufacturing 1322 47

Laborersoutsideconstruction 1317 574

Janitors 1219 510

Assemblersofelectricalequipment 1196 415

Customerservicereps,investigators&adjusters,exceptinsurance 1131 308

Accountantsandauditors 1079 0

Generalofficeclerks 1043 0

Managersoffoodservingandlodgingestablishments 1041 312


Thediverseskillcontentofimmigrantoccupationsisreflectedintheeducationalattainmentof

immigrantsinTable7.Thetableisdividedintotwoparts.Thetoppartshowstheeducational

attainmentofschoolagedMissouriansbyimmigrantstatus,andgender.Thebottompartof

thetableshowstheeducationalattainmentofMissourians25yearsofageorolder,by

immigrantstatusandgender. Only15%ofworkingage(>24)maleimmigrantsfromMexico

andCentralAmericaand26%ofworkingageoffemaleimmigrantsfromMexicoandCentral

Americahave

more

than

ahigh

school

degree.

This

compares

with

over

45%

for

both

native

malesandfemales.74%ofworkingagemaleimmigrantswithbirthplacesoutsideofMexico

andCentralAmerica,havemorethanahighschooldegreeandalmost60%ofworkingage

femaleimmigrantswithbirthplacesotherthanMexicoandCentralAmericahavemorethana

highschooldegree.ImmigrantsfromoutsideofMexicoandCentralAmericaaremorehighly

educatedthanarenativecitizensoftheUnitedStates.


20/61

14

Table7

EducationalAttainmentbyImmigrantstatus,GenderandBroadAgeCategory(StateofMO)

AllImmigrants

ImmigrantsfromMexicoand

CentralAmerica Natives

Males624 Females624 Males624 Females624 Males624 Females624

Education Freq % Freq % Freq % Freq % Freq % Freq %

N/Aornoschooling 198 0.93 623 3.3 119 1.58 168 3.2 5039 0.66 4682 0.63

Nurseryschooltograde4 3542 16.57 3995 21.17 1014 13.5 821 15.63 201676 26.43 196918 26.65

Grade5,6,7,or8 6845 32.03 3888 20.61 3310 44.06 1175 22.37 170569 22.35 150409 20.35

Grade9 1209 5.66 761 4.03 773 10.29 175 3.33 43779 5.74 45296 6.13

Grade10 475 2.22 1273 6.75 95 1.26 493 9.39 51153 6.7 42954 5.81

Grade11 871 4.08 818 4.34 227 3.02 295 5.62 48545 6.36 47673 6.45

Grade12 4518 21.14 3582 18.98 1521 20.25 1975 37.6 133136 17.45 114339 15.47

1yearofcollege 2433 11.38 2012 10.66 152 2.02 150 2.86 71872 9.42 90046 12.18

2yearsofcollege 359 1.68 150 0.79 0 0 0 0 13219 1.73 15763 2.13

4yearsofcollege 835 3.91 1766 9.36 301 4.01 0 0 22824 2.99 28328 3.83

5+yearsofcollege 86 0.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 1360 0.18 2584 0.35

Males>24 Females>24 Males>24 Females>24 Males>24 Females>24

Education Freq % Freq % Freq % Freq % Freq % Freq %

N/Aornoschooling 2803 3.34 3064 3.64 2124 8.17 1821 11.25 11620 0.64 11962 0.6

Nurseryschool

to

grade

4

2195

2.61

1652

1.96 2100 8.08 1116 6.9 4309

0.24

2509 0.13Grade5,6,7,or8 7658 9.12 5676 6.74 6722 25.87 2854 17.64 55657 3.08 67190 3.39

Grade9 2539 3.02 2074 2.46 1305 5.02 1050 6.49 29610 1.64 28584 1.44

Grade10 907 1.08 699 0.79 466 1.79 290 1.79 48608 2.69 54648 2.75

Grade11 842 1 1434 1.7 597 2.3 842 5.2 52400 2.9 61665 3.11

Grade12 20209 24.06 24740 39.39 8787 33.82 3976 24.57 765303 42.3 818802 41.25

1yearofcollege 9899 11.79 9276 11.02 2168 8.34 1816 11.22 283211 15.65 303121 15.27

2yearsofcollege 3607 4.29 5535 6.57 349 1.34 646 3.99 109359 6.04 146354 7.37

4yearsofcollege 14493 17.26 17450 20.73 623 2.4 1177 7.27 284218 15.71 311924 15.71

5+yearsofcollege 18836 22.43 12614 14.98 743 2.86 594 3.67 165061 9.12 178160 8.98


Adiversityofeducationandoccupationwillbeassociatedwithadiversityofincome.That

relationshipshowsupinthepovertystatistics.TheFederalGovernmentestablishes,foreach

householdsize,apovertylevelofincome.Thehouseholdincomeofeachhouseholdisthen

comparedtothepovertylevel,andcanbeexpressedasapercentageofthatpovertylevel.

Table8showsthepercentofindividualswhoresideinhouseholdsthathavetheindicated

percentageofthepovertylevel.Thetableisalsosubdividedbygenderandimmigrationstatus.

ByFederalguidelines,anyindividualwhoresidesinahouseholdthathasanincomelevelless

thanorequalto100%ofthepovertylevel(i.e.thefirsttworowsoftable8),isconsideredtobe

poor.Bythiscriterionalittleover16%ofnativemalesliveinpovertyandalittleover18%of

nativefemalesliveinpoverty.Bythesamecriterionamuchhigherpercentageofimmigrants

fromMexicoandCentralAmericaliveinpoverty(approximately35%offemalesand25%of

males).TherearemanyissuesinvolvedinusingFederalPovertyguidelinesasameasureof

familiesinneedmostresearchwouldsaythatusingtheseguidelinestendstounderstatethe

realextentofpoverty.3Usingothercriteriawouldnotchangethequalitativeresultfromabove.

Infact,itwouldreinforcethoseresults.Alargepercentageofimmigrantsandanevenlarger

3Onealternativetothepovertylineisalivingwagecalculator,(http://www.livingwage.geog.psu.edu/)developed

byPennsylvaniaStateUniversity.


21/61

15

percentageofimmigrantsfromMexicoandCentralAmericafallinthe101%200%ofpoverty

category.ThetotalpercentageofimmigrantsfromMexicoandCentralAmericathatfallsbelow

200%ofthepovertylineisover58%ofmalesandover65%offemales.

Atthesametimethereisamuchhigherpercentageofimmigrants(bothmaleandfemale)from

outsideof

Mexico

and

Central

America

who

live

in

households

with

income

in

the

highest

categoryofthistable(morethan500%ofpoverty).Over31%ofimmigrantmalescomparedto

almost23%ofnativemales,andalmost29%ofimmigrantfemalescomparedtoalmost20%of

nativefemales,fallinthatcategory4.

Table8

PovertyStatusofMissouriansbyGenderandImmigrantBirthplace

AllImmigrants

Immigrantsfrom

Mexico&Central

America

Natives

PercentofPoverty Male Female Male Female Male Female

050% 9.25% 10.82% 9.33% 15.63% 8.89% 9.35%

51100% 9.09% 9.21% 15.58% 19.51% 7.01% 8.70%

101200% 20.22% 18.91% 33.73% 30.72% 17.51% 19.57%

201300% 15.63% 16.24% 18.52% 13.23% 17.78% 17.62%

301400% 12.89% 12.23% 10.72% 8.08% 14.87% 14.46%

401500% 9.89% 9.17% 6.15% 6.54% 11.13% 10.36%

501+% 23.03% 23.42% 5.97% 6.29% 22.81% 19.94%


Anothercharacteristicoftheimmigrantpopulationthatdifferssignificantlyfromthatofthe

nativepopulationisthehousingsituation.Althoughamajorityofimmigrantsliveinowner

occupiedhousing,theincidenceofowneroccupancy(61%)iswellbelowthatofthenative

population(70%),ascanbeseeninTable9.Noticethelowincidenceofgroupquarters

residentsamongimmigrantsforMexicoandCentralAmerica.Thiswillhaveimplicationsforthe

demandforcertaintypesofgovernmentservicesamongimmigrantsfromMexicoandCentral

America,addressedinthefinalpartofthisstudy.

TheAmericancommunitysurveyalsohasaseriesofquestionsregardingtheamountof

propertytaxespaid.Table10showsthedistributionofpropertytaxespaidbyhouseholdsby

immigrantstatus.Itshouldbeemphasizedthatsome,ifnotall,ofpropertytaxespaidby

landlordsofrentalpropertiesgetspassedontotherenters,sothatrentersindirectlypay

propertytaxes.

4ThesepercentagesarenotobservabledirectlyfromTable8.Theyarecalculatedbysubtractingtheimmigrants

fromMexicoandCentralAmericafromtotalimmigrantspriortocalculatingthepercentage.


22/61

16

Table9

HousingTypeofMissouriansbyImmigrantStatus

Natives

HousingTyoe Frequency %

GroupQuarters 164939 2.86%

Ownedorbeingbought(loan) 4070022 70.47%

Rented 1540721 26.68%

AllImmigrants

Groupquarters 3830 1.81%


Rented 78968 37.27%

ImmigrantsfromMexico&CentralAmerica

Groupquarters 439 0.82%


Rented

27117

50.83%Source:AmericanCommunitySurvey,2009

*TheCensusBureaudefinesgroupquarterstoinclude:collegeresidencehalls,residentialtreatmentcenters,skillednursingfacilities,grouphomes,militarybarracks,

correctionalfacilities,workersdormitories,&facilitiesforthehomeless.

Table10

PercentDistributionofPropertyTaxAmountsPaidbyImmigrantStatus

Natives

All

Immigrants

Immigrantsfrom

Mexico&Central

America

Renters,GroupQuarter,etc. 30.6% 45.0% 44.9%

$0

1.1%

2.3%

3.3%

$1$999 15.2% 16.7% 25.4%

$1,000 $1,999 23.2% 15.2% 16.9%

$2,000 $2,999 15.4% 11.6% 7.9%

$3,000 $3,999 6.9% 5.5% 1.0%

$4,000 $4,999 3.2% 1.3% 0.1%

$5,000 $5,999 1.7% 0.6% 0.0%

$6,000 $6,999 1.3% 0.9% 0.5%

$7,000 $7,999 0.3% 0.5% 0.0%

$8,000 $8,999 0.3% 0.1% 0.0%

$9,000

$9,999 0.1%

0.0%

0.0%

$10,000+ 0.5% 0.3% 0.0%



23/61

17

TheEconomicContributionofImmigrantsintheStateofMissouri

Toassesstheeconomiccontributionofimmigrantsweuseaneconomicdevelopment

assessmentsoftwarepackageknownasIMPLAN.Thepackagemodelstheeconomyofa

region,and

has

data

appropriate

to

the

region

being

analyzed

built

into

the

software.

IMPLANiscommonlyusedtoassesstheoverallresultfortheregionaleconomyofaddingor

subtractingjobsinaparticularindustryorsetofindustries5.ThisisaccomplishedbyusingSocial

AccountingMatricesthatcontainthedollaramountsofallformalbusinesstransactionstaking

placeinaregionaleconomy(inthiscase,theregionisthestateofMissouri),basedonreports

eachyearbybusinessesandgovernmentalagencies.TheIMPLANuserspecifiesachangethat

occursinaregionaleconomy.Forexample,ausermightwanttoanalyzetheeffectofaddinga

commercialeggproductionplantinsouthwesternMissourithatwouldhave200jobs.

IMPLANthenprovidesthreetypesofeffectsthatresultfromtheuserspecifiedchange.The

directeffectistheuserspecifiedchange(200jobswhichwouldimplyanadditiontotheincome

streamand

output

that

is

specific

to

the

commercial

egg

production

plant,

with

associated

income,propertyandindirectbusinesstaxes).Theindirecteffectsaredeterminedbythe

amountofthedirecteffectspentwithinthestudyregiononsupplies,services,laborandtaxes.

Inourexample,thecommercialeggproductionfacilitywouldpurchasesupplies,machinery,

constructionlabor,etc.TheportionofthatspendingthatoccursinMissouriistheindirect

effectofthechange.Finallytheinducedeffectmeasuresthemoneythatisrespentinthestate

ofMissouriasaresultofspendingfromthedirectandindirecteffect.Eachofthesesteps

recognizesanimportantleakagefromtheeconomicstudyregionspentonpurchasesoutsideof

thedefinedarea.Eventuallytheseleakageswillstopthecycleofinducedeffects.

IMPLANestimates

the

direct,

indirect,

and

inducts

impacts

of

the

specified

change

on

the

output,income,jobs,andfederal,stateandlocaltaxesgeneratedintheregionaleconomy.To

estimate the economic contribution of immigrants, we use the American Community Survey

count of jobs for all immigrants and for immigrants from Mexico and Central America by very

detailed industry (appendix Table A4).6

Those jobs are removed from the Missouri economy,

and the direct, indirect and induced effects are calculated. Table 11 shows that the result of that

subtraction of immigrant jobs has a major impact on any general measure of economic activity:

jobs, value added, employee compensation, proprietors income, and other property type income .

Note that these categories are different measures of economic activity and should not be

summed. The number of jobs held by immigrants in 2009 in those detailed industries is estimated

at 147,641.

5AlistofclientscanbeviewedontheIMPLANwebsite.

6ThetotalnumberofjobsintheAmericanCommunitySurveymatchescloselythetotalnumberofjobsusedby

IMPLANforitsmodeloftheMissouriEconomy.Thereweretwominordiscrepancies(involvingaggregationsof

categories)betweentheNAICScategoriesusedbyIMPLANandtheACS.


24/61

18

Table11:AggregateMissour

iImm

igrantEconom

icCont

ribution

(2009)

AllImm

igrants

Direct

Indirect

Induce

d

Total

Directas

%o

f

MOTotal

Direct+In

direct

+Inducedas

%o

f

MOTotal

Jo

bs

147,6

71

64

,464

75,8

44

28

7,9

79

4.2

1%

8.2

1%

Va

lueAdde

d

10,2

53,6

11,8

80

5,4

57,3

44

,684

5,3

06,1

31,9

88

21,0

17,08

8,5

52

4.0

9%

8.3

9%

Emp

loyee

Compensat

ion

6,0

15,3

69,6

62

2,8

05,7

65

,800

2,7

19,6

05,9

72

11,5

40,74

1,4

33

4.2

2%

8.0

9%

Proprietors

'Inco

me

694,5

23,4

98

346,4

40

,897

243,1

43,2

93

1,2

84,10

7,6

89

4.0

9%

7.5

6%

OtherPropertyTypeInco

me

2,8

60,7

62,2

93

1,7

47,4

45

,808

1,7

09,7

08,4

40

6,3

17,91

6,5

42

3.9

8%

8.8

0%

Mexican

&Centra

lAmericanImm

igr

ants

Direct

Ind

irect

Induce

d

Total

Directas

%o

f

MOTotal

Direct+In

direct

+Inducedas

%o

f

MOTotal

%o

fImm

igrant

Total

Jobs

41,6

64

22

,670

21,9

37

8

6,2

72

1.1

9%

2.4

6%

30.0

%

Va

lueAdde

d

2,5

29,0

92,0

57

1,7

48,5

27

,351

1,4

74,0

36,0

60

5,7

51,65

4,4

69

1.0

1%

2.3

0%

27.4

%

Emp

loyee

Compensation

1,5

03,7

19,0

37

914,6

67

,179

755,4

66,4

18

3,1

73,85

2,6

34

1.0

5%

2.2

2%

27.5

%

Proprietors

'Income

211,9

09,6

91

156,5

20

,519

91,6

80,5

92

460,11

0,8

02

1.2

5%

2.7

1%

35.8

%

OtherPropertyTypeIncome

667,8

92,8

12

526,6

93

,429

474,9

69,8

06

1,6

69,55

6,0

47

0.9

3%

2.3

3%

26.4

%

Source:IMPLAN

calculations

Unauthorize

dImm

igrants

Direct

Ind

irect

Induce

d

Total

Directas

%o

f

MOTotal

Direct+Ind

irect+

Inducedas

%o

f

MOTotal

%o

f

Imm

igrant

Total

Jobs

40,9

61

22

,287

21,5

67

84,8

16

1.1

7%

2.4

2%

29.4

9%

Va

lueAdde

d

2,4

86,4

18,4

85

1,7

19,0

24

,309

1,4

49,1

64,5

32

5,6

54,6

06,3

44

0.9

9%

2.2

6%

26.9

4%

Emp

loyee

Compensation

1,4

78,3

46,6

66

899,2

33

,927

742,7

19,3

73

3,1

20,2

99,9

65

1.0

3%

2.1

8%

27.0

4%

Proprietors

'Income

208,3

34,1

22

153,8

79

,536

90,1

33,6

58

452,3

47,3

16

1.2

3%

2.6

6%

35.2

0%

OtherPropertyTypeIncome

656,6

23,4

03

517,8

06

,489

466,9

55,6

03

1,6

41,3

85,4

94

0.9

1%

2.2

9%

25.9

5%

Source:IMPLAN

andauth

orsCalculations


25/61

19

ThepurposeoftheIMPLANsimulationexerciseistodocumentthecontributionof

immigrantstotheeconomyofMissouri.Theresultsareannualresults,,andshouldbe

interpretedasshortrunresultsfortheentirestateofMissouri.Theseresultsdonottakeinto

accountlongtermconsequencesoftheeliminationofimmigrantjobs.Theresultsreflectthe

economyofthestateasitiscurrentlyconfigured.Somepossiblelongtermconsequencescould

mitigatetheeffectsofTable11andsomecouldexacerbatethem.InthefollowingparagraphsI

addresssomeofthepossibilities.Thediscussioncentersonunauthorizedimmigrants,since

policiesaimedataffectingimmigrationaregenerallyaimedatunauthorizedimmigration.7

Itmightbearguedthatovertime,nonimmigrantswouldtakethejobscurrentlybeingheldby

unauthorizedimmigrants.Thereisevidencethatthejobsperformedbyunauthorized

immigrantsaresubstantiallydifferentfromthejobsperformedbynatives.(Card,2007,p.6) To

attractnonimmigrantsintothesejobs,wagesforthejobscurrentlyheldbyunauthorized

immigrantswouldhavetoincrease.In2009theunemploymentrateamongMissourinon

immigrantswas

5.6%

(see

Table

3above).

In

the

last

30

years

the

unemployment

rate

in

the

stateofMissourihasaveraged5.7%(BLSLAUS)andhasneverbeenbelow2.0%(BLS)8.It

seemsatleastequallylikelythat,giventheagingofthenonimmigrantpopulation,thelong

termmayrequirethatunauthorizedimmigrantsmakeupalargerproportionofthelaborforce

(Papademetriouetal.,2009).

Itmightalsobearguedthatreducingunauthorizedimmigrantlaborwillincreasetheearnings

ofnonimmigrants,thusmitigatingsomeoftheeffectsshowninTable11.Otherstudieshave

shownthatnativelaborandimmigrantlaborarerelativelyweaksubstitutes(Card,2007).There

issomeevidencethatthewagesoflowskillednonimmigrantsareadverselyaffectedby

unauthorizedimmigration(Borjas,

2003),

but

at

the

same

time

there

is

evidence

that

the

averagewagesofthenonimmigrantlaborforceareincreasedbyimmigration(Shapiro&

Velluci,2010,Card,2007,Orrenius&Zavodny,2006).

Anotherlongrunfactorthatisnottakenintoaccountinthisstudyisthehistoricaltrendinthe

demographicsofthestate.Muchofthepopulationgrowththathasoccurredinthestatesince

1990isduetounauthorizedimmigration.In1990,1.6%ofthepopulationinthestatewas

foreignborn(1990DemographicCensus).In2010,thatpercentagehadgrownto3.9%(2010

ACS).Thisstudydoesnottakeintoaccountpotentialfuturegrowthintheforeignborn

population,nordoesittakeintoaccountanyindirectorinducedeffectsofsuchgrowth.The

realestateindustrywouldbeparticularlyhardhitbyareductioninimmigrationthrougheffects

onthedemandforhousing.

7Whiletheostensibletargetofpolicymaybeunauthorizedimmigrants,theimpactofpoliciesaimedatreducingunauthorized

immigrationisfeltbyallimmigrants.8Inthelast10years,unemploymenthasbeenaslowas4.7%.


26/61

20

Onbalance,theliteraturepointstoanegativecorrelationbetweenundocumentedimmigrant

jobsandtheearningsoftheunskillednonimmigrantpopulation.TheresultsoftheIMPLAN

simulationseemreasonableasshorttermestimates,andwewillproceedtoanalyzethose

resultsinmoredetailintheparagraphsthatfollow.Wethenproceedtodiscusslongterm

adjustmentstotheeliminationofundocumentedimmigrantjobs.

AggregateEconomicContributionsofImmigrants

Table11indicatesthatthedirecteffectofeliminatingimmigrantjobsisalossofabout4%of

thegeneralmeasuresofeconomicactivity.Itisreasonabletoconcludethatimmigrationis

directlyresponsibleforapproximately4%oftheMissourieconomy.Whenindirectandinduced

effectsaretakenintoaccount,thispercentageincreasestobetween7.6%and8.8%.The

averageMissourijobmultiplierforimmigrantjobsisalmost2(1.95).Foreveryimmigrantjobin

Missourianadditional0.95ofajobiscreatedintheMissourieconomy,onaverage.Similarly

thevalueaddedmultiplieris2.05.ForeverydollarofvalueaddedbyMissouriimmigrants,an

additional$1.05

of

value

added

is

created

in

the

Missouri

economy.

These

impacts

take

into

accounttheleakagesfromtheMissourieconomyassociatedwithimmigrantjobs.Oneexample

ofsuchleakagewouldbeearningsthataresenttothecountryoforiginoftheimmigrant.

FromTable11itcanalsobeseenthatimmigrationfromMexicoandCentralAmericais

responsibleforbetween26%and36%ofthetotalcontributionofimmigrationtothesegeneral

measuresofeconomicactivity.Thefactthatthepercentofjobs(30%)ishigherthanthe

percentofemployeecompensation(27%)verifiesthatimmigrantsfromMexicoandCentral

Americahaverelativelylowearningsamongimmigrants.Thejobmultiplierisslightlyhigherfor

immigrantsfromMexicoandCentralAmerica(2.07vs.1.95forallimmigrants),indicatingthat

immigrantsfromMexicoandCentralAmericaareengagedinactivitiesthathavetieswithmore

laborintensiveand/orconsumecommoditiesfromMissourithataremorelaborintensivein

theirproduction.

Table11alsopresentstheaggregatecontributionofunauthorizedimmigrationontheMissouri

Economy.Toestimatetheeffectsofunauthorizedimmigration,weusethefollowing

assumptions:

Therewere55,000unauthorizedimmigrantsinMissouriin2009(basedonPEWestimates)

UnauthorizedimmigrantshavethesamedemographicandlaborforcecharacteristicsasimmigrantsfromMexicoandCentralAmerica(thiswouldbeaconservativeestimateof

theemploymentrate,accordingtoPEWresearch(PasselandCohn,2009,pp.1213).

sinceunauthorizedimmigrantsaremorelikelytohaveajobthanallimmigrantsfrom

MexicoandCentralAmerica).ThePEWnationalestimateisthat70%ofunauthorized

immigrantsarefromMexicoandCentralAmerica.


27/61

21

UnauthorizedimmigrantshavethesameratioofjobstopopulationasdoimmigrantsfromMexicoandCentralAmerica.

Undertheseassumptions,40,961jobswereheldbyunauthorizedimmigrantsinthestateof

Missouriin2009.Thetypesofjobsheldare,byassumption,distributedthesameasthejobs

heldby

immigrants

from

Mexico

and

Central

America.

The

general

economic

impact

of

unauthorizedimmigrantsontheMissourieconomycanbeseeninthebottompanelofTable

11.

IndustrialSectorImpacts

IMPLANallowstheanalysttoviewtheimpactsofthepositedchangeonallindustries.9The

nextsetoftablespresenttheindustriesthataremostsensitivetoimmigration,andthosethat

aremostsensitivetoimmigrationfromMexicoandCentralAmerica.Eachofthefivegeneral

measuresofeconomicactivityhasaseparatetableforimmigrationandimmigrationfrom

MexicoandCentralAmerica.

Webeginwiththeimpactofimmigrationonjobs.Tables12and13presentthetenmost

sensitiveindustriestoimmigrationandtoimmigrationfromMexicoandCentralAmerica,

respectively.10Thetablesarerankedbythetotalnumberofjobsattributabletoimmigration

(thatis,includingindirectandinducedjobs).Therearesevenindustrialsectorssharedbythese

twotables.ImmigrantsfromMexicoandCentralAmericahavestrongerjobeffectsinthe

construction,livestock,andaccommodationsindustries,whileimmigrantsfromotherpartsof

theworldhavestrongerjobeffectsinmorehighlyskilledindustries(educationalservices,

hospitalsandambulatoryhealthcare).

Noticethe

large

differences

between

indirect

effects

(employment

in

other

sectors

of

the

Missourieconomythatsupplythesectorinquestion)andinducedeffects(traditionalmultiplier

effectsofspendinginasectorthatgetsrespentintheMissourieconomy).Considerthe

Missouriwholesaletradeindustry.BecauseitpurchasesmuchofitsinputsfromMissouri

suppliers,jobsinthewholesaletradeindustryhavestrongindirecteffectssomuchsothat

indirectjobcreationisgreaterthandirectjobcreation(5685jobsversus2350jobsinTable12).

Theambulatoryhealthcareindustrydoesnotpurchasemuchintermsofinputsfromthe

Missourieconomy,soitsindirecteffectsaretiny.However,theimmigrantjobsinthatsector

generatealotofincome,muchofwhichisrespentinMissouri,resultinginlargeinduced

effects.

9ForadetailedexplanationoftheNorthAmericanIndustrialClassificationSystem(NAICS)industries,seethe

BureauofLaborStatisticswebsite(http://www.bls.gov/iag/). 10

ByourassumptionstheimpactofunauthorizedimmigrantsisproportionaltothatofimmigrantsfromMexico

andCentralAmerica,sotherankingsforunauthorizedimmigrationarethesameasthosefromMexicoandCentral

America,forallfivegeneralmeasureofeconomicactivity.


28/61

22

Table12:Top10ImmigrationSensitiveIndustriesRankedbyTotalJobs(MO2009)

AttributabletoImmigrationRank IndustryDescription Direct Indirect Induced Total

1 Foodservices&drinkingplaces 15989 2619 8358 269662 Professional,scientific&technicalservices 9577 8274 2676 205273

Administrativesupport

services 8528 7895 2817 19240

4 Educationalservices 11167 104 2113 133835 Hospitals 7667 9 3947 116236 Ambulatoryhealthcare 5663 243 5489 113957 Realestate 1962 2815 5464 10240

8 Wholesaletrade 2350 5685 2134 10168

9 Foodproducts 8750 1026 291 1006710 Government&nonNAICs 2460 4126 3209 9796

Source:IMPLANcalculations(errorsduetorounding)

Table13:Top10ImmigrationSensitiveIndustriesRankedbyTotalJobs(MO2009)

Attributedto

Immigration

from

Mexico

and

Central

America

Rank IndustryDescription Direct Indirect Induced Total

1 Foodservices&drinkingplaces 7,742 774 2,417 10,933

2 Construction 6,479 195 91 6,765

3 Administrativesupportservices 3,222 2,133 815 6,170

4 Foodproducts 4,885 550 84 5,519

5 Professional,scientific&technicalservices 1,332 2,498 774 4,603

6 Wholesaletrade 600 2,320 616 3,537

7 Livestock 406 2,406 50 2,862

8 Government&nonNAICs 422 1,446 927 2,795

9 Realestate 178 649 1,580 2,407

10 Accommodations 2,176 11 22 2,209


TherankingsinTables14and15arebasedonvalueaddedbyimmigrationsensitiveindustries.

Thisrankingcontainstwodifferentindustriesthantherankingforjobs(Insurancecarriersforall

immigrantsandmanagementofcompaniesforimmigrantsfromMexicoandCentralAmerica).

Noticetheverylargeindirectandinducedeffectsoftherealestateindustry.Noticealsothat

thereisnodirecteffectonvalueaddedinthemanagementofcompaniesindustryfor

immigrantsfromMexicoandCentralAmerica.Thisispossiblebecausetheoriginalchangethat

causesall

of

the

effects

in

this

table

is

elimination

of

all

immigrant

jobs.

There

are

no

immigrantsfromMexicoandCentralAmericawhoholdjobsinthemanagementofcompanies

category,thusthereisnodirecteffectonthevalueaddedoftheindustry.Therearehowever

immigrantsfromMexicoandCentralAmericawhoworkforthecompaniesinMissourithatare

managedbythemanagementcompanies.Thusthereareindirecteffects.Becausetheincome


29/61

23

earnedbythoseindirectworkershasbeentakenoutoftheMissourieconomy,thereare

inducedeffects.

Table14:TopTenImmigrationSensitiveIndustriesRankedbyTotalValueAdded(MO$2009)

AttributabletoImmigration

Rank

IndustryDescription

Direct Indirect Induced

Total

1 Realestate 372,911,856 534,967,747 1,038,448,127 1,946,327,730

2 Professional,scientific&technicalservices 820,951,786 709,233,745 229,381,986 1,759,567,516

3 Wholesaletrade 297,626,458 719,967,380 270,206,904 1,287,800,742

4 Foodproducts 860,328,852 100,871,176 28,601,322 989,801,351

5 Ambulatoryhealthcare 423,199,411 18,162,755 410,187,632 851,549,798

6 Administrativesupportservices 344,581,145 319,004,863 113,830,363 777,416,371

7 Hospitals 511,982,242 581,943 263,588,504 776,152,689

8 Foodservices&drinkingplaces 460,180,586 75,390,098 240,551,858 776,122,542

9 Insurancecarriers&related 180,318,471 229,150,415 274,049,450 683,518,336

10 Government&nonNAICs 160,249,863 268,789,114 209,068,591 638,107,569


Table15:TopTenImmigrationSensitiveIndustriesRankedbyTotalValueAdded(MO$2009)

AttributedtoImmigrantsfromMexicoandCentralAmerica


1 Foodproducts 461,368,727 51,933,826 7,938,042 521,240,595

2 Realestate 32,497,826 118,399,919 288,527,949 439,425,694

3 Wholesaletrade 72,993,139 282,288,225 74,997,625 430,278,989

4 Professional,scientific&technicalservices 109,677,998 205,654,124 63,709,312 379,041,434

5 Construction 355,840,609 10,688,135 5,014,231 371,542,975

6

Foodservices

&

drinking

places

214,036,209

21,389,159

66,822,744

302,248,112



9 Managementofcompanies 0 140,467,612 14,780,368 155,247,980



TherankingsinTables16and17arebasedonTotalEmployeeCompensationinimmigration

sensitiveindustries.Notsurprisingly,theindustriesintheserankingsareverysimilartothejob

rankings.Higherpayingsectorsmoveupintherankings.Managementofcompaniesnow

entersinto

the

rankings

for

all

immigrants.

Here

also,

all

impacts

are

either

indirect

or

induced.

Thehigherpayingsectorsofhospitalsandambulatoryhealthcareenterintotherankingsfor

immigrantsfromMexicoandCentralAmerica.

TherankingsinTables18and19arebasedonTotalProprietorsIncomeinimmigration

sensitiveindustries.Intheserankingsseveralnewindustriesappear,(personalandlaundry

services,repairandmaintenance,cropfarming,trucktransportation,andbroadcasting)


30/61

24

becauseheretherankingsarebasicallyreflectiveofsmallenterprises(nailsalons,autorepair

shops)forwhichproprietorsincomeisrelativelyimportant.AlthoughIMPLANdoesnottell

theuserwhethertheactualproprietorsarenativesorimmigrants,thereisahighprobability

thatthesesmallfirmsareatleastpartlyimmigrantowned.

Table16:

Top

10

Immigration

Sensitive

Industries

Ranked

by

Total

Employee

Compensation

(MO

$2009)AttributabletoImmigration


1 Professional,scientific&technicalservices 532,839,616 460,328,906 148,880,618 1,142,049,140

2 Hospitals 476,595,680 541,721 245,370,117 722,507,518


4 Wholesaletrade 156,051,504 377,493,297 141,674,884 675,219,684


6 Foodproducts 453,680,032 53,192,728 15,082,429 521,955,189

7 Educationalservices 434,744,864 4,041,672 82,247,252 521,033,787





Table17:Top10ImmigrationSensitiveIndustriesRankedbyTotalEmployeeCompensation(MO

$2009)AttributedtoImmigrantsfromMexicoandCentralAmerica


1 Foodproducts 243,295,083 27,386,435 4,185,994 274,867,512

2 Construction 238,978,407 7,178,027 3,367,499 249,523,933


4Wholesale

trade

38,271,763

148,009,362

39,322,755

225,603,8805 Foodservices&drinkingplaces 141,667,769 14,157,205 44,229,101 200,054,075





10 Hospitals 36,483,206 42,578 68,124,130 104,649,914



31/61

25

Table18:Top10ImmigrationSensitiveIndustriesRankedbyTotalProprietor'sIncome(MO$2009)

AttributabletoImmigration



2

Personal&

laundry

services

107,006,232

6,799,635

36,273,216

150,079,083



5 Construction 83,581,440 6,722,652 3,256,329 93,560,421

6 Trucktransportation 33,170,220 39,178,073 8,078,100 80,426,393

7 Wholesaletrade 16,610,486 40,181,267 15,080,205 71,871,958

8 CropFarming 24,292,590 40,378,831 4,140,604 68,812,025

9 Repair&maintenance 21,783,440 26,645,346 16,479,721 64,908,507

10 Broadcasting 17,148,034 22,826,274 7,398,283 47,372,591


Table19:

Top

10

Immigration

Sensitive

Industries

Ranked

by

Total

Proprietor's

Income

(MO

$2009)

AttributedtoImmigrantsfromMexicoandCentralAmerica


1 Construction 64,194,691 1,928,171 904,582 67,027,444


3 CropFarming 13,614,989 21,747,234 1,149,495 36,511,717


5 Personal&laundryservices 14,432,812 1,661,006 10,077,117 26,170,935

6 Wholesaletrade 4,073,736 15,754,462 4,185,606 24,013,803

7 Repair&maintenance 7,121,594 9,011,293 4,579,098 20,711,986

8

Trucktransportation

503,804

17,266,927

2,244,889

20,015,620

9 Ambulatoryhealthcare 4,598,851 178,501 13,244,563 18,021,915

10 Broadcasting 8,570,700 6,857,739 2,054,895 17,483,334


TherankingsinTables20and21arebasedonOtherPropertyIncomeinimmigrationsensitive

industries.Severalindustrialcategoriesentertheserankings(chemicalmanufacturing,primary

metalmanufacturing,utilities,lessorofnonfinanceintangibleassets,telecommunications).

Theseareindustrialsectorslikelytohaveroyalties,dividends,rents,etc.


32/61

26

Table20:TopTenImmigrationSensitiveIndustriesRankedbyOtherPropertyTypeIncome(MO

$2009)AttributabletoImmigrationRank IndustryDescription Direct Indirect Induced Tota

1 Realestate 289,941,184 415,940,610 807,399,605 1,513,281,39

2 Foodproducts 366,557,088 42,977,804 12,186,058 421,720,95

3

Insurancecarriers

&

related

84,215,648

107,022,040

127,991,613

319,229,30

4 Lessorofnonfinanceintangibleassets 238,389,360 66,562,173 11,685,717 316,637,25


6 Wholesaletrade 60,806,444 147,092,623 55,204,504 263,103,57

7 Telecommunications 57,546,632 112,301,581 61,377,037 231,225,24

8 Utilities 38,214,276 119,053,877 61,385,614 218,653,76

9 Transportationequipment 173,592,544 8,852,030 2,407,209 184,851,78

10 ChemicalManufacturing 153,563,776 22,696,713 7,152,775 183,413,26


Table21:TopTenImmigrationSensitiveIndustriesRankedbyOtherPropertyTypeIncome(MO

$2009)AttributedtoImmigrantsfromMexicoandCentralAmerica

Rank IndustryDescription Direct Indirect Induced Tota

1 Realestate 25,267,253 92,056,642 224,332,199 341,656,09

2 Foodproducts 196,573,643 22,127,250 3,382,132 222,083,02

3 Wholesaletrade 14,912,831 57,672,773 15,322,357 87,907,96

4 Insurancecarriers&related 13,714,174 20,839,780 35,576,262 70,130,21

5 Utilities 0 42,753,231 17,039,561 59,792,79



8 Transportationequipment 51,054,915 2,623,789 668,983 54,347,68

9 Construction 47,799,481 1,435,720 673,553 49,908,75

10 Primarymetalmanufacturing 44,124,023 1,706,177 29,553 45,859,75


Takenasawhole,Tables1221demonstratethediversityofindustrialcategoriesthatare

sensitivetoimmigration.Thereare26ofthe88industrialcategoriesrepresentedinatleastone

ofthesetables.Wholesaletradeappearsinalltentables.Thefactthatprofessionalservices

showsupinalltenofthesetablesfurtherdemonstratestheimportanceoftheskilled

immigrantpopulationtotheMissourieconomy.Therearemanyimmigrantprofessionals

(doctors,dentists,professors,etc.)inthestateofMissouri.Notonlythat,butimmigrantsmake

useoftheservicesofprofessionals,whethertheprofessionalsareimmigrantsornot. Other

healthrelated

industries

are

also

sensitive

to

immigration.

Construction,

food

services

&

drinkingplaces,andagribusinesscategories(foodproductindustry,cropfarmingandlivestock

areallsensitivetoimmigration.


33/61

27

StateandLocalTaxRevenueEffects

IMPLANproducesestimatesofthetaxrevenuegeneratedbythepositedchangeinaregional

economy.Becausetheseestimatesarebasedontheactualtaxcollectionsthatoccurredinthe

state,theyarenotsubjecttoerrorsofunderreportingoroverreporting.Theyarealsonot

subjectto

errors

associated

with

the

informal

economy,

since

taxes

are

only

collected

for

formaltransactions.AlthoughIMPLANgeneratesareportonfederaltaxgeneration,wedo

notincludethatreportsinceitisbeyondthescopeofthisstudy.Wedoreporttheestimated

stateandlocaltaxrevenuesfortheentirestateofMissouri.FromMaps1and2ofthisstudy,it

isobviousthatthesetaximpactsarenotdistributedevenlyacrossthestate.Itisalsobeyond

thescopeofthisstudytobreakdownrevenuecollectionsregionallywithinthestate.

Stateandlocaltaxcollectionsin2009thataredirectlyattributabletoallimmigrantsaccounted

foranestimated3.42%ofstateandlocaltaxrevenuecollections.Amongspecifictaxesthe

highest

tax

incidence

was

for

state

and

local

sales

taxes

and

the

lowest

was

for

personal

income

tax.Percapitastateandlocaltaxespaiddirectlybyimmigrantsin2009isestimatedat$3,073,

whichisslightlylessthantheestimatedpercapitastateandlocaltaxespaiddirectlybynatives

($3,194).Whentheindirectandinducedcontributionsofimmigrantstostateandlocaltax

revenuearetakenintoaccount,stateandlocaltaxesgeneratedmorethandoubles.The

economicactivitiesthatimmigrantjobsareindirectlyassociatedwitharethereforemore

importanttostateandlocaltaxrevenuethatthedirecteffects.Thisisparticularlytrueforsales

taxesandnonvehiclepropertytaxes.

Stateandlocaltaxcollectionsin2009thataredirectlyattributabletoimmigrantsfromMexico

andCentral

America

accounted

for

an

estimated

0.83%

of

state

and

local

tax

revenue

collections.Amongspecifictaxes,thehighestincidencewasforstateandlocalsalestaxesand

thelowestwasforpersonalincometaxes.Percapitastateandlocaltaxespaiddirectlyby

immigrantsfromMexicoandCentralAmericain2009isestimatedat$2,964.Whentheindirect

andinducedcontributionsofimmigrantsfromMexicoandCentralAmericatostateandlocal

taxrevenuearetakenintoaccount,stateandlocaltaxesgeneratedmorethandoubles.The

economicactivitiesthatjobsofimmigrantsfromMexicoandCentralAmericaareindirectly

associatedwitharethereforemoreimportanttostateandlocaltaxrevenuethatthedirect

effects.Thisisparticularlytrueforsalestaxesandnonvehiclepropertytaxes.


34/61

28

Table22

EstimatedContributionofImmigrantstoStateandLocalRevenue(MO$2009)

RevenueSource

Direct

Contributionby

Immigrants**

Direct+Indirect+

InducedContribution

byImmigrants**

TotalState&

LocalRevenue***

Directas

%ofMO

Total

D+I+Ias

%ofMO

Total

AllImmigrants

SalesTax $292,310,042 $781,750,226 $5,249,044,095 5.57% 14.89%

NonVehiclePropertyTax $173,534,550 $464,098,588 $6,375,816,135 2.72% 7.28%

PersonalIncomeTax $89,697,546 $196,593,543 $5,997,433,014 1.50% 3.28%

OtherTaxes,Fees&Fines* $97,036,000 $225,886,960 $1,482,977,110 6.54% 15.23%

Total $652,578,138 $1,668,329,317 $19,105,270,354 3.42% 8.73%

ImmigrantsfromMexico&CentralAmerica

SalesTax $70,981,296 $218,514,032 $5,249,044,095 1.35% 4.16%


Personal

Income

Tax

$21,046,309

$52,092,869

$5,997,433,014

0.35%

0.87%


Total $158,137,769 $463,242,833 $19,105,270,354 0.83% 2.42%

UnauthorizedImmigrants

SalesTax $69,783,623 $214,827,027 $5,249,044,095 1.33% 4.09%


PersonalIncomeTax $20,691,193 $51,213,902 $5,997,433,014 0.34% 0.86%


Total $155,469,498 $455,426,500 $19,105,270,354 0.82% 2.38%

Othertaxesandfeesinclude:motorvehiclelicense;motorcarrierproperty;stateportionofsocialinsurancetax;earnings,

cigarette;tobacco;controlledsubstances;estatelicenses;andfees.

**IMPLANcalculations

***MissouriDepartmentofRevenueTaxesAdministered,June,2010(http://dor.mo.gov/pdf/taxesadm.pdf)forallbutnon

vehiclepropertytaxes,whicharefromtheStateTaxCommissionAnnualReport

Stateandlocaltaxcollectionsin2009thataredirectlyattributabletounauthorizedimmigrants

accountedforanestimated0.82%ofstateandlocaltaxrevenuecollections.Amongspecific

taxes,thehighestincidencewasforstateandlocalsalestaxesandthelowestwasforpersonal

incometaxes.Percapitastateandlocaltaxespaiddirectlybyunauthorizedimmigrantsin2009

isestimatedat$2,827.Whentheindirectandinducedcontributionsofunauthorized

immigrantstostateandlocaltaxrevenuearetakenintoaccount,stateandlocaltaxes

generatedmore

than

doubles.

The

economic

activities

that

jobs

of

unauthorized

immigrants

areindirectlyassociatedwitharethereforemoreimportanttostateandlocaltaxrevenuethat

thedirecteffects.Thisisparticularlytrueforsalestaxesandnonvehiclepropertytaxes.


35/61

29

ImmigrantUseofStateandLocalGovernmentServices

Thepurposeofthissectionistodocumentthecosttothestateofimmigrantuseofstateand

localgovernmentservices.WewilldiscussK12educationservices,healthservices,

transportationservicesandhighereducationservicesindividually.Otherstateandlocalservices

willbe

treated

as

aresidual.

Education(K12)

ThesinglemostimportantuseofstateandlocalgovernmentservicebyimmigrantsisK12

publiceducation,accountingformorethanhalfofthespendingfromstateandlocaltax

generatedinthestate. AchildwhoisbornintheUnitedStatestoimmigrantsparentsisnotan

immigrant.Butalegitimateargumentcanbemadethatnativechildrenoftheimmigrant

populationshouldbeattributedtoimmigrants.Thisstudywillthereforeconsiderseparatelythe

costof

K12

education

of

immigrants

and

the

cost

of

K12

education

of

native

children

of

immigrants.WeuseTable2abovetoallocateschoolagedchildrenbetweenimmigrants,

childrenofimmigrants,andchildrenofnatives.AccordingtotheMissouriDepartmentof

ElementaryandSecondaryEducation(MODESE),therewere879,834K12publicschool

studentsin2009(MODESE).11 Weassumethatallimmigrantchildrengotopublicschools.By

makingthisassumption,weassurethatourdirectcostestimatesforthethreeimmigrant

categoriesareoverestimates.WeusetheMODESEaverageperstudentstateandlocal

governmentcost(excludingfederalcontributions)of$11,541.70tocompleteTable23Table23

showsourcostestimates.ThecountofunauthorizedimmigrantK12agedchildrenisestimated

byassuming

that

this

group

is

the

same

proportion

of

the

total

unauthorized

immigrant

populationasK12agedimmigrantchildrenfromMexicoandCentralAmericaareofthetotal

immigrantpopulationfromMexicoandCentralAmerica.

Tocalculateanestimateforthenativechildrenofeachofthethreeimmigrantgroups,weusea

studybytheUrbanInstitutethatestimatedthetotalpercentageofchildrenofforeignbornat

6%ofMissourichildren.(KarinaFortunyetal.p.16).Weadjustthatpercentageto5%to

accountfortherelativelyhighpercentageofveryyoungchildren(notschoolaged)among

immigrants.Wecalculatethenumberofnativechildrenofimmigrantsinpublicschoolsas5%

ofthepublicschoolpopulationminusthenumberofimmigrantchildren(whowereassumedto

bein

public

schools).

Table

23

includes

results

for

immigrant

children,

native

born

children

of

immigrants,andimmigrantchildrenplusnativechildrenforeachofthethreeimmigrant

11Therewereapproximately104,359K12studentsinprivateschoolinthestateofMissouriin2009.In2010there

wereapproximately26,643K12studentsinhomeschoolsinthestateofMissouri.

(http://homeschooling.gomilpitas.com/weblinks/numbers.htm#how_many)Anyremainingdiscrepancybetween

schoolagedchildrenTable2andthenumberofchildreninpublicschoolsisduetosamplingerror.


36/61

30

categories.Theestimatedcostiscalculatedbymultiplyingthecountofstudentsbytheper

studentcostofpublicK12educationinMissouri.

Table23

EstimatedCost

of

Educating

Immigrant

Children

and

Native

ChildrenofImmigrantsinMissouri(2009)

ImmigrationType Foreignbornornativeborn Count EstimatedCost

AllImmigrants

Immigrantchildren 11,542 $133,214,301

Nativechildren 32,450 $374,528,165

Immigrantchildren+nativechildren 43,992 $507,742,466

Immigrantsfrom

MexicoandCentral

America

Immigrantchildren 3,765 $43,454,501



Unauthorized

Immigrants

Immigrantchildren

3,701 $42,715,832



Source:2009AmericanCommunitySurvey,KansasStateDepartmentofEducation,andauthorscalculations

TotalspendingonpublicK12schoolsinMissouri(excludingFederalaid)wasequalto31.4%of

stateandlocaltaxrevenuein2009.ThecostofK12educationofimmigrantchildreninpublic

schoolsisequalto20.4%ofthedirectcontributionbyimmigrantstostateandlocaltaxrevenue

in2009.ThecostofK12educationofimmigrantchildrenplusnativechildrenofimmigrantsis

equalto30.4%ofthedirect+indirect+inducedcontributionsbyimmigrantstostateandlocal

taxrevenue.

The

cost

of

K12

education

of

immigrant

children

from

Mexico

and

Central

Americainpublicschoolsisequalto27.5%ofthedirectcontributionbyimmigrantsfrom

MexicoandCentralAmericatostateandlocaltaxrevenuein2009.ThecostofK12education

ofimmigrantchildrenplusnativechildrenofimmigrantsfromMexicoandCentralAmericais

equalto35.8%ofthedirect+indirect+inducedcontributionsbyimmigrantsfromMexicoand

CentralAmericatostateandlocaltaxrevenue.ThecostofK12educationofunauthorized

immigrantchildreninpublicschoolsisequalto27.5%ofthedirectcontributionby

unauthorizedimmigrantstostateandlocaltaxrevenuein2009.ThecostofK12educationof

immigrantchildrenplusnativechildrenofunauthorizedimmigrantsisequalto35.7%ofthe

direct+indirect

+induced

contributions

by

unauthorized

immigrants

to

state

and

local

tax

revenue.

UndertheseassumptionstheK12educationofimmigrants,immigrantsfromMexicoand

CentralAmerica,andunauthorizedimmigrantswasmorethanpaidforbythetaxcontributions

ofthoserespectivegroups.ThecostofK12educationofimmigrantchildrenplusnative


37/61

31

childrenofimmigrantsislessthanthedirect+indirect+inducedcontributionsofimmigrants,

exceptforunauthorizedimmigrants.

HealthServices

Fundingfromstateandlocal taxrevenueinMissouriforhealthservicestotaledover

$3,200,000,000in

2009.12

Because

of

alack

of

data

regarding

users

of

the

health

services,

we

mustmakeassumptions.WeallocatetheusersofhealthprogramspaidforbystateofMissouri

fundsbyusingthedatainTable8andTable2.Theassumptionisthatusersoftheseprograms

willbeproportionaltothepopulationinpoverty(becauseonlythosethatmeeteligibility

requirementsthataredrivenbythelevelofpovertyofthehouseholdarequalifiedtoreceive

servicesfromtheseprograms).Acomplicatingfactoristhatunauthorizedimmigrantsarenot

eligibleforallprograms.13

Sothefirststepistocalculatethecostofeligibleprogramsthatis

duetounauthorizedimmigrants.Wethentaketheunauthorizedimmigrantsoutofsubsequent

calculations.Weassumethatunauthorizedimmigrantshavethesamepovertyincidenceasdo

immigrantsfrom

Mexico

and

Central

America,

resulting

in

an

estimate

of

15,898

unauthorized

immigrantslivingbelowthepovertylevel. Thisis1.56%oftheMissouripopulationthatlivesin

poverty.Wethencalculate1.56%oftheeligiblestatefundedhealthservicesprogramsfora

totalof$10,101,303fromstatefunds.

Byourdemographicassumptions,immigrantsthatarenotunauthorizedmakeup2.42%ofthe

Missouripopulationinpoverty.Theestimatedcostofhealthservicesfromstatefundingfor

theseimmigrantsis$88,451,149.14

Bythesameassumptions,immigrantsfromMexicoand

CentralAmericawhoarenotunauthorizedmakeup0.49%oftheMissouripopulationin

poverty.Theestimatedcostofhealthservicesfromstatefundingfortheseimmigrantsis

$22,935,13715

.

TransportationandHigherEducationServices

Wetreatthesetwoservicestogetherbecausewemakesimilarassumptionswithregardto

theirusebyimmigrants.

12ThesumoftheFY2010budgetrequestfromthedepartmentsofHealthandSeniorServices,theDepartmentof

MentalHealth

and

MO

Health

Net

was

$3,237,596,962

(from

http://oa.mo.gov/bp/budg2012/HSS.pdf

and

http://oa.mo.gov/bp/budg2012/MentalHealth.pdf).Federalfundsareexcludedfromallthreedepartments.13

In2009weassumethatunauthorizedimmigrantsareeligiblefrom20%ofstatefundedhealthprograms.This

assumptionisbasedontheapproximateshareofemergencymedicalservicesplusprogramsforpregnantwomen

andchildreninallstatefundedhealthprograms.14

Thesenumberstendtooverestimatecosts.Therearefiveyearresidencyrequirementsformanystatehealth

services,sothatonlyimmigrantswhohavebeeninresidenceforfiveormoreyearsareeligible.15

Thisassumesthat70%ofunauthorizedimmigrantsarefromMexicoandCentralAmerica,basedonPEW

estimates.


38/61

32

InMissouri,afterelementaryeducationandhealth,thenextlargeststateandlocalservice

supportedbystateandlocaltaxrevenueistransportationservices.Thesearemostly(over

90%)paidforbystateexcisetaxesongasoline($0.17/gallon).Allpopulationsgroupswhouse

gasolinepaythesetaxes,sothereisnoreasontoexpectthatimmigrantsdontpaytheirfair

shareforstatetransportationservices. WeassumethatMissouriimmigrantsinallcategories

usestatefundedtransportationservicesproportionallytotheirincidenceinthepopulation.

Thenextlargestcategoryofstateandlocalservicesfinancedbystateandlocaltaxrevenueis

highereducation.Theincidenceofimmigrants,inthecollegesnationallyiswellbelowthatof

nonimmigrants.Unauthorizedimmigrantsarenotallowedtousepubliclyfundedinstitutions

ofhigherlearning.Weassumethatunauthorizedimmigrantsdonotusepubliclyfunded

institutionsofhigherlearningandthattheotherimmigrantcategoriesusestatehigher

educationalservicesproportionallytotheirincidenceinthepopulation.

StatefundedK12educationservices,healthservices,transportationservices,andhigher

educationservices

make

up

over

80%

of

the

total

spending

of

state

and

local

taxes.

Table

24

demonstratesthatforallimmigrants,forimmigrantsfromMexicoandCentralAmerica,andfor

unauthorizedimmigrants,estimatedspendingissignificantlybelow80%ofthestateandlocal

taxdollarsgenerate,indicatingthatimmigrantsinallcategoriesaremorethanpullingtheirown

weightintermsofmakingapositivenetcontributiontotheMissouristatepublicfinance.

Theseresultsareconsistentwithresearchthatfindsthatimmigrantsmigrateinsearchofjobs,

notinsearchofstateservices(Berk,etal.,2000,p.52).

Table

24

TaxRevenueandSpendingSummary 2009

StateandLocalSpendingforImmigrants

Stateand

LocalTaxes

Generated

Directly

StateandLocal

FundedK12

Public

Education

Services

Stateand

Local

Funded

HealthCare

Services

Stateand

LocalFunded

Higher

Education

Services

Stateand

Local

Funded

Transportati

onServices

Spending

as%ofTax

Revenue

Generated

AllImmigrants $652,578,138 $133,214,301 $88,451,149 $85,652,041 $45,883,032 54.12%

Immigrantsfrom

Mexico&Central

America

$158,137,769

$43,454,501

$22,935,137

$15,550,252

$8,330,131

57.08%

Unauthorized

Immigrants $155,469,498 $42,715,832 $10,101,303 $0 $11,885,060 41.62%

Source:PriorTablesandAuthorscalculations

LongTermAdjustmentstotheLossofUndocumentedImmigrantJobs


39/61

33

Thereissomeevidencethatnonimmigrantunskilledlaborersareadverselyaffectedbythe

presenceofunauthorizedimmigrants.Ifthisistrue,thenremovingunauthorizedimmigrant

jobscoulddecreaseunemploymentandincreasethewagesoflowskillednonimmigrantsover

time,asemployersadjusttoshortagescausedbyalackofunauthorizedimmigrantlabor.The

extenttowhichthisoccursiscontroversial.Somearguethattheeffectsareminimal.Atone

endofthespectrumarestudiesbyCard(2007)andPapademetriouetal.(2009)thatpointtosmalladjustmentsofthistype(under10%).Thatis,asaneteffect,approximately10%ofthe

jobsthatarecurrentlyheldbyunauthorizedimmigrantswouldbetakenbynonimmigrants.On

theotherhand,Borjas(2003)hasanexpectationoflargeeffects(30%50%ofthejobsthatare

currentlyheldbyunauthorizedimmigrantswouldbetakenbynonimmigrants).

AstudybyPerryman(2010)usesinputoutputanalysistocalculatetheeconomicimpactof

undocumentedimmigrantsonthelabormarketofeachstatein2008.Theycalculateaninitial

staticeffectsimilartotheshorttermimpactsestimatedinthisstudy.Thestudythenlists

possiblelong

term

adjustments

(Perryman,

2010,

p.

60).

Among

the

listed

items

that

would

tendtoreducetheimpactoflosingunauthorizedimmigrantsonjobsare:

firmsrespondtothelossofworkersbytryingtoattractdomesticworkers,raisingwages,andotheractionsdesignedtominimizetheeffectsoflosingtheundocumentedworkforce

asuccessfulguestworkerprogram(inotherwordsturnunauthorizedworkersintoauthorizedworkers)

increasedparticipationinthelaborforcebynonimmigrantswhoarecurrentlynotinthelaborforce

Thestudyalsoarguesthattherearelimitationstohowmuchadjustmentcanoccur.The

particularindustries

which

have

high

immigrant

involvement

(for

example,

the

construction

industry)tendtobekeygrowthindustriesbottlenecksinthoseindustrieslimittheeconomic

developmentthatwouldbenecessarytogeneratejobs.Inadditionthereisanhistoriclowto

theunemploymentratethatshouldactasalimitingfactor.

Ignoringthelimitingfactors,Perrymanestimatesthatafterlongtermadjustments,65%ofjobs

currentlyheldbyunauthorizedimmigrantscouldbeheldbynonimmigrantsandauthor

Contributions of International Immigrants in MO

Documents

Transcript of Contributions of International Immigrants in MO