Showing posts with label California. Show all posts
Showing posts with label California. Show all posts

Monday, April 2, 2012

Best and Worst Run States in America

A must read article that discusses the best and worst run state in America. To generate these rankings, they analyzed the level of: debt, unemployment rate, quality of government services, standard of living, crime, educational outcomes, etc.To view the ranking and detailed analysis of your state, click on the following link. Not surprisingly, California and Illinois were at the bottom of the list.

Because economic and social questions involve a multitude of interrelated factors, in which cause, effect and correlation are not always clear, its challenging to determine the more relevant causes of a state's general welfare.But, in general (with some exceptions): the states that fared the best were: low population, northern states with relatively homogeneous (white) populations and fiscally conservative governments. Worth noting is that 8 out of the 10 states were red. Conversely, the states that fared the poorest were (for the most part): southern, ethnically diverse, fiscally imprudent and had experienced the brunt of the rupture of the real estate bubble. I believe that 6 out of the 10 states were solidly blue.

I am inclined to believe that a good portion of a state's general welfare is the product of its people. But, again, it's challenging to determine where people, policy and uncontrollable factors start and end. For example, to what extent are Vermont's impressive (and West Virginia's poor) educational outcomes a result of the predominant culture and values of its people and to what extent have the people been shaped by good (and bad) policies? Comparing these two homogeneous states is already a complex and contentious matter, while exploring the role (if any) that demographic change played in California's notable decline treads upon dangerous taboos that few are willing to discuss.


Best and Worst Run States in America


How well run are America’s 50 states? The answer depends a lot on where you live.

For the second year, 24/7 Wall St. has reviewed data on financial health, standard of living and government services by state to determine how well each state is managed. Based on this data, 24/7 Wall St. ranked the 50 states from the best to worst run. The best-run state is Wyoming. The worst-run state is California.

Comparing the 50 states can be a challenge because they are so different. Some states have abundant natural resources while others rely on service or innovation. State populations also can be more rural or more urban. Some had booming industries that are waning or that have disappeared altogether. Border states with large immigrant communities have populations that are growing rapidly. Many states in the Northeast are not growing at all. All of these factors affect the finances and the living conditions in a state.

Despite these differences, states can do a great deal to control their fate. Well-run states have a great deal in common with well-run corporations. Books are kept balanced. Investment is prudent. Debt is sustainable. Innovation is prized. Workers are well-chosen and well-trained. Executives, including elected and appointed officials, are retained based on merit and not politics.

To determine how well -- or how poorly -- a state is run, 24/7 Wall St. weighed each state’s financial health based on factors including credit score and debt. We also evaluated how a state uses its resources to provide its residents with high living standards, reviewing dimensions such as health insurance, employment rate, low crime and a good education. We considered hundreds of data sets and chose what we considered to be the 10 most important measurements of financial and government management.

This year, as a new component of our analysis, 24/7 Wall St. obtained additional budget data for each state. Examining the state’s revenue and expenditures, and what each government opted to spend money on, allowed us to determine if a state overspent limited resources, failed to devote funds to an urgent need of its citizens or spent a great deal of money but with poor results. While we did not use expenditures or revenue in our ranking, these numbers reflect how a state is managed. Together with other budget data, living standards and government services, it provided a complete picture of the management of each state. A fuller accounting of our methodology can be found at the end of the article.

The 24/7 Wall St. Best and Worst Run States is meant to be an analysis that will focus the debate about state management and financial operations. The analysis should also serve to empower and inform citizens who want who want to better understand the impact government decisions have on each state.

Best Run States: 

1. Wyoming
State debt per capita: $2,452 (18th lowest)
Pct. without health insurance: 14.9% (21st highest)
Pct. below poverty line: 10.3% (7th lowest)
Unemployment: 5.8% (6th lowest)

Wyoming comes in first place in 24/7 Wall St.’s Best Run States for the second year in a row. The state has high marks in many categories including high school graduation rate. A whopping 92.3% of state residents age 25 or older have at least a high school diploma — the highest rate in the country. The state also has the fourth lowest rate of violent crimes and the sixth lowest unemployment rate. Wyoming has the smallest population of any state in the country.

2. Nebraska
State debt per capita: $1,407 (4th lowest)
Pct. without health insurance: 11.5% (14th lowest)
Pct. below poverty line: 11.9% (tied for 14th lowest)
Unemployment: 4.2% (2nd lowest)

The state of Nebraska had the 21st lowest revenue per capita in the country in 2009 yet managed to spend more per capita that year than all but seven states. The state has the fourth lowest debt per capita, and it is one of 13 states with a perfect AAA credit rating. Besides being financially sound, Nebraska also has an unemployment rate of 4.2%, the second lowest rate in the country. The state also has relatively low poverty, high graduation rates and the seventh lowest rate of foreclosures last month.

3. North Dakota
State debt per capita: $2,721 (20th lowest)
Pct. without health insurance: 9.8% (9th lowest)
Pct. below poverty line: 12.3% (17th lowest)
Unemployment:  3.5% (the lowest)

One of the best measures of North Dakota’s success is its unemployment rate of 3.5% — the lowest in the country and one that has n0t been above 5% in over 20 years. While the state has relied on a stable agriculture sector to keep unemployment low, the booming oil industry has created a $1 billion surplus in the past three years. From 2009 to 2011 Montana was the only other state to report a surplus, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

4. Minnesota
State debt per capita: $1,790 (8th lowest)
Pct. without health insurance: 9.1% (4th lowest)
Pct. below poverty line: 11.0% (10th lowest)
Unemployment: 6.9% (14th lowest)

Minnesota moved up in the ranking from fifth to fourth due to its improvement in several categories, including violent crime rate and health insurance coverage. In 2010, just 9.1% of state residents were without health insurance coverage — the fourth best rate in the country. The state also continues to excel in the areas it did last year. Some 91.5% of the state’s adult population has graduated high school — the second highest percentage in the country. The state also has the eighth lowest debt per capita.

5. Iowa
State debt per capita: $2,117 (13th lowest)
Pct. without health insurance: 9.3% (6th lowest)
Pct. below poverty line: 11.9% (tied for 14th lowest)
Unemployment: 6% (8th lowest)

Iowa’s greatest assets are its rates of educated and insured residents. Some 90.6% of residents 25 years and older have at least a high school diploma and only 9.3% of residents do not have health insurance. These are among the best rates in the country. Iowa also has an exceptionally lowunemployment rate and the highest credit rating available, demonstrating its healthy economy.

6. Utah
State debt per capita: $2,274 (15th lowest)
Pct. without health insurance: 15.3% (20th highest)
Pct. below poverty line: 11.5% (12th lowest)
Unemployment: 7.4% (17th lowest)

Utah kept the same rank it had in our last survey. The state has the fifth-lowest violent crime rate in the country, as well as the seventh-highest graduation rate in the country. However, Utah had one of the higher foreclosure rates in the country in October, and 15.3% of the population — an above-average rate — is without health insurance.

7. Vermont
State debt per capita: $5,514 (9th highest)
Pct. without health insurance: 8% (3rd lowest)
Pct. below poverty line: 11.7% (13th lowest)
Unemployment: 5.8% (5th lowest)

Vermont does extremely well in a number of areas considered for this list. Residents are highly educated. It has the second lowest rate of violent crime in the country. It has the third lowest percentage of uninsured residents. However, the state has saddled its citizens with debt. Vermont’s debt per capita is more than $5,500, which is the ninth highest in the country.

8. Virginia
State debt per capita: $3,100 (22nd lowest)
Pct. without health insurance: 13.1% (20th lowest)
Pct. below poverty line: 10.7% (8th lowest)
Unemployment: 6.5% (10th lowest)

Virginia is the highest-ranked state in the southern U.S., largely because it does not suffer from many of the problems that plague the rest of the South. The state has a median income of $60,674, the eighth-highest in the country, as well as a poverty rate of 10.7%, which is the eighth lowest. The state also has the sixth-lowest violent crime rate in the country, with just 213 incidents taking place in 2010 for every 100,000 people.

9. Kansas
State debt per capita: $2,086 (10th lowest)
Pct. without health insurance: 13.9% (24th lowest)
Pct. below poverty line: 12.8% (tied for 21st lowest)
Unemployment: 6.7% (12th lowest)

Kansas has the 10th-lowest state debt per capita in the country. However, the state’s ranking may change as its debt grows. According to The Hutchinson News, borrowing by school districts has increased over 800% since 1990. Kansas has a relatively low unemployment rate of 6.7% compared to the national rate of 9.1%.

10. South Dakota
State debt per capita: $4,485 (12th highest)
Pct. without health insurance: 12.4% (18th lowest)
Pct. below poverty line: 13.8% (25th highest)
Unemployment: 4.6% (3rd lowest)

South Dakota rounds out our list of the 10 best-run states in the country. While the state is slightly below average in median income and poverty, otherwise things are going quite well in the state. South Dakota has the third-lowest unemployment rate in the country. It is also one of the few states to truly avoid the worst parts of the housing crisis. Just one in 4,352 homes was foreclosed in October — the fourth lowest rate in the country.

Worst Run States:
50. California
State debt per capita: $3,660 (21st highest)
Pct. without health insurance: 18.5% (8th highest)
Pct. below poverty line: 14.5% (tied for 21st highest)
Unemployment: 11.9% (2nd highest)

California has moved down one slot on from last year to earn the title of the worst-run state in the country. In the fiscal year 2009, the state spent $430 billion, roughly 14% of all the money spent by states in that year. Compared to its revenue, the state spent too much — California had the 10th lowest revenue per person, and spent the 15th most per person. California is the only state in the country to be rated A-, the lowest rating ever given to a state by S&P. Despite the huge amount the state spends each year, conditions remain poor. California has the second-lowest percentage of adults with a high school diploma in the country, the second-highest foreclosure rate and is tied for the second highest unemployment rate in the U.S.

49. Illinois
State debt per capita: $4,424 (13th highest)
Pct. without health insurance: 13.8% (23rd lowest)
Pct. below poverty line: 13.1% (25th lowest)
Unemployment: 10% (10th highest)

Illinois has fallen from 43rd last year to the overall second-worst run state in the country. The state performs poorly in most categories, but is worst when it comes to its credit rating. Illinois has a credit rating of A+, the second worst given to any state, behind only California. The state has been on credit watch since 2008 because of budget shortfalls and legal challenges against then-governor Rod Blagojevich.

48. Michigan
State debt per capita: $2,963 (21st lowest)
Pct. without health insurance: 12.4% (18th lowest)
Pct. below poverty line: 15.7% (15th highest)
Unemployment: 11.1% (3rd highest)

Michigan has arguably suffered more than any state in post-industrial America. The state is one of just four with a credit rating of AA-, although its debt per capita is actually below average. The state ranks among the worst in the country for violent crime, unemployment, foreclosures and home price decline.

47. Arizona
State debt per capita: $1,882 (9th lowest)
Pct. without health insurance: 16.9% (16th highest)
Pct. below poverty line: 16.3% (tied for 13th highest)
Unemployment: 9.1% (18th highest)

Arizona’s housing market was one of the worst hit in the country during the housing crisis. Home values have dropped 28.6% since 2006, the fourth worst rate in the country. In October 2011, one in every 259 housing units were foreclosed upon, which was the third worst rate that month in the U.S. Arizona also has one of the lowest credit scores in the country after its downgrade to AA- in 2009.

46. Nevada
State debt per capita: $1,690 (6th lowest)
Pct. without health insurance: 22.6% (2nd highest)
Pct. below poverty line: 13.0% (24th lowest)
Unemployment: 13.4% (the highest)

Nevada has dropped five places in our rankings. This drop is due primarily to its credit downgrade this year from AA+ to AA. Surprisingly, the state has one of the lowest debts per capita in the country, at just $1,690 per person. However, it has other financial woes that make it a long-term risk. Nevada properties declined 44.5% in value between 2006 and 2010, the worst decline in the country. In October alone, one in every 180 homes was foreclosed upon, easily the worst rate in the country. The state also has the second lowest percentage of residents covered by health insuranceand the highest unemployment rate in the country.

45. South Carolina
State debt per capita: $3,379 (24th highest)
Pct. without health insurance: 17.5% (13th highest)
Pct. below poverty line: 17.1% (8th highest)
Unemployment: 11% (4th highest)

Fiscally speaking, South Carolina is relatively sound. It takes in the 27th most in revenue per capita and spends the 24th most in total expenditures per capita. Its state debt per capita is slightly below average. However, the state has the eighth highest poverty rate and the fourth highestunemployment rate. It also has the fifth highest rate of violent crime, with 597.7 crime committed per 100,000 people. This is actually an improvement from last year when the state’s violent crime rate was 731 per 100,000 -- the worst in the country.

44. Kentucky
State debt per capita: $3,107 (23rd lowest)
Pct. without health insurance: 15.3% (20th highest)
Pct. below poverty line: 18.2% (4th highest)
Unemployment: 9.7% (13th highest)

Last year, 24/7 Wall St. named Kentucky the worst-run state in the country. The state saw slight improvements in the percentage of its population with high school diplomas and poverty rate. Violent crime dropped significantly -- now the 10th-lowest rate in the country, compared to the 17th-lowest last year. Despite these improvements, Kentucky remains one of the poorest states in the country, ranking among the five worst for median income and poverty rate. It is also one of just four states to be awarded an unfavorable AA- credit rating, the third worst score awarded to any state.

43. Rhode Island
State debt per capita: $8,716 (3rd highest)
Pct. without health insurance: 12.2% (16th lowest)
Pct. below poverty line: 12.8% (tied for 21st lowest)
Unemployment: 10.5% (7th highest)

Rhode Island has many positive attributes, including low violent crime rate and a relatively lowpoverty rate. However, the state’s spending is exceptionally high, and it has accumulated $8,716 in debt per capita. Nearly 20% of expenditures are for public education, yet compared with other states it has the 10th lowest percentage of adults who have graduated from high school.

42. Louisiana
State debt per capita: $3,914 (17th highest)
Pct. without health insurance: 17.8% (10th highest)
Pct. below poverty line: 17.8% (5th highest)
Unemployment: 6.9% (13th lowest)

Louisiana remains in our bottom 10 again this year, although it has improved since last year, primarily because of decreases in unemployment and violent crime rate. In all, however, the state ranks poorly in most of the metrics we considered. Louisiana has the fifth-highest poverty rate in the country, the 10th-highest percentage of residents without health insurance coverage and the fifth lowest percentage of adults with a high school diploma.

41. New Mexico
State debt per capita: $4,004 (16th highest)
Pct. without health insurance: 19.6% (6th highest)
Pct. below poverty line: 18.7% (12th highest)
Unemployment: 6.6% (11th lowest)

New Mexico has a relatively low unemployment rate of 6.6% compared with the national average of 9.1%. This is down from 8.6% one year ago. Other statistics are not as promising. At 18.7%, the state has the second highest poverty rate in the country. Worst still, almost 20% of New Mexicans do not have health insurance. The state also has the highest rate of violent crime in the country.

Methodology

24/7 Wall St. considered data from a number of sources, including Standard & Poor’s, the Bureau of Labor and Statistics, the U.S. Census Bureau, the Tax Foundation, Realty Trac, The Federal Bureau of Investigation and the National Conference of State Legislators. The Bureau of Labor Statistics provided unemployment data, Credit rating agency Standard & Poor’s provided credit ratings for all 50 states.  The Tax Foundation provided state debt per capita for the fiscal year 2009. The FBI’s Uniform Crime Report provided violent crime rates by state. Realty Trac provided foreclosure rates. A significant amount of the data we used came from the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey. Data from ACS included percentage below the poverty line, high school completion for those 25 and older, median household income, percentage of the population without health insurance and the change in occupied home values from 2006 to 2010. These are the values we used in our survey.  Once we reviewed the sources and compiled the final metrics, we ranked each state based on its performance in all the categories.

Sunday, April 1, 2012

Jimmy Carter Prize: Judge James Ware



We previously reported on an incident in which the principle of Live Oaks High school demanded that several students turn their American Flag t-shirts inside out, because he feared that it would offend Hispanic students who were celebrating Cinco de Mayo. Amazingly, a federal court, presided by Judge James Ware, ruled that the school was justified in curtailing the 1st Amendment Rights of these students, because of its concerns about public safety. At its core, the issue is that judge is supporting the principle's decision to take the low road and acquiesce to the demands of the mob, rather than the defend the rights of free expression. This is equivalent to a principle cancelling a meeting of a club for gay students, because they feared the response of homophobic students.Furthermore, the judge should have noted and objected to the asymmetrical policy of the principle; if the assistant principle was truly concerned that patriotic displays would lead to conflict, should he not have banned the display of American and Mexican flags? And does the fact that the assistant principle did not respond to the indignation of Hispanic Students with reason and dialogue (as he did with the flag wearing students) indicate that he holds them in low regard?  For this reason we proudly bestow the Jimmy Carter Prize for the Advancement of Douchebagery to Judge James Ware.


Federal Judge: School can censor student display of American flag


A federal court has ruled that school administrators had the right to order California high school students to remove displays of theAmerican flag from their clothing on Cinco De Mayo.
Basing his decision on a concern that violence could result from the display of the American flag on the Mexican holiday, California District Judge James Ware ruled that administrators’ actions to censor the students did not violate the so-called Tinker standard, which protects students’ freedom of speech.
On May 5, 2010, administrators at Live Oak High School told students that if they didn’t turn their American flag-bearing shirts inside-out, they would be sent home for wearing what the school considered to be “incendiary” clothing.
Fox News reported that the order came from Assistant Principal Miguel Rodriguez, who feared an altercation between Mexican-American students celebrating Cinco de Mayo and those wearing the U.S. emblem.
Judge Ware ruled Tuesday that the school was within its right to censor the students for safety purposes.
“In contrast to Tinker, in which the Supreme Court specifically noted that no threats of violence were made here Defendant Rodriguez was warned by two different students that they were concerned thatPlaintiffs’ clothing would lead to violence,” Ware wrote in his ruling. “These warnings were made in a context of ongoing racial tension and gang violence within the school, and after a near-violent altercation had erupted during the prior Cinco de Mayo over the display of an American flag.”
Ware noted that while no violence actually occurred, it was reasonable for school officials to believe there would be negative implications for allowing the students to wear America-themed clothing.
“Because the school officials were responsible for the safety of Plaintiffs on a day-to-day basis, the Court finds that they did not violate the First Amendment by asking Plaintiffs to turn their shirts inside out to avoid physical harm,” he wrote.
The Student Press Law Center reports the students will be appealing the decision to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
“If (school officials) believe that in 2009 there was evidence that students would become embroiled in some kind of dispute over race or nationalism, then it behooved them not to permit Cinco de Mayo celebrations to take place,” the students’ lead attorney said, according to SPLC. “Instead … they permitted one group to present their message and then disallowed my clients from presenting their message, which, by the way, was not intended to refute or to contest or to challenge the interests of the students who were celebrating Cinco de Mayo.”

Sunday, March 4, 2012

California Places Politics About The Rule Of Law And Sound Economics

Governor Brown of California signed into law AB 1236 which bans municipalities from requiring that businesses within their jurisdiction use E-Verify to check the legal status of their employees. This is an example of politics trumping the rule of law and good economic sense. And with an unemployment rate of 12%, massive debt and strained social services, the State of California should encourage its municipalities to take measures to shrink, not increase its supply of low skilled labor. And if the Department of Justice were not equally beholden to politics, it would be equally indignant that California, like Arizona and Alabama is "usurping the federal government's role as the creator of immigration policies."


California Limits E-Verify, Supports Illegal Hiring Practices

By Jon FeereOctober 14, 2011

20 Municipalities Forced to Drop E-Verify Laws
To the applause of illegal immigration advocates and unscrupulous business owners, California Gov. Jerry Brown signed into law AB 1236, an act that prohibits California municipalities from requiring businesses within their jurisdiction to use E-Verify. Titled, the "Employment Acceleration Act of 2011," the bill is sure to accelerate illegal hiring practices and make it more difficult for legal residents to acquire jobs. Before the bill was signed, at least 20 municipalities in California required use of E-Verify for either city contractors or all businesses within city limits: Mission Viejo, Palmdale, San Clemente, Murrieta, Lake Elsinore, Lancaster, Temecula, Escondido, Menifee, Hemet, Wildomar, San Juan Capistrano, Hesperia, Norco, San Bernardino County, Rancho Santa Margarita, Yorba Linda, Placentia, Orange, and Simi Valley. Many more California cities use E-Verify for government employees; such use is not prohibited by the new state bill.
As written, AB 1236 prohibits:

the state, or a city, county, city and county, or special district, from requiring an employer other than one of those government entities to use an electronic employment verification system except when required by federal law or as a condition of receiving federal funds.

The justifications written into the bill are a smorgasbord of rehashed nonsense spread by open-border groups – e.g. overinflated costs, overstated inaccuracy rates. The bill also cites California's unemployment rate (currently over 12 percent) and explains that the state "must pursue all avenues in facilitating and incubating job development and economic growth." How desperate is California if the legislature thinks the only way to reduce unemployment in the Golden State is to promote violations of federal law, perpetuate ID theft, and strain both natural and taxpayer-subsidized resources via increased illegal immigration? If California wanted to reduce unemployment and income inequality it would mandate E-Verify and eliminate other magnets for illegal immigration, thereby driving out the illegal population and forcing businesses to offer a better wage in order to attract millions of unemployed Californians. But putting legal residents to work, improving their wages, and reducing demand for social services apparently makes too much sense.

The bill also suggests that the state legislature did not read the recent Supreme Court holding on E-Verify,Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting. The bill states: "it is the intent of the Legislature that the state maintain the intent of federal law by ensuring that private employers retain the ability to choose whether to participate in the electronic verification program." The legislature seems to think that Justice Sotomayor's confused dissent was the majority opinion. In actuality, the majority held that a state requirement that all businesses use E-Verify "is entirely consistent with the federal law." Similarly, the municipalities in California that required use of E-Verify were likely acting in accordance with federal law. While a state has the authority to direct its counties and cities, a state legislature should not mischaracterize federal law in advancing its ends.

It remains unclear whether the Obama administration will file a lawsuit against California for moving against the intent of federal law. If the administration does not file a lawsuit, it will be painfully clear that the White House has no interest in the enforcement of immigration law. It will become clear that the Obama administration's main agenda in suing states over their immigration laws is to perpetuate illegal immigration and undermine U.S. sovereignty.

The media has hardly covered the issue, of course. Open-border journalists seem to prefer keeping anti-enforcement bills that might raise the ire of most taxpayers in the dark; only when a bill supports the rule of law do the activist journalists devote gallons of ink to the matter, nearly all of it in an attempt to discredit the effort.
California cities are just beginning to hear of the change and some officials are troubled by the governor's decision. Simi Valley Mayor Bob Huber wrote the following in a letter urging the governor to veto the bill:

We have no evidence of any decline in the number of contractors willing to bid on city projects. All in all, there has been no indication that [Simi Valley's] E-Verify requirement has proved to be a limiting factor in either the public employment or public contracting arena.

This week, the mayor expressed his disappointment with the governor's decision to sign the bill: "It's real disheartening for people out of a job not to be supported by their own government."
Currently 18 states mandate use of E-Verify in at least some circumstances, while two additional states encourage use of the program. California now joins Illinois as one of only two states with legislation banning at least some uses of E-Verify. In contrast, Congress is currently debating a bill that would overcome state-level anti-E-Verify laws by making E-Verify a standard business practice for all hiring in the United States (HR 2164, the "Legal Workforce Act").

Monday, September 19, 2011

Super Sloppy Award: Dr. Raúl Hinojosa-Ojeda


I came across a review of Dr. Raúl Hinojosa-Ojeda, Associate Proffesor of Chicano Studies, report that seeks to project the economic impact of legalizing vs deportating Los Angeles's and California's population of undocumented immigrants. Raising the Floor for American Workers: The Economic Benefits of Comprehensive Immigration Reform is noteworthy because it a series of dramatic claims on the economic benefits of legalization and the costs of deportation. The most stunning claim is that deportation would cost the State of California $301.6 Billion and legalization would offer  at least $ 32.3 billion in benefits. Here is a summary of the figures:


uclagraph.jpg
In general, any research that presents a policy as being overwhelmingly positive or negative, evokes my natural sense of skepticism. So, I decided to read the full text of his research and found that it was methodologically sloppy and more conceptual holes that a Swiss Cheese Factory! Here are but a few of the problems that I came across:


1. While he is correct that reducing the population of any given locality  would shrink it's GDP, he does not ask the more important question of how it would effect Los Angeles's and California's  per capita income.


2. He does not ask what connection (if any) does California's (largely) immigration fueled population increase have with its high cost of living and taxation and general quality of life.


3. Nowhere in the research is the cost of government services (medical, education, infrastructure, etc.) weighed against the economic benefits that undocumented immigrants offer. And while Dr. Hinojosa-Ojeda is correct to assume that legalization would increase gross tax revenues, he does not consider that  legalization would make millions of individuals eligible for additional government services, which would impose added costs on the public. Whether this will offer net benefits or impose net costs on the public I am uncertain.


4. The built in assumption in his paper that legalized workers would enjoy dramatic increases in income are based on figures generated from the amnesty of 1986, which is highly problematic because our current economic climate is vastly different. Needless to say, relative to the late 1980's, unemployment is greater, wages are in decline (especially for low skilled workers) industries (like construction) that heavily employ immigrants are in dire straights and the supply of low skilled immigrant labor is far greater. And of course the number of individuals enjoying a 2011 amnesty would be considerably larger. After weighing the said factors,  the optimistic wage increases that Dr. Hinojosa-Ojeda's projects are extremely doubtful.


5. Another even more problematic assumption is:


"the wages of native-born workers also increase under the comprehensive immigration reform scenario because the “wage floor” rises for all workers—particularly in industries where large numbers of easily exploited, low-wage, unauthorized immigrants currently work. Wages for native-born U.S. workers increase by roughly $162 per year for the less skilled and $74 per year for the higher-skilled."


I do not know of any antecedents in which an increase in the supply of labor in a particular sector of the economy resulted in an increase in a general increase in wages. In addition this does not factor in the increase in the costs of goods and services that would occur IF wages were to increase for (formerly) undocumented workers. 


6. A more serious study would present the question of how employers that currently utilize undocumented workers would respond if they were legalized. The economic benefits and competitive advantage of undocumented labor arises from the lower labor and regulatory costs that they offer employers. Legalization would drive the cost of their labor to the levels of their documented counterparts, which would result in an increase in unemployment and / or the infusion of new undocumented workers to take the place of those who "existed the shadows of the black market."


7. When discussing the benefits of the 1986 Amnesty, he fails to consider its costs. Namely, the fact that the amnesty was followed by a huge increase in undocumented immigration. 


8. When the professor presents the high cost of apprehending undocumented immigrants, he neglects to consider that there may be more cost effective and humane means of enforcement than border control, such as E-Verify.


9.  He claims that the "declining birth rates in Mexico will likely accomplish what tens of billions of dollars in border enforcement clearly have not: a reduction in the  supply of migrants from Mexico who are available for  jobs in the United State."  This is problematic because it does not consider that given the continued wage disparities between Mexico (not to mention Central and South America) and the United States, the desire to legally and / or illegally immigrant to the United States will remain.


10. Dr. Hinojosa-Ojeda's most farcical claim is that "enforcement only policies perpetuate unauthorized migration," implying that the only way to combat undocumented immigration is by increasing the level of legal immigration. Given the crushing poverty that exists in much of Latin America (not to mention Africa, Asia and the Middle East) the demand to immigrate to the United States by any means will always outstrip the number of available visas. And the underlying philosophical notion that by legalizing an act we make it desirable is an act of juvenile sophistry.


11. While he is correct that the removal of undocumented labor from Los Angeles and California would lead to very costly economic dislocations, he does not consider that just because a locality is heavily dependent on an economic activity does not mean that it offers a net benefit. For example, if the the drug trade were eliminated, countless Mexican banks and legitimate businesses would go under due to the loss of billions and billions of laundered narco-dollars, yet no one in their right mind believes that narco-trafficking offers a net benefit to the people of Mexico.


12. In considering the costs of the deportation scenario, he does not consider any possible benefits, like perhaps some of the many unemployed legal immigrants and native born workers would fill some of the vacant jobs.


13. The professor does not ask the obvious question of how American workers with the same mean skill level as their undocumented counterparts fare in the economy? Do they offer net costs or benefits to the municipalities in which they arise? This is essential given the fact that this will help us predict the impact that adding millions of individuals to the ranks of legal residents (with full access to government benefits) will have on financial state of California.


14. On a much broader and deeper level, he does not consider fundamental questions like:


Has our systematic failure to enforce existing immigration laws eroded the rule of law in the United States?

How are the second and third generation descendants of undocumented faring socially and economically?


What connection (if any) does California's demographic shifts have in its deplorable economic and fiscal state?


Relative to other cities and states that have experienced less pronounced demographic shifts, how does Los Angles and California fare?


I do not want to disparage Dr. Hinojosa-Ojeda, but  his failure to consider the fairly obvious questions that I laid out would seem to indicate that his research is driven more by an activist impulse rather than by the search for truth. Chicano Studies is a valid area of academic exploration, but like other ethnic studies departments, it is heavily influenced by advocacy and activism. Of course, it is almost always noble to advocate on behalf of a cause or a group, but in many cases it is incompatible with intellectual honesty and  the unbiased quest for knowledge. Hence, it makes a poor foundation for the creation of good public policy.