Illegal Immigrants Receive Billions of Dollars More from the IRS than They Pay in

Illegal Immigrants Receive Billions of Dollars More from the IRS than They Pay in
by Peter A. Schulkin
Published by the Center for Immigration Studies, September, 2011 as a Memorandum

Summary: The July 7, 2011, report of the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration provides summary data from IRS tax returns that show illegal immigrants collected far more in dollars from the IRS than they paid in federal income taxes for each year in the period of 2005-2010, the total six-year net benefit amounting to about $7.3 billion.

This Memorandum is a follow-up to the November, 2010, Memorandum “Child Tax Credits for Illegal Immigrants.”¹ It highlights new information contained in a report of the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) dated July 7, 2011, entitled “Individuals Who Are Not Authorized to Work in the United States Were Paid $4.2 Billion in Refundable Credits.”² The $4.2 billion is entirely the product of the Additional Child Tax Credit (ACTC) for the 2010 tax processing year.

The ACTC is a bit of a misnomer since it does not have to do with multiple children but rather represents the refundable portion of the Child Tax Credit (CTC) when the CTC (worth up to $1,000 per qualifying child) results in a negative total tax due. In short, filers for the ACTC have no federal income tax liability and the ACTC amount represents Treasury money that is distributed to them.
An illegal immigrant cannot qualify for a legitimate Social Security number to use to file income tax returns or for any other purpose. However, the IRS allows illegal immigrants to apply for a nine-digit Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN) to be used to file federal income tax returns, and all but a small minority of returns filed with ITINs are filed by illegal immigrants.³

Using Table 1 [to view Table 1 go to Center for Immigration Studies website and view this Memorandum as a pdf file], it can be seen that for the 2010 processing year more than three million returns were filed with ITINs. Of these, 2.3 million paid no federal income taxes and collected an aggregate of $4 billion⁴ from the Treasury in refundable tax credit money from the ACTC. Of those who did not file for the ACTC, most used the CTC to reduce or eliminate their tax liability and thereby recover all or part of any federal income tax money withheld by employers. Of all of the 2010 ITIN filers, fewer than one-quarter paid any federal income taxes, which amounted to about $0.87 billion in total. Thus, on a net basis, ITIN filers gained $3.13 billion ($4.0 billion minus $0.87 billion) from the IRS in the 2010 processing year. The sum of row 6 in Table 1 equals $7.37 billion, which represents an approximation of the total net outflow of IRS funds to ITIN filers for the 2005-2010 processing years.

The July 7, 2011, TIGTA report echoes the message contained in the earlier March 31, 2009, TIGTA report in the statement: “Although the law prohibits aliens residing without authorization in the United States from receiving most Federal public benefits, an increasing number of these individuals are filing tax returns claiming the Additional Child Tax Credit (ACTC), a refundable tax credit intended for working families. The payment of Federal funds through this tax benefit appears to provide an additional incentive for aliens to enter, reside, and work in the United States without authorization, which contradicts Federal law and policy to remove such incentives.”⁵

Once again, the TIGTA observed that IRS management’s view is that existing law does not provide enough legal authority for the IRS to disallow the ACTC to ITIN filers. Consequently, the TIGTA again recommended that Congress enact ACTC legislation similar to that which limits the Earned Income Tax Credit to those individuals who have Social Security numbers valid for employment. The report notes such a bill was recently introduced in the U.S. Senate (S.577 — Child Tax Credit Integrity Preservation Act of 2011).

The TIGTA notes that ACTC claims have been steadily increasing, as can be seen in Table 1, which shows total ACTC claims rising from $924 million in 2005 to $4 billion in 2010. The growth in claims was augmented by The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, which altered the ACTC tax calculations for the tax years 2009 through 2012, enabling more tax filers to qualify for the ACTC and some qualifiers to claim a greater amount. Additionally, there has been an increase in the number of filers who are filing for back years as well as the current year in order to maximize their refunds due to the ACTC. For example, in the 2010 processing year about 238,000 ITIN filers submitted multi-year returns claiming more than $1 billion of ACTC money.⁶

In addition to having concerns about whether it is appropriate for illegal immigrants to be collecting any ACTC funds, the TIGTA also was concerned about the fraud potential in the ACTC claims by ITIN filers, since it was the experience of the IRS that the risk of fraud involving refundable tax credits is “significant.”⁷ The report details a number of fraud findings related to ITIN filers and makes recommendations for IRS changes to minimize fraud.⁸

---

End Notes

¹http://cis.org/child-tax-credits.
² Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration, “Individuals Who Are Not Authorized to Work in the United States Were Paid $4.2 Billion in Refundable Credits”, July 7, 2011, Reference Number: 2011-41-061, http://www.treasury.gov/tigta/auditreports/2011reports/201141061fr.pdf. It is important to note that the headline number of $4.2 billion of refundable ACTCs for 2010 cited in the report title is from a different IRS source than the $4.0 billion cited in Table 1 of this Memorandum. See source note for Table 1 for a detailed explanation of the differences and the conclusion that the $4.2 billion number is the more accurate number.
³ See Marti Dinerstein, “Giving Cover to Illegal Aliens: IRS Tax ID Numbers Subvert Immigration Law”, Center for Immigration Studies Backgrounder, November 2002, http://cis.org/IRSTaxID-ImmigrationLaw.
⁴ See Table 1 source note for an explanation of the discrepancy between the $4.2 billion and the $4.0 billion numbers.
⁵ Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration, “Individuals Who Are Not Authorized to Work in the United States were Paid $4.2 Billion in Refundable Credits”, July 7, 2011, Highlights page (the first page following the title page). Very similar wording can be found in the March 31, 2009, report of the TIGTA “Actions Are Needed to Ensure Proper Use of Individual Taxpayer Identification Numbers and to Verify or Limit Refundable Credit Claims”, Reference Number: 2009-40-057. The latter report can be found at http://www.treas.gov/tigta/auditreports/2009reports/200940057fr.pdf .
⁶Ibid., p. 5.
⁷Ibid., p. 3.
⁸ One of the fraud findings in this report deals with ITIN filers who claim employer withholding on their returns and then supply a W-2 to prove the withholding. In a number of these cases it turns out that there is a Social Security number on the W-2 that belongs to a citizen who is thereby a victim of identity fraud (see p. 11 of the report). The TIGTA believes it is the duty of the IRS to promptly notify legitimate taxpayers that their identity has been compromised, which was not done in most of the ITIN cases examined by the TIGTA. For e-filed ITIN returns, the TIGTA discovered that many software programs automatically substituted the individual’s ITIN number on the e-filed W-2 for whatever taxpayer ID number was used on the actual W-2 (such as a stolen Social Security number), making it impossible for the IRS to easily discover identity fraud or reconcile the employee-claimed withholding amount with that the employer reported to the IRS (see p. 13). A large proportion of ITIN returns are now e-filed. For tax year 2008, tax returns, 56 percent of all ITIN returns were e-filed. See p. 4 in TIGTA report dated December 8, 2009, Reference Number: 2010-40-005, at http://www.treasury.gov/tigta/auditreports/2010reports/201040005fr.pdf.

Table 1. Forms 1040 With ITINs (In millions of returns and billions of dollars)

Processing Year

(1) Number of ITIN Returns

(2) Returns with Tax

(3) Total Tax Paid

(4) Returns with ACTC

(5) ACTC Refunds Paid

(6) Net IRS Outflow of Funds

for ITIN Returns: (5) - (3)

2005

1.55

0.54

$0.64

0.80

$0.92

$0.28

2006

2.04

0.74

$0.88

1.06

$1.31

$0.43

2007

2.44

0.87

$1.12

1.30

$1.71

$0.59

2008

2.55

0.79

$1.02

1.53

$2.14

$1.12

2009

2.86

0.80

$1.04

1.85

$2.86

$1.82

2010

3.02

0.71

$0.87

2.18

$4.00

$3.13

Source:

Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration, “Individuals Who Are Not Authorized to Work in the

United States Were Paid $4.2 Billion in Refundable Credits”, July 7, 2011, Reference Number: 2011-41-06, p. 20.

As noted in footnote 11 on p. 4, the numbers in this table are likely understated as they come from the IRS

Return Transaction File. The IRS Individual Master File is deemed more accurate because it includes subsequent

adjustments. The Master File is the source of the 2010 information that shows for ITIN filers there were 2.33

million ACTC claims for a total of $4.2 billion, compared with 2.18 million claims and $4 billion for the Return

Transaction File. The above table is from the Return Transaction File because some of the information was not

available on the Master File.

The Revolving Door Deportations of Criminal Illegal Immigrants

 By Peter A. Schulkin published by Center for Immigration Studies, November, 2012 as a Memorandum entitled "The Revolving Door Deportations of Criminal Illegal Immigrants"

Summary: The Department of Homeland Security has been publicizing "the most ever" deportations of criminal illegal immigrants. Not publicized is the fact that a significant percentage of these criminals had been deported at least once before. A minimum of 46 percent of criminals deported in 2011 were previously deported and had illegally returned to the United States, which is a felony. The failure to better address this problem does not bode well for our ability to intercept terrorists who try to gain access to our country.

The Obama administration has a two-pronged approach to enforcing our immigration laws with respect to the estimated total of 10.5 million illegal immigrants currently living in the United States:¹

1. It is committed to deporting: a) illegal immigrants who have committed serious crimes, b) previously deported individuals who return to the United States illegally, and c) illegal immigrants it deems national security threats.
   
2. It is committed to not deporting all other illegal immigrants who have taken up residence in the United States despite the fact that their presence is contrary to existing law.² All crimes incidental to living and working illegally in the United States, such as identity theft, using false documentation, and driving without a license or insurance are not considered serious enough to qualify for deportation.³

So what are the serious crimes that qualify for deportation? For fiscal year 2011⁴ the Office of Immigration Statistics reported that there were 188,382 deportations ("removals") of criminal illegal immigrants ("aliens").⁵ Of these, 23 percent had committed drug-related offenses (manufacturing, distribution, sale, and possession of illegal drugs). Another 23 percent had committed criminal traffic offenses (primarily driving under the influence).⁶ The next largest category, at 20 percent, was immigration offenses such as illegal reentry after deportation. The violent crime categories of assault, robbery, sexual assault, and family offenses totaled 12 percent. The non-violent crime categories of larceny, fraud, and burglary totaled 7 percent. All other categories, including unknown, totaled 15 percent.⁷ The deportation of criminal immigrants usually takes place after the completion of any sentences associated with their criminal convictions.

Total deportations for 2011 were reported as 391,953.⁸ As noted earlier, 188,382 of the total were identified as criminal aliens. Who were the 203,571 others deported, given that it is administration policy not to deport resident illegal immigrants who have not committed serious violations of our laws? Most of the 203,571 were recent arrivals who were not processed by the Border Patrol, but rather by a different branch of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), which is charged with immigration enforcement in the interior of the country.⁹ An ICE press release indicates that most of the 203,571 were "either recent border crossers or repeat immigration violators".¹⁰ There is some evidence that many border intercepts ordinarily in the Border Patrol's domain were transferred to ICE in order to inflate the total number of deportations (and to make it seem like the administration is being tougher on illegal immigration than it is). This is because the individuals apprehended and returned by the Border Patrol after entering the country illegally are reported separately and not included in the deportation numbers.¹¹ Additionally, the inflated level of ICE deportations buttresses the administration's case that there are not enough ICE resources available to pursue "law-abiding" illegal immigrants.¹²

As noted in a Washington Times article, "Napolitano: U.S. will set a record for deportations", DHS has been reporting and publicizing its high levels of deportations of criminal illegal immigrants.¹³ However, there is evidence that a significant percentage of these criminal deportees have been deported at least once before.

Out of the 188,382 criminal aliens deported in 2011, at least 86,699, or 46 percent, had been deported earlier and had illegally returned to the United States. We know this because 86,699 is the number of criminal alien deportations resulting from "reinstatement of final removal orders" ("reinstatement" for short) for 2011.¹⁴ A deportation by reinstatement can be initiated when an alien departed under order of removal and subsequently is found to have illegally reentered the United States. It cannot be ascertained from the available data how many of the 86,699 previously deported criminals committed new crimes other than their illegal return, but unless they were detained shortly after reentering the United States, it is likely that they came to the attention of the immigration authorities as a result of new crimes (committed after their illegal reentry) for which they were convicted or arraigned. And there may be other previously deported criminals who are not included in the 46 percent because they were not deported by reinstatement. The 46 percent may also be understated due to reclassification of criminal deportees.¹⁵ Thus, existing data indicate that a minimum of 46 percent of the 2011 criminal deportees were previously deported and returned to the United States.

Moreover, the total number of deportees who were deported by reinstatement was 130,006 for 2011 and yet only 86,699 of the reinstatements were categorized as criminals.¹⁶ This means that 43,307 of the 2011 deportees had been deported previously and were not categorized as criminals. Since illegal reentry to the United States by a deportee is a felony under federal law (Title 8 U.S.C. 1326), the 43,307 must have been deported again without being charged with the reentry felony because they were not considered "criminal" deportees in the 2011 data. Also, the 43,307 must have been previously deported with no prior criminal record or their earlier crimes were disregarded in arriving at the total of 188,382 criminal deportees for 2011. If the 43,307 "non-criminals" who were deported by reinstatement are counted as criminals, as they would have been if they had been charged and convicted of illegal reentry in federal court, then the number of criminal deportees would jump to 231,689 and the number of criminals who had been previously deported would rise to 130,006, or 56 percent of the total number of criminal deportees.

The high percentage of repeat deportees is due in part to the ease of reentry to the United States for earlier deportees and the knowledge that if apprehended there is only a small chance that they will serve any prison time for that illegally reentry. Prosecutions for illegal reentry fall into the domain of the U.S. Attorneys' offices, which would probably argue that too much of their resources would be tied up in such prosecutions if they prosecuted everyone they could for illegal reentry. It is administratively convenient to just deport again without prosecution for reentry because this can be done without a court hearing. Besides, the total number of deportees who were apprehended after they reentered the country is so high — a minimum of 130,006 for 2011, that federal courts and federal prisons would be overburdened if all who could be were prosecuted and sentenced for illegal reentry.

It should be noted that once a deportee completes an illegal reentry to our country, in nearly all cases the deportee will go undetected unless charged with another crime or the deportee returns to his old neighborhood and is recognized by local law enforcement officials. Thus, the number of deportees who make an illegal reentry is possibly much higher than indicated by the reinstatement data.

Most Recent Data on Federal Prosecutions for Reentry

Data related to immigration offenders in the federal justice system for fiscal year 2010, the most recent year for which data are available,¹⁷ reveal that only 23,862 individuals were charged with illegal reentry in federal court that year.¹⁸ This highlights the fact that only a small percentage of the 125,034 deported by reinstatement for 2010 (all of whom could be charged with illegal reentry) were actually charged in federal court with the crime of reentry.¹⁹ Nearly all who were charged pled guilty.²⁰ Most were sentenced to prison with the median sentence being 15 months.²¹ For 2010, 29 percent of all those admitted to federal prisons were immigration offenders, primarily those convicted of illegal reentry.²²

For 2010, another 11,779 cases of illegal reentry were disposed of by a U.S. magistrate judge.²³ These were "the least serious immigration cases", which were processed quickly and could result in short jail sentences for misdemeanors. The wording in the source suggests that in none of these cases was the offender charged with felony reentry.²⁴

Thus, due to various constraints such as the availability of personnel from the U.S. Attorneys' offices, only a small fraction of illegal immigrants, both criminal and non-criminal, who were identified as having committed illegal reentry were actually prosecuted for illegal reentry and sentenced to prison time for this offense.

The reentry of previously deported criminals is a source of frustration for local law enforcement officials in metropolitan areas with significant illegal immigrant populations. This is reflected in the testimony of Leroy D. Baca, Sheriff of Los Angeles County, which he identified as having the "largest illegal immigrant population in America".²⁵ When he testified before Congress in 2006, he estimated that 40 percent of inmates in the custody of the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department were illegal immigrants.²⁶ Of these, he estimated that 70 percent were repeat offenders and that more than half were multiple repeat offenders.²⁷ Sheriff Baca further mentioned that, in a study of criminals who were incarcerated by the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, it was found that over a five-year period "70 percent of those deported after serving time reentered the country and were rearrested again".²⁸

Sheriff Baca further noted that there were only 200 prosecutions per year for illegal reentry by U.S. Attorneys in Los Angeles County, which he said is a very small number compared to other jurisdictions such as San Diego (about 3,000) and Phoenix (2,000). He attributed this to "a disparate policy in the U.S. Attorney's office and an understaffing of U.S. Attorneys to go after people who have reentered".²⁹

Refusal of Some Countries to Take Back Criminal Illegal Immigrants

The revolving door is, in effect, sped up in the case of those criminal illegal immigrants whose native countries do not cooperate with our deportation efforts. While being processed for deportation, illegal immigrants can generally be held in detention in the United States for only six months when not serving jail time for a crime. The six-month limitation is due to two Supreme Court cases in 2001 and 2005.³⁰ After six-months, nearly all illegal immigrants, including convicted criminals who may have served time for their crimes, must be released onto the streets of America.

ICE reports that, since 2008, about 4,000 illegal immigrants with criminal records have been released into our country each year due to reluctant receiving countries and the Supreme Court limitations on detention.³¹

ICE has listed 23 countries that are very slow to cooperate, if they cooperate at all, with our deportations.³² The 23 countries include China, India, Cuba, Pakistan, Vietnam, and a number of island nations in the West Indies.³³

Possible Government Actions to Slow the Revolving Door

There are several areas in which federal government action, usually in combination with increased federal spending, could slow the revolving door for criminal illegal immigrants.

With regard to countries refusing our deportations of criminal illegal immigrants, there exists proposed legislation to fix this problem.³⁴ Beyond legislative assistance, increased diplomatic pressure would probably help obtain better results from the uncooperative countries.³⁵

With regard to prosecution for the illegal reentry of criminal illegal immigrants who have been previously deported, at present most who are apprehended after they reenter suffer no negative consequences for their reentry. It could only be an added deterrent to illegal reentry if more of the offenders received prison sentences, and perhaps longer sentences. This would require increased federal expenditures for more manpower in the U.S. Attorneys' offices and an increased capacity of the federal prison system. It is difficult to judge to what extent such policy changes would be cost effective and how far to go in this direction.

Given that those who are charged with illegal reentry are more than 96 percent Hispanic and 85 percent Mexican, it is likely that most are reentering via clandestine crossings of our southern border.³⁶ Thus, anything that we could do to upgrade our border security would be helpful in slowing the revolving door for criminal deportees as well as curtailing illegal immigration and the smuggling of drugs into our country.

The US-VISIT identity verification program, which obtains international visitor fingerprints, has been helpful in preventing illegal reentry at our international airports and other points of legal entry to the United States. However, a recent report by the DHS Office of the Inspector General is critical of some US-VISIT procedures and makes suggestions to increase the effectiveness of the program.³⁷

Conclusion

The extent of our revolving door for deported criminal illegal immigrants points to failures in securing our nation's borders. In addition to resulting in many additional crimes being committed here, these failures do not bode well for our future ability to intercept known and unknown terrorists who try to gain access to our country.

---

End Notes

¹ For one 10.5 million estimate, see Steven A. Camarota, "Immigrants in the United States: A Profile of America's Foreign-Born Population", Center for Immigration Studies, June 2012, in section entitled "Illegal Immigrants by State".
² The second prong means that all who came or will come to the United States legally as temporary visitors, and all who came or will come to the United States illegally (and not stopped in the attempt to enter) are allowed to remain in the United States indefinitely as long as they do not commit serious crimes and are not considered national security threats. The Department of Homeland Security, which supervises the government entities charged with enforcing our immigration laws, justifies not enforcing the nation's immigration laws for illegal immigrants living in the United States who do not commit serious crimes by saying it is "prioritizing" enforcement since it "only has resources to remove approximately 400,000 aliens per year, less than 4 percent of the estimated illegal alien population in the United States". The preceding is from a March 2, 2011 U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement policy memorandum to all ICE employees from ICE Director John Morton. ICE is the part of DHS charged with immigration enforcement in the interior of the country.
³ For a discussion of the typical crimes of illegal immigrants related to living and working in the United States, see Ronald W. Mortensen, "Illegal, but Not Undocumented: Identity Theft, Document Fraud, and Illegal Employment", Center for Immigration Studies, June, 2009.
⁴ October 1, 2010, to September 30, 2011. All time-period data referred to in this Memorandum are for fiscal years.
⁵ John Simanski and Lesley Sapp, "Immigration Enforcement Actions: 2011", Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics, September 2012, Table 7, p.6. Since the total of the different crime categories equals the total number of criminal aliens removed, criminals who have committed crimes in more than one category are somehow put into only one category.
⁶ U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement reported in a press release dated October 18, 2011, that in 2011 it deported 35,927 aliens who had been convicted of driving under the influence.
⁷ Simanski and Sapp include homicides in the category "all other". For fiscal year 2011, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement reported in an October 18, 2011, press release that it deported 1,119 aliens who had been convicted of homicide.
⁸ Ibid., Table 5, p.5. This number does not include those who were apprehended and returned to their home countries by the Border Patrol. The total apprehended by the Border Patrol for 2011 was reported as 340,252, Table 2, p.4.
⁹ The Border Patrol is part of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, which is part of DHS.
¹⁰ U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement press release dated October 18, 2011. The data reported in this press release must have been preliminary as it shows total deportations for fiscal year 2011 at 396,906 and criminal deportations at 216,698, consisting of those who were "convicted of felonies or misdemeanors". This conflicts with the Simanski and Sapp data, which were not available to the public until about one year later. There must have been some reclassification of criminal deportees to account for the 28,316 decline in criminal deportees while total deportees declined by only 4,953.
¹¹ Inflation of the deportation numbers is suggested in a confusing statement by President Obama included in Stephen Dinan, "Napolitano: U.S. will set a record for deportations", The Washington Times, October 5, 2011. A quotation from this article follows without paragraphing: "Many in Mr. Obama's political base want less enforcement that targets those living here already, and cite record deportations as evidence this administration is moving in the wrong direction. Facing that charge, Mr. Obama last week, in a round table with Hispanic reporters said the deportation numbers were artificially high because they include those caught at the border, thanks to enhanced border enforcement. 'The statistics are actually a little deceptive because what we've been doing is, with stronger border enforcement, we've been apprehending folks at the borders and sending them back. That is counted as a deportation, even though they may have only been held for a day or 48 hours, sent back — that's counted as a deportation,' he [the president] said." Also see Jessica Vaughan, "Obama: Deportation Numbers 'Actually a Little Deceptive'", Center for Immigration Studies blog, October 19, 2011. For commentary related to fiscal year 2010 data manipulation by ICE, see Jessica Vaughan, , Center for Immigration Studies blog, December 6, 2010.
¹² March 2, 2011 U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement policy memorandum to all ICE employees from ICE Director John Morton.
¹³ Stephen Dinan, "Napolitano: U.S. will set a record for deportations", The Washington Times, October 5, 2011. Also see, "Readout of Secretary Napolitano's Remarks on Border Security at the University of Texas at El Paso".
¹⁴ As far as the author knows, the 86,699 is an unpublished number. The author obtained it in response to an information request made to the Office of Immigration Statistics. Similarly, it was found that 78,388, or 47 percent of the total criminal deportations of 168,532 for 2010, were ordered as a result of reinstatements. Since the Border Patrol does not separately report their returned aliens as criminals and since these returns are not counted as deportations, none of their numbers are included in the deportation or criminal deportation data in Simanski and Sapp and the data of this report. Consequently, all deportations and criminal deportations reported herein originate with ICE. A deportation by reinstatement can be implemented without a hearing before an immigration court.
¹⁵ See end note 10.
¹⁶ For the 130,006 figure, see Simanski and Sapp, Table 5, p.5.
¹⁷ Mark Motivans, "Immigration Offenders in the Federal Justice System, 2010", Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, July 2012, NCJ 238581.
¹⁸ Ibid., p. 18, Table on p.18 shows 23,862 were prosecuted in federal court for illegal reentry.
¹⁹ Simanski and Sapp, Table 4, p. 5, gives reinstatement totals of 130,006 for 2011 and 125,034 for 2010. Mysteriously, the 2010 number (125,034) from Simanski and Sapp was reported as 130,840 in , Table 2, p.4. As noted in end note 14, in 2010 there were 78,388 criminals deported by reinstatement.
²⁰ Motivans, p.9.
²¹ Ibid., p.6. It is uncertain how many of those convicted in 2010 were actually deported in 2010, since deportation usually occurs on completion of time served for any sentence and the prison sentence carried over into 2011 in some cases.
²² Ibid., p. 10.
²³ Ibid., p.8 and table on p.18.
²⁴ Ibid., last two paragraphs on p.8.
²⁵ U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Internal Relations, Subcommittee on International Terrorism, "Border Vulnerabilities and International Terrorism: Hearings before the Subcommittee on International Terrorism", July 5 and 7, 2006, p.154.
²⁶ Ibid., p. 122.
²⁷ Ibid., p.156.
²⁸ Ibid., p. 139.
²⁹ Ibid.
³⁰ Jon Feere discusses the legal issues involved and proposed new legislation to improve the situation in "Reining in Zadvydas v. Davis", Center for Immigration Studies, May 2011.
³¹ U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Immigration Policy and Enforcement, "Keep Our Communities Safe Act (H.R. 1932): Hearings before the Subcommittee on Immigration Policy and Enforcement", May 24, 2011, testimony of Gary Mead, ICE executive associate director of enforcement and removal operations. Mr. Mead's statement can be found in a May 24, 2011, DHS press release.
³² Ibid.
³³ Ibid.
³⁴ See end note 30.
³⁵ See end note 30.
³⁶ Data are from Motivans, p.22.
³⁷ Department of Homeland Security, Office of Inspector General, "US-VISIT Faces Challenges in Identifying and Reporting Multiple Biographic Identities (Redacted)", OIG-12-111, August 2012, p.6.

Impact of U.S. Immigration Policy on Low-Income Citizens

Many Americans have sympathy for and wish to help the poor and downtrodden of the world. Unfortunately, helping the world’s disadvantaged by admitting them to this country through legal and illegal immigration is now more burdensome and disruptive than it was in the past when our public benefits were much smaller, the standard of living and average education of our citizens was much lower, and most jobs required unskilled labor. Although today there are some benefits to us from taking in the hard-working poor of the world, there are also significant costs which are most directly borne by our lower-income citizens.

Who are the American beneficiaries of our current national immigration policies that result in both legal and illegal immigrants who are predominately low skilled and little educated? The primary winners are 1) middle and upper income owners of businesses which employ immigrants at low wages and 2) middle and upper income families who hire immigrants for such purposes such as maids, nannies, and gardeners.

The primary losers of our immigration policy are our own little educated citizens who must compete with the immigrants for jobs. In this competition it is they who suffer reduced job availability and lower wages and benefits since immigrants will typically work harder, under worse working conditions, and for lower compensation than Americans.

The unemployment rate was 10.5 percent for the second quarter of 2010 for all in our labor force without a four-year college degree. By contrast, for those in our work force who had earned a four-year undergraduate degree, the segment that least competed with immigrant job seekers, the comparable unemployment rate was only 4.6 percent.

The impact of immigrant job competition is greatest on our young, our lesser educated, and our disadvantaged minorities (including the children of earlier immigrants). Thus immigration was partly responsible for the 29 percent unemployment rate among blacks who have a high school education or less, were under age 30, and were seeking employment during the second quarter of 2010. The corresponding unemployment rate for the American-born Hispanics was 24 percent.

It is clear that there are plenty of Americans available to fill low level work positions if there were no immigrants competing for these jobs. Nearly 12 million currently unemployed individuals, 85 percent of our total unemployed who are now looking for work, have not earned a four-year undergraduate degree. Given their educational limitations, most of these 12 million unemployed would be interested in many lower level jobs, all the more so if the wages and benefits were attractive to them. In the absence of low-wage immigrants, there would be millions of new job openings for our unemployed, and many American businesses would indeed be forced to pay more in order to obtain employees thereby helping our lower income citizens with both more job opportunities and increased compensation.

It is a myth that our poor immigrants are only taking jobs that Americans won’t do. Prior to the large step-up of immigration of the poor, hotel beds were made, office floors were cleaned, restaurant dishes were washed, taxis were driven, and crops were picked – by American citizens. As time has passed immigrants continue to make inroads into such work and increasingly are also taking jobs in other sectors such as retailing, construction, and truck driving. Unemployed American citizens, especially those who are not college graduates, will work at or return to these jobs if such jobs were available to them and the wages and benefits were sufficiently attractive.

In sum, we are making great efforts and spending large amounts of money to eliminate poverty in this country and at the same time we are importing much more poverty which makes it more difficult for our existing low income citizens to improve their lot. In order to reduce poverty in this country, it would be good public policy to curtail future legal and illegal immigration of the unskilled and little educated.

Expansion of Asylum Opportunities for Illegal Immigrants

As mentioned in this blog in an entry dated July 17, 2009 entitled "Some Recent Developments which Expand Asylum Possibilities," the Obama administration and liberal courts are opening asylum opportunities to hundreds of millions of women in poverty around the world, especially women from Africa. This movement to expand asylum options was recently pushed further along by the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, a court well-known for its liberal tendencies.

The Ninth, which is based in San Francisco, overturned the deportation orders of two immigration courts and ordered immigration judges to reconsider granting asylum to an illegal immigrant from Guatamala based on the high murder rate of women in Guatamala. "Most important, the court ordered the Board of Immigration to determine whether all Guatamalan woman can qualify -- a decision that could open the door to similar claims from other countries such as El Salvador, Honduras, and others with histories of widespread gender abuse."*

*Quote from NationRoundup, San Francisco, The Tribune (San Luis Obispo), July 13, 2010.

Some of President Obama's Ways and Means

(Promotion of Drags on Our Economy -- See item number 4 for points related legal and illegal immigration)

1) Do everything possible to promote labor unions and the compensation and number of jobs of union members.

The far left philosophical underpinning of the Obama strategy of gross preferential treatment for labor unions is likely the view that corporations are basically abusive and greedy and that workers need unions to protect their interests and to get their “fair” share in wages. Unionization may also be viewed as a vehicle for helping to level the distribution of income, a major objective of the “progressive” agenda.

More cynically, the Obama pro-union strategy is trying to create a growing a bloc of voters who will be indebted to the Democratic Party for their jobs and at the same time increasing the wealth of unions who will also feel indebted to the Democratic Party. The appreciative union members will vote for Democrats and the appreciative union officials will make generous money political contributions to the Democratic Party and its candidates – and thus a grand, self-perpetuating situation will be set in motion with the Democrats and the unions “scratching each other’s backs.” One source notes that "Unions gave $400 million to the Democrats in the 2008 campaign cycle...."

An early manifestation of the ultra pro-union strategy was the Obama-led, federal government supervised override of existing bankruptcy law which transferred billions of dollars from secured creditors’ interests in GM and Chrysler to the UAW, followed by White House intimidation of those creditors who tried to contest this miscarriage of justice. Beyond this bald-faced gift of money to the UAW, to preserve union jobs the federal government has poured many billions into General Motors (and GMAC) and Chrysler, thereby unfairly subsidizing them in their competition with the better-managed Ford, and the foreign car manufacturers who produce large numbers of non-subsidized autos at lower cost in non-union plants throughout our South.

More evidence of Obama’s game plan comes from the fact that Andrew Stern, a leader of the SEIU (Service Employees International Union, a union with many members who are government employees) was logged in as a White House visitor 22 times between January and July 2009, more entries than for any other visitor during this period. For many years the portion of the private sector that is unionized has been steadily contracting as it loses jobs to more efficient non-union private companies in the United States or overseas. Moreover, today workers do not need the union protections against abusive employers that they needed years ago when there were far fewer laws on the books to protect against different types of employer wrongdoing.  Consequently, only about 7 percent of the private sector labor force is unionized today. That has left the government sector as the biggest union growth story and unionized government employees now account for more than one-half of all unionized employees in the United States.

Additionally, there has been a steady campaign by the Obama administration to change government labor rules and regulations to make it easier for unions to organize workers.



2) Do everything possible to expand the role of government and the number of government employees.

The far left philosophical underpinning of this objective is the belief that a large role for government is necessary to achieve the leveling of income distribution and to assure the “social contract” for all workers entitling them to cradle-to-grave social support in health, education, consumption, living accommodations, and retirement. Moreover, there is the implicit assumption that the government knows best what should and should not be encouraged or permitted, i.e. that the government should play a larger role in the lives of citizens than it has heretofore. This is clearly the case with ObamaCare.

Expanding the role of government and thereby growing the number of government employees is very consistent with the cynical side of objective 1) as the government sector is the easiest sector for unions to penetrate, i.e. there is no competition for doing the work most efficiently as there is in the private sector. Indeed, an excellent case can be made for forbidding the government sector to unionize as it then has a monopoly on the supply of workers and a stranglehold on the sector of government involved, especially for vital services such as police, fire, and public utilities. Some government entities have had or still have prohibitions on collective bargaining for their employees. For example, employees of the state of California were not permitted to enter into collective bargaining until Governor Jerry Brown signed the Dill Act in 1978.

Politicians have direct control over the number of public jobs and the compensation paid to public employees. This being the case, it makes no sense to have the system which prevails in the United States today: politicians at all levels are given a strong incentive to boost the number of public employees and their compensation, the incentive being increased political contributions from the unions (and to a lesser extent the votes of the union members). Such political contributions are nothing more than "kickbacks" from the unions, a return to the politicians of some of the taxpayer money that they directed to public employees and their unions. This kickback arrangement is yet another very good reason for prohibiting government employees from unionizing. By the same logic, politicians should not be allowed to require, as is sometimes the case today, that government contracts with the private sector contain clauses mandating that some or all of the work be completed by union workers in the private sector.

With the growth of public sector unions and their power to extract exhorbitant pay and benefits from politicians, the pay and benefits of unionized public sector employees now usually exceed those available to comparable private sector employees and in far too many cases the wages and benefits including retirement benefits are excessive relative to the public entities' ability to pay in the not too distant future. In this regard the Obama administration directed about one-third of the stimulus money to state and local governments in the belief that it would help to delay the day of reckoning resulting from the excessive pay and benefits of unionized public employees.

The Obama administration is expanding the role of government by having cabinet members issuing rules regarding health care and environmental policies which 1) would never be agreed to by Congress and 2) are very costly to certain sectors of the private economy.


3) Do everything possible to level the distribution of income in the country.

The far left philosophical underpinning of this objective is that we are all created equal and extra pay for some comes out of the mouths of the poor and downtrodden. In other words, inequality of income is an affront to fairness and implies an inherent form of discrimination exists in the system.

The cynical Obama view is that by using the tax system to equalize the distribution of income, the Democrats can further increase the number of Democratic client-voters and reward existing ones. Higher taxes on the upper income and middle-upper income population and more welfare-related spending on the lower-middle and lower income population will generate a no-lose voter result since the latter outnumber the former and the former are part of the Republican constituency anyway. The lower-middle and lower income beneficiaries of this redistribution of income policy will feel indebted to the Democratic Party and vote accordingly.

The ObamaCare legislation taken as a whole is a stealth massive redistribution of income program as pointed out in a Wall Street Journal Review & Outlook editorial entitled "Who Pays for ObamaCare?" from the July 12, 2010 issue. This editorial also provides documented support for the view that many Democrats very much liked the redistributional aspect of this legislation.

Our legal and illegal immigration of the poor skews the distribution of income statistics in the direction of showing greater inequalities in the distribution of income thereby providing further justification for "progressive" Democrats to take legislative action to equalize the distribution of income!

It is possible that tort and other trial attorneys who sue businesses (including medical practices)are viewed by Obama as both levelers of income and punishers of the greedy corporate sector, i.e. they take from the wealthy corporations who are basically evil and abusive and their wealthy shareholders and give to the beneficiaries of class action and individual law suits who tend to be middle and low income individuals (who might be either mistreated employees or product consumers) and disadvantaged groups such as minorities or women (who might be mistreated employees).

It appears that a symbiotic relationship between those attorneys who sue businesses and the Democrats has evolved to the point that Democrats are doing whatever they can to make things easier and more profitable to sue businesses and in return, the benefitting attorneys and their trade groups must be heavy contributors to the Democratic Party and its candidates. An example of attorney favoritism is that in all of the Democratic health care legislation process, there was never a serious attempt to limit medical malpractice lawsuits, although it has been shown that the threat of such lawsuits results in a very high dollar amount of defensive medicine which might otherwise be avoided.


4) Do everything possible to promote an increase in the legal and illegal immigration of the poor and little educated.

The far left underpinning here is that the United States is a wealthy nation and fairness and social justice requires that we make our bounty available to the world’s poor. Encouraging large amounts of legal and illegal immigration of the poor helps to achieve this objective in their view.

The cynical motivation is that importing the poor and little educated is very likely to increase the number of welfare recipients, future Democrats, and future union members. In general, Obama is much more interested in getting people on to welfare than off. Immigration of the poor plays directly into that strategy. In addition, it has the indirect result of making it more difficult for poor citizens (including blacks!) and earlier poor immigrants to get ahead and off welfare.

Our poor immigrants tend to take up residence in densely populated poor urban areas which are "monopolized by Democratic Party politics."1 Long before they can vote, their presence is advantageous to the Democratic Party since our census counters are instructed to count all living in the United States including illegal immigrants and legal permanent residents who have not been naturalized (there are no questions regarding citizenship status), thereby tending to give more representation to Democratic states (which are favored by immigrants as places to settle) in the U.S. House of Representatives than they would otherwise have, as well as more electoral votes in presidential elections than they would otherwise have. Within states, the same census count will result in increased representation in the state houses by Democrats. Even though there is likely some undercounting of illegal immigrants, many millions are included in the census with strong encouragement to participate by immigrant community groups. Additionally, census results will include large numbers of American born children of illegal immigrants who are legally U.S. citizens but who are too young to vote, as well as millions of legal permanent residents who have not yet achieved citizenship status (including the right to vote) as they must be legal residents of the U.S. for at least five years as part of the requirements to obtain citizenship.

Even though most of our impoverished legal and illegal immigrants are willing to work hard, they constitute a drag on our economy because they use substantial amounts of free public services, collect billions in welfare, pay very little in taxes, and ship many billions of dollars to relatives outside of the United States. To an increasing extent they are also bringing elderly relatives into the United States who constitute an even greater drag on our economy with their costly medical needs.

Pursuit of this objective puts the Democratic interests in alignment with immigration attorneys whose legal practices benefit from high levels of legal and illegal immigration. Consequently, today there is a natural partnership between immigration attorneys whose trade group is a strong pro-immigrant lobby and the Democratic Party. The immigration bar likely makes substantial dollar contributions to the Democratic Party and many of its candidates, and at the same time the Democratic Party pursues legislation and policies which would result in an increase in legal and illegal immigration and opposes measures which would result in decreases.


5) Increase or maintain government spending on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In theory, Obama and the left might favor high military expenditures as a means to foster high government employment and to expand the role of government generally.

The cynical side of Obama’s heavy military spending includes a) increased ability to reward Democratic politicians and labor unions with military contracts for their constituents, b) to serve as a counter to the common belief that Obama would be weak on national defense, and c) Obama’s personal inability to make the hard decision to wind down our military involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The drag impact on the economy of high levels of defense spending is twofold. First it transfers money and resources from the private sector to the government sector and secondly such expenditures are unproductive compared to alternatives such as private investment or government investment in upgrading necessary infrastructure in the United States.



6) Summary -- President Obama is all about promoting drags on our economy:


A) Growth of government

B) Growth of labor unions

C) Facilitating the work of tort and other attorneys that sue businesses

D) Encouraging little-educated and unskilled illegal immigration

E) Establishing a debilitating tax system which promotes the redistribution of income and is discouraging to businesses, entrepreneurs, and anyone who wishes to work hard to improve their financial situation

F) Continuing and even increasing our military adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan

G) Increasing business costs by unilaterally imposing environmental restrictions such as expensive controls on the emissions of "greenhouse gases" which constitutes an economic drag for the U.S. in that it makes domestic energy production and manufacturing more expensive and makes the U.S. less competitive in world markets as most other countries of the world are less burdensome in this regard

H) Greatly increasing future healthcare costs through Obamacare which was forced through a Democratic Congress with little regard for the consequences


Footnote

1 James G. Gimpel, "Immigration, Political Realignment, and the Demise of Republican Party Prospects," Center for Immigration Studies, Backgrounder (February, 2010).

Immigration Background on Times Square Bomber

Below are preliminary research findings from The Center for Immigration Studies:

WASHINGTON (May 13, 2010) – The Center for Immigration Studies has prepared a synopsis of the information that has been released on Times Square bomber Faisal Shahzad’s immigration history, plus policy recommendations that would reduce the risks inherent in U.S. visa and immigration programs. The report, written by Jessica Vaughan, Director of Policy Studies for the Center for Immigration Studies, reveals a familiar pattern of a terrorist easily taking advantage of weak spots in America’s immigration system. Shahzad was admitted long before 9/11, but the openings he exploited are still in place today.

Contrary to what some news media have stated, it is not completely clear that Shahzad always maintained legal status. In addition, there are aspects of his immigration history that indicate his awareness of how to work our system and that he was planning to engage in terrorism for some time. Moreover, Shahzad was born in Pakistan, traveled there often and received his terrorist training there. Thus, it seems inaccurate to describe him a “home grown” terrorist as some reporters have done. Nor does it seem accurate to describe his terrorism as simply a case of “a legal immigrant’s failed American Dream”, as suggested by CBS news.

June 30, 1979 – Born in Pakistan.


December 22, 1998 – Issued student visa in Islamabad. It is difficult to justify the issuance of this student visa. Shahzad certainly failed to demonstrate that he had “sufficient academic preparation to pursue the intended course of study” at the University of Bridgeport, as the regulations required. He was applying as a transfer student, and his transcript from his correspondence course with Southeastern University, a now defunct fourth-rate academic program, showed a GPA of 2.78, including several D’s and an F (in statistics). Moreover, during the 1990s, the University of Bridgeport was financially and academically troubled, with its accreditation and reputation in serious jeopardy, and actively seeking foreign students to compensate for plummeting U.S. enrollment. Not only was the visa a mistake, but the visa officer appears to have erred in giving Shahzad a four-year visa when two would have sufficed to complete the program that Shahzad reportedly told officials he wanted to complete. Many news accounts have asserted that Shahzad underwent a “criminal background check” in order to qualify for the visa. Not exactly – in 1998 this would have been a check of CLASS, the consular database with information on prior refusals, ineligibilities, and derogatory information such as federal arrest warrants, and TIPOFF, which was a watchlist of known and suspected terrorists. Today’s watchlists and databases are far more comprehensive, but would not have provided grounds for refusal, as Shahzad apparently had no serious criminal history. But under the law the mere absence of a criminal or terrorist history is not enough by itself to qualify for a U.S. visa. For more on temporary visas, see Center for Immigration Studies Backgrounders 'Shortcuts to Immigration' and 'No Coyote Needed,' online at www.cis.org.


Fall 2000 – Graduates from University of Bridgeport, Conn. Several media reports have noted that Shahzad was flagged by border officials for carrying large sums of cash into the United States and for his repeated visits home to Pakistan. Even though foreign students are supposed to pay their own way, private papers uncovered by an intrepid local newspaper reporter revealed that Shahzad had been awarded a grant of $6,700 from the University of Bridgeport to help cover his tuition.


2001 – Begins working for a temporary staffing agency. Shahzad entered on a student visa, which does not include permission to work. It has been reported that he was granted Optional Practical Training status, which allows foreign students to stay and work after graduating (the “training” label is really a work permit). If so, there would be an application and a work permit on file with the school and with USCIS. The details are a little sketchy; it is not clear from the timing of his employment that this was feasible. The fact that any foreign student can get approval to remain here after graduating to work at a temporary staffing agency under the guise of “practical training” is an illustration of just how absurd our immigration system has become.


2002 – Issued H-1B visa. Shahzad was sponsored by Elizabeth Arden to work in a low level accounting job under the H-1B visa program. This would seem to support the argument that the visa program brings in primarily ordinary workers, not the best and the brightest as its defenders claim.


2004 – Obtains mortgage with Huma Anif Mian (U.S. citizen and future spouse).


2004 – Comes under scrutiny of the local Joint Terrorism Task Force. The JTTFs are local, multi-agency units that investigate cases related to national security. No information has been released as to why the JTTF was interested in Shahzad. Some media have reported suspicions that he had ties to Anwar al-Awlaki, the radical Muslim cleric who inspired several of the 9/11 hijackers, the Ft. Hood murderer, and the Christmas Day underwear bomber.


February 2005 – U.S. citizen wife files green card petition. Neighbors of Shahzad’s bride have told reporters that he had visited her in Colorado just once before she left to marry him.


January 2006 – Green card approved. USCIS was apparently unconcerned about either the suddenness of the marriage or the JTTF investigation. Immigration benefits adjudicators have little time or incentive to review cases closely. This case demonstrates the basic reality that the green card application process is firmly rigged in the alien’s favor, with few applications refused or challenged, especially those involving marriage to a U.S. citizen. Marriage to a U.S. citizen is one of the easiest and most popular ways for illegal aliens (and terrorists) to obtain a green card. See the Center for Immigration Studies Backgrounder 'Hello, I Love You, Won’t You Tell Me Your Name: Inside the Green Card Marriage Phenomenon.'


October 2008 – Applies for citizenship. Shahzad wasted no time applying for U.S. citizenship, which can happen after three years of marriage to a U.S. citizen, compared with five years of residency for other legal immigrants. Shahzad’s alacrity in submitting his citizenship application is very unusual. The average immigrant waits six to ten years before applying, according to DHS statistics. For one thing, the process is expensive ($675) and includes a lot of paperwork and passing a test. His U.S. citizenship makes travel abroad much easier as U.S. citizens face less scrutiny than foreign nationals when coming and going from the country and, unlike green card-holders, citizens can stay overseas indefinitely without losing status. Becoming a U.S. citizen did not require Shahzad to give up his Pakistani passport, this can be useful in concealing long periods of travel to countries like Pakistan without drawing the attention of immigration inspectors at U.S. ports of entry upon return.


April 17, 2009 – Sworn in as a U.S. citizen. Again, it appears that USCIS was untroubled by or unaware of the previous JTTF investigation.


June 2, 2009 – Departs for Pakistan.


February 3, 2010 – Returns to the United States.


May 1, 2010 – Attempts to set off bomb in Times Square.

Child Tax Credits for Illegal Immigrants

This blogger recently stumbled upon information related to illegal immigrant access to billions of dollars of federal welfare through the collection of tax refunds through the IRS and its system of ITIN numbers for filers who do not have Social Security numbers. This blogger believes that this information has been little disseminated because he has not read of it elsewhere.

Many illegal immigrants are regularly accessing welfare benefits in the United States in different ways.1 They may do so through those state and local governments that do not verify citizenship or that accept false proof of citizenship. In many cases, they access welfare benefits through their citizen children born in the United States. Additionally, and this is the focus of this report, there are ways illegal immigrants can obtain a form of federal welfare that is available to income tax filers. Since a significant percentage of illegal immigrants have low incomes, work “off the books,” or work with false names and Social Security numbers, it is likely that many report little or no income when applying for federal, state, or local benefits.

An illegal immigrant cannot qualify for a legitimate Social Security number to use to file income tax returns or for any other purposes. Thus, a major facilitator for illegal immigrant access to income tax-based welfare benefits is the nine-digit Individual Tax Identification Number (ITIN) established by the IRS in 1996. It was initially established for people like foreign investors, who are required to file U.S. income tax forms but can not legally obtain a Social Security number. However, the IRS has allowed illegal immigrants to apply for and use the ITIN for filing income tax returns related to income earned in the United States. Consequently, the ITIN quickly became a vehicle for illegal immigrants to obtain refunds of part or all of income taxes withheld (if any) from their pay and for obtaining refundable tax credits above and beyond any withholding. All but a small minority of people using ITINs today are illegal immigrants.2

Since Congress did not explicitly limit the Child Tax Credit (CTC) and the Additional Child Tax Credit (ACTC) to holders of Social Security numbers, the IRS has allowed ITIN filers to obtain billions of dollars of refund checks related to these tax credits. If the CTC results in negative total tax due, it may be converted into an ACTC, which is the vehicle that the ITIN filer (or Social Security number filer) may use to collect the negative tax in the form of a check from the IRS. By IRS rules, the ACTC is a refundable credit available to individuals with no tax liability.

A Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration report dated March 31, 2009, “Actions Are Needed to Ensure Proper Use of Individual Taxpayer Identification Numbers and to Verify or Limit Refundable Credit Claims,” indicates that, for the 2007 tax year, Child Tax Credits (774,000 filings for $0.62 billion) and Additional Child Tax Credits (1,220,000 filings for $1.78 billion), together totaling $2.4 billion, were given to ITIN filers.3 By definition, none of the 1,220,000 filers who received the ACTC refunds had any tax liability, and as a group they received IRS checks totaling at least $1.78 billion. The report goes on to say: “ While the law also prohibits aliens residing without authorization from receiving most public benefits, IRS management’s view is that the law does not provide sufficient legal authority for the IRS to disallow the ACTC to ITIN filers. Nonetheless, as it now stands, the payment of Federal funds through this tax benefit appears to provide an additional incentive for aliens to enter, reside, and work in the United States without authorization, which contradicts Federal law and policy to remove such incentives.”4

A Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration report dated December 8, 2009, “Individual Taxpayer Identification Numbers Are Being Issued Without Sufficient Supporting Documentation” indicates that total refunds due for new ITINs issued in the January 1, 2008, through November 21, 2008 period were projected to amount to $1.929 billion, based on a statistical sampling.5 Without the CTC and ACTC, these ITIN filers were projected to have collected in the aggregate only $0.412 billion of refunds instead of the $1.929 billion, a difference of $1.517 billion.6 The December 8 report goes on to note that, based on a statistical sampling, 87 percent of ITIN applications submitted by Certified Acceptance Agents contained errors, primarily in supporting ID documents being missing or illegible and that “In addition, more than 55,000 ITINs were used multiple times on approximately 102,000 tax returns with refunds totalling more than $202 million."7

Any illegal immigrants who in some way obtained Social Security numbers that they could use to file tax returns and obtain refunds (by, for instance, having been legal temporary workers who didn’t depart when they were supposed to) are not included in the above numbers for ITINs. Moreover, such illegal immigrants may have also accessed the Earned Income Credit or the Making Work Pay Credit.

End Notes

1 “Senate Amnesty Could Strain Welfare System,” Center for Immigration Studies Announcement, June 2007, http://www.cis.org/node/502, shows in the table titled “Use Of Welfare Programs Based on Nativity of Household Head” that a little more than 50 percent of Mexican illegal immigrant households have at least one person who is using at least one major welfare program, not counting the income tax-based programs discussed in this Memorandum.

2 See “Giving Cover to Illegal Aliens: IRS Tax ID Numbers Subvert Immigration Law,” by Marti Dinerstein, Center for Immigration Studies Backgrounder, October 2002, http://cis.org/IRSTaxID-ImmigrationLaw.

3 See p. 14 of Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration report dated March 31, 2009 (Reference Number 2009-40-057), at http://www.treas.gov/tigta/auditreports/2009reports/200940057fr.pdf.

4 Ibid., Memorandum Synopsis p. 3.

5 See p.13 of Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration report dated December 8, 2009 (Reference Number: 2010-40-005), at http://www.treas.gov/tigta/auditreports/2010reports/201040005fr.pdf.

6 Ibid.

7 Ibid., Memorandum Synopsis pp. 2-3.

Arizona Legislature Passes Immigration Bill on April 13, 2010

Despite the will of the majority of the nation's voters, for many years the federal government has chosen to avoid effective enforcement our immigration laws. The result has been a steadily increasing inflow of little-educated immigrants who compete with little-educated citizens for jobs and social benefits. This in turn has resulted in political battles at the state and local government level concerning proposed laws designed to counter illegal immigration and make it more difficult for illegal immigrants to work, live, or obtain public benefits in their jurisdictions. The types of restrictive laws which states and localities can pass is gradually being resolved by challenges in the courts.

To the extent that state immigration-related laws are allowed to take effect, states that are tough on immigration are going to cause a shift in the illegal immigrant population towards those states that are more lenient. Within states the same will be true of localities, as some cities and counties have passed or are considering laws which would negatively impact illegal immigrants.

On the other side of the political spectrum, states and localities may consider laws or administrative rules which would make it easier for illegal immigrants to obtain publicly controlled benefits such as welfare and driver’s licenses. Some localities have gone so far as to declare themselves “sanctuaries” for illegal immigrants and these have initiated local laws or policies which would afford some protection for illegal immigrants.

With its long Mexican border, Arizona is on the front lines of illegal immigration-related issues with more people and drugs crossing its border illegally than is the case for any other state. Beyond the problems associated with an influx of poor and poorly educated immigrants, Arizona has become a haven for for drug and immigrant smugglers and many citizens feel powerless to deal with these and other problems that stem from its proximity to Mexico.1a

On April 13, 2010 the Arizona legislature passed a bill (SB 1070) which would make it a violation of state law to be in Arizona without proper documentation to be in the United States. Police would be authorized to stop and verify the status of anyone suspected of being illegally in the United States and foreign nationals would be required to carry proof of legal residency as federal law requires. Some state legislators had misgivings about parts of the bill but voted for it anyway out of frustration at the absence of effective federal efforts to deal with the immigration problem.

The bill was signed into law by Governor Jan Brewer on April 23 hours after the bill was denounced by President Obama as "misguided" and threatening to "undermine the basic notion of fairness that we cherish as Americans." Governor Brewer commented that the Arizona law comes after "decades of inaction and misguided policy [on the federal level] have created a dangerous and unacceptable situation."1b It is a certainty that there will be court challenges to the new Arizona law.

The Arizona bill was also demonized by pro-immigrant groups and Cardinal Mahony, head of Los Angeles’ Catholic archdiocese and an outspoken supporter of immigrant rights. The cardinal likened the bill to “German Nazi and Russian Communist techniques” that compelled people to turn each other in.2a It is estimated his archdiocese is nearly 70% Latino.3a

On April 26, the results of a Rasmussen poll of likely voters conducted on April 22 and April 23 were released showing that 70% of Arizonans favored their new law, while 60% of a nationwide survey favor such a law for their own areas. According to a New York Times/CBS News poll conducted between April 28 and May 2, 51% of the resondents said the Arizona law was "about right" in its approach and 9% said that it did not go far enough.3b

On April 30 Governor Brewer signed a follow-on bill to SB 1070 that tried to clarify the original language to send a stronger message that racial profiling will not be tolerated. The revision bill states that immigration status questions by police must follow an officer's stopping, detaining, or arresting a person suspected of violating some other law. The bill also specifies that when police stop, detain, or arrest they cannot procede to the immigration status question using race, ethnicity, or national origin as a factor.3c

Pertinent Details of SB1070 as noted in a press release dated April 29, 2010 of the Center for Immigration Studies

• The new Arizona law mirrors federal law, which already requires aliens (non-citizens) to register and carry their documents with them (8 USC 1304(e) and 8 USC 1306(a)). The new Arizona law simply states that violating federal immigration law is now a state crime as well. Because illegal immigrants are by definition in violation of federal immigration laws, they can now be arrested by local law enforcement in Arizona.
• The law is designed to avoid the legal pitfall of “pre-emption,” which means a state can’t adopt laws that conflict with federal laws. By making what is a federal violation also a state violation, the Arizona law avoids this problem.
• The law only allows police to ask about immigration status in the normal course of “lawful contact” with a person, such as a traffic stop or if they have committed a crime.
• Estimates from the federal government indicate that more than 80 percent of illegal immigrants come from Latin America.12 Thus, there is concern that police may target only Hispanics for enforcement.
• Before asking a person about immigration status, law enforcement officials are required by the law to have “reasonable suspicion” that a person is an illegal immigrant. The concept of “reasonable suspicion” is well established by court rulings. Since Arizona does not issue driver's licenses to illegal immigrants, having a valid license creates a presumption of legal status. Examples of reasonable suspicion include:
o A driver stopped for a traffic violation has no license, or record of a driver's license or other form of federal or state identification.
o A police officer observes someone buying fraudulent identity documents or crossing the border illegally.
o A police officer recognizes a gang member back on the street who he knows has been previously deported by the federal government.
• The law specifically states that police, “may not solely consider race, color or national origin” when implementing SB 1070.
• When Arizona’s governor signed the new law, she also issued an executive order requiring the Arizona Peace Officer Standards and Training Board to provide local police with additional training on what does and what does not constitute “reasonable suspicion.”13

Additional Background on Illegal Immigration in Arizona from the Center for Immigration Studies press release

• The federal government estimated that Arizona had one of the fastest growing illegal immigrant populations in the country, increasing from 330,000 in 2000 to 560,000 by 2008.1
• Arizona has adopted other laws to deter the settlement of illegal immigrants in the state in recent years. The federal government estimates that the illegal immigrant population dropped by 18 percent in the state from 2008 to 2009, compared to a 7 percent drop for the nation as a whole.2 This may be evidence that the state enforcement efforts are having an impact.
• The Maricopa County Attorney’s Office has found that 22 percent of felonies in the county are committed by illegal immigrants.3 Illegal immigrants are estimated to be 10 percent of the county’s adult population.4
• Analysis of data from State Criminal Alien Assistance Program showed that illegal immigrants were 11 percent of the state’s prison population. Illegal immigrants were estimated to be 8 percent of state’s adult population at the time of the analysis.5
• Approximately 17 percent of those arrested by the Border Patrol in its Tucson Sector have criminal records in the United States.6
• The issue of illegal immigration and crime is very difficult to measure, and while in Arizona there is evidence that illegal immigrants are committing a disproportionate share of crime, it is not clear this is the case nationally.7
• In 2007, the Center for Immigration Studies estimated that 12 percent of workers in the Arizona are illegal immigrants.8
• In 2007, the Center estimated that illegal immigrants and their U.S.-born children (under 18) comprise one-fifth of those in the state living in poverty, one-third of those without health insurance, and one out of six students in the state’s schools.9

Blog continued

In general there has been increasing legislative activity at the state and local level with thousands of immigration bills being introduced in all 50 states. An immigration specialist of the National Conference of State Legislatures commented: “This is now a 50-state issue. There is a tremendous amount of frustration at the local level now that the federal government has abrogated its responsibility.”4a

Of the recent actions by state legislatures, Georgia’s is one of the tougher ones. Its law, which took effect on July 1, 2007, includes the following features: a) Georgia employers are required to use a federal data base to verify that their workers are legal, b) recipients of state benefits must prove that they are in the country legally, c) jailers must inform federal authorities if anyone incarcerated is in the country illegally, and d) a new criminal offense, human trafficking, was added to the books to prosecute those who bring in groups of illegal immigrants. In late 2007, another restrictive state law went into effect in Oklahoma. As of January 1, 2008 still another restrictive state law was to go into effect in Arizona which among other features would penalize employers of illegal immigrants.

Beyond the current activity in state legislatures, there have been two stand-out propositions that were voted on in state-wide balloting in recent years – Proposition 187 in California and Proposition 200 in Arizona. Both are noteworthy as being indicative of voter sentiment regarding illegal immigration.

Proposition 187 was on the California ballot in November 1994 as a result of a citizen initiated petition. It was supported by Republican Governor Pete Wilson who was reelected in the same election and who used its embrace to climb from an earlier 23 percentage point deficit in public opinion polls to a 15 percent point victory on election day.5a Exit polls showed that the number one reason people voted for Governor Wilson was that he would be tough on illegal immigration.6a A significant feature of Proposition 187 was the barring of the public education of children who were illegal immigrants, a challenge to the Plyler v. Doe U.S. Supreme Court ruling of 1982. It also denied other public benefits, excepting emergency medical treatment, unless the applicant could prove a legal right to reside in the United States. In addition it called on law enforcement agents who suspected a person arrested was in violation of immigration laws to check further and if evidence was found of immigration illegality they were to report that to the attorney general of California and to the INS. “Flawed as it was in design, Prop. 187 was increasingly seen by voters as the only option available to Californians to ‘send a signal’ that they were angry at open borders.…”7a Proposition 187 passed by a vote of 59 percent to 41 percent. Court challenges prevented its implementation and an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court was not undertaken by the newly elected Democratic Governor Gray Davis in 1998 (Governor Wilson was barred from running for a third term in 1998) sealing the fate of most of the sections of the Proposition. “Most Hispanic voters favored the measure in early polling, though only 31 percent voted for it after a long campaign in which Hispanic political leaders branded it as ‘anti-Hispanic.’ ”8a

Proposition 200 appeared on the Arizona ballot in November 2004. It requires individuals to produce proof of citizenship before they may vote or apply for public benefits. Despite opposition from Republican U.S. Senators McCain and Kyle, and Democratic Governor Janet Napolitano and the Arizona Republican and Democratic parties, it was approved with 56 percent of the vote. Exit polls found that 47 per cent of Latino voters supported the measure.9a

Footnotes to the CIS press release followed by footnotes to this blog

1 See Table 4 “Estimates of the Unauthorized Immigrant Population Residing in the United States: January 2008,” http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/ois_ill_pe_2008.pdf.

2 See 'Estimates of the Unauthorized Immigrant Population Residing in the United States: January 2009,” Table 4, http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/ois_ill_pe_2009.pdf See also Table 4 “Estimates of the Unauthorized Immigrant Population Residing in the United States: January 2008,” http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/ois_ill_pe_2008.pdf.

3 The Maricopa County Attorney’s office report is at: http://www.mcaodocuments.com/press/20081002_a-whitepaper.pdf.

4 See Table 3 in “Immigration and Crime: Assessing a Conflicted Issue,” http://www.cis.org/ImmigrantCrime.

5 See Table 6 in “Immigration and Crime: Assessing a Conflicted Issue,” http://www.cis.org/ImmigrantCrime.

6 See “The Krentz Bonfire: Will the murder of a respected Cochise County rancher change anything on our border?” Tucson Weekly, April 29, 2010, http://www.tucsonweekly.com/tucson/the-krentz-bonfire/Content?oid=1945848.

7 The Center for Immigration Studies has conducted a detailed review of the literature and data available on crime. Nationally it is very difficult to come to a clear conclusion about crime rates among immigrants. The report, “Immigration and Crime: Assessing a Conflicted Issue,” is at: http://www.cis.org/ImmigrantCrime.

8 See Tables 21 in “Immigrants in the United States, 2007: A Profile of America's Foreign-Born Population,” http://www.cis.org/immigrants_profile_2007.

9 See Tables 23, 24, and 26 in “Immigrants in the United States, 2007: A Profile of America's Foreign-Born Population,” http://www.cis.org/immigrants_profile_2007.


1a A sidelight of the immigrant crime picture is contained in Jacques Billeaud (Associated Press), “Smuggler kidnappings sneak across the border,” Tribune (San Luis Obispo), January 12, 2008. This article states that on the American side of the border, drug and immigrant smugglers “and their family members are being kidnapped by fellow criminals and held for six-figure ransoms,” sometimes leading to killings. “Phoenix had more than 340 reported such kidnappings last year, but police said the real number is much higher because many cases go unreported. The San Diego area has also seen a rise in kidnappings. . . .” The article goes on to note that “kidnappings are common in Mexico. . . .”

1b The quotations from President Obama and Governor Brewer come from Luara Meckler and Miriam Jordan, "Clash on Immigration Law," Wall Street Journal, April 24, 2010.


2a Teresa Watanabe, “Cardinal Mahony criticizes Arizona immigration bill,” Los Angeles Times, April 20, 2010.

3a Ibid.

3b As reported in an article below the heading Los Angeles in the Tribune (San Luis Obispo), May 4, 2010.

3c Hugh Holub, "Arizona state legislature runs for cover on SB 1070," Tucson Independent Examiner, April 30, 2010. It appeared that this revision bill received little or no coverage in the mainstream media.

4a Walter F. Roche Jr. (Los Angeles Times), “States take lead on immigration law.”

5a Dan Walters, “Schwarzenegger, like Wilson, Could Play the Immigration Card,” Sacramento Bee, March 19, 2006.

6a Paul Vitello, “As Illegal Workers Hit the Suburbs, Politicians Scramble to Respond,” New York Times, October 6, 2005.

7a Otis L. Graham Jr., Unguarded Gates (Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield, 2004), 155.

8a Ibid., 155.

9a Richard Marosi, “The Nation; Arizona Stirs up Immigration Stew,” Los Angeles Times, November 6, 2004.