National Academies Press: OpenBook

The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration (2017)

Chapter: 9 State and Local Fiscal Effects of Immigration

« Previous: 8 Past and Future Fiscal Impacts of Immigrants on the Nation
Suggested Citation:"9 State and Local Fiscal Effects of Immigration." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23550.
×

9

State and Local Fiscal Effects of Immigration

9.1 INTRODUCTION

Of concern to policy makers and the public are not only the net fiscal effects of immigration for the nation as a whole, currently and over time, but also the effects on revenues and expenditures for state and local governments. Immigrants are not distributed equally among the states or localities, and state and local governments differ in their fiscal policies generally and in their policies toward immigrants specifically. Consequently, any examination of the fiscal effects of immigration at the state and local levels and the extent to which immigrants are a net fiscal burden or benefit must consider the individual circumstances of each jurisdiction.

The 1997 National Research Council report, The New Americans, estimated the net state and local government fiscal effects of immigration for only two states: California and New Jersey (National Research Council, 1997). Around that time, based on 2000 Decennial Census long-form sample data, California alone accounted for nearly one-third of the total number of 31 million foreign-born, while California and New Jersey, together with Florida, Illinois, New York, and Texas, accounted for about 70 percent of the foreign-born population. By 2011-2013, American Community Survey (ACS) data indicate that a larger number of immigrants had become more widely dispersed so that California accounted for about one-quarter of the total number of 41 million foreign-born and the same six states accounted for about 65 percent of the foreign-born population. Other states with significant numbers of foreign-born in 2011-2013 included Arizona, Georgia, Maryland, Massachusetts, and Virginia. Relative to the total

Suggested Citation:"9 State and Local Fiscal Effects of Immigration." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23550.
×

population, the foreign-born increased from 11 percent of the U.S. total in 2000 to 13 percent in 2011-2013. By state, as of 2000, the foreign-born accounted for 14 percent or more of the population in only seven states, while by 2011-2013 the foreign-born accounted for 14 percent or more of the population in 12 states; see further discussion in Section 9.3 below.

This chapter examines the state and local government fiscal effects of immigration for each of the 50 states and the District of Columbia for the 3-year period 2011-2013. We focus on the individual as the unit of analysis—more specifically, the independent individual. The panel’s analysis here attributes the fiscal costs of (and taxes received from) dependents to their parents. This independent-person concept best acknowledges that the fiscal costs or benefits of children are due to the decisions of their parents independent of the children’s own immigrant status. In addition, as in portions of Chapter 8, we distinguish among three immigrant generations (first, second, and third-plus, where “third-plus generation” is used as shorthand for all U.S. residents with two native-born parents).

Before proceeding to describe our measurement methods and results, it is worth referencing the extensive discussion of how, theoretically, immigrants’ net costs to state and local governments are treated in The New Americans (National Research Council, 1997, pp. 254-270). That discussion, well worth reviewing, also details the range of simplifying assumptions that are necessary to derive empirical estimates of net costs. For example, for tractability, one must generally assume that immigrants use government services, such as public libraries or highway maintenance, at the same rate as natives (except when there is an explicit eligibility criterion excluding immigrants). Under this assumption, the costs of each service are allocated equally to immigrants and to natives on a per capita basis. In our evaluation, we present results making similar assumptions but then also examine what the relative costs of immigrants would be using different assumptions about whether the overall level of spending on a particular service is likely to change. For example, if the number and staffing of libraries is assumed to be unchanged, we would ask, “What is the relative cost of immigrants, assuming they produce zero marginal costs to state and local governments for library services?” The rationale behind the marginal and average cost choice for allocating the cost of public goods—particularly pure public goods such as national defense—is discussed in detail in Chapters 7 and 8.

A key difference between the fiscal impact study in this chapter and the state-level analyses in The New Americans (National Research Council, 1997) is the unit of analysis. In The New Americans, analysis was done at the household level using the nativity of the household head to determine immigrant status. This panel’s preferred estimates present results based on independent individuals, including the cost of dependent children in the net benefit or burden of their parent(s). This makes our results more com-

Suggested Citation:"9 State and Local Fiscal Effects of Immigration." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23550.
×

parable to those presented in Chapter 8 and better captures revenues and expenditures of all immigrants, independent of who is listed as householder. We do also present results on a household basis (see Table 9-7).

9.2 MEASUREMENT METHODS

We constructed our estimates from the Current Population Survey (CPS) Annual Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC). This nationally representative survey of people in households and group quarters, excepting institutions (e.g., jails, nursing homes), enabled us to identify generation status, including first generation immigrants (individuals who were born abroad who are noncitizens or naturalized citizens), second generation individuals (individuals who were born in the United States with at least one foreign-born parent), and third-plus generation individuals (individuals who were born in the United States with two native-born parents).1 For each generation, we examined household living arrangements, income from various sources, and estimated taxes paid. It is important to account separately for second generation immigrants; this was not done in the state estimates in The New Americans (National Research Council, 1997), but it is done in the analysis in this chapter. At any point in time, many second generation immigrants are of working age and, when treated as independent individuals as in this report, contribute revenues that exceed costs. However, they may have represented a cost burden for their state and locality as children—costs that would not have been borne if their parent(s) had not entered the United States. Indeed, many second generation immigrants are themselves school-age children, whom we assign to their first generation parent(s) and who will likely represent a net burden for state and local governments for their education.

In order to achieve sufficient sample size for our analysis, we pooled 3 years of the CPS ASEC data covering 2011-2013.2 Our sample represents, on a weighted basis and averaging over the 3 years, about 223 million independent people (essentially adults, as described below), of whom 16 percent are first generation and 8 percent are second generation. The remaining 76 percent are third-plus generation individuals, many of whose families have been in the United States for decades or centuries. The sample also repre-

___________________

1 The second generation also includes those born abroad to an American parent with their other parent foreign-born, and the third-plus generation also includes those who are born abroad to two American parents.

2 Were the ACS to include a question on place of birth of parents, it would be possible to carry out an analysis of state-level fiscal effects of immigration, by immigrant generation, with a much larger sample and correspondingly greater reliability than is possible with the CPS ASEC, even pooling over 3 years (see Chapter 10).

Suggested Citation:"9 State and Local Fiscal Effects of Immigration." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23550.
×

sents about 85 million dependent children in each year.3 In our study, as discussed more fully below, revenues and expenditures for dependent children are assigned to their parent(s) for estimation purposes, independent of the child’s own immigrant status.

We used the 3-year average of the 2011-2013 Census of Governments (COG) Annual Survey of State and Local Government Finances4 as our source for estimates of state and local revenues and expenditures of various kinds. Because different states provide different services at the state versus local level, we found it most useful to combine state and local revenues and expenditures to provide a complete picture of nonfederal government services. We did not have sufficient sample sizes or information on individuals to provide estimates for most substate areas—indeed, our estimates for many states are highly variable due to small sample sizes. These limited sample sizes also mean we do not estimate differences across places of origin.

We used simulation methods to piece together the data from the CPS ASEC and the 2011-2013 COG to estimate—for each independent person and his or her dependent children in the sample, weighted to be representative of their numbers in their state’s population—the revenues each provides to his or her state and locality of residence and the expenditures incurred by that state and locality on his or her behalf (including expenditures on behalf of any dependent children). Additional description of this method, as well as of differences in this approach from that used in The New Americans (National Research Council, 1997), is provided in the relevant sections below.

We then compared the resulting estimates of net state and local government fiscal benefit (or burden) for independent persons, characterized by immigrant status (first, second, or third-plus generation). We present comparisons among the states on an average-per-independent person unit basis by generation and on an aggregate basis. It can be the case, at one extreme, that a state has not only a high net fiscal burden (expenditures exceed revenues) per first and/or second generation immigrant but also a large number of first and/or second generation immigrants. At the other extreme, a state may have not only a low net fiscal burden (or a net fiscal benefit) per first and/or second generation immigrant but also a small number of immigrants. And there can be any combination in between. We further assessed how differences among and within the states in estimates of

___________________

3 Of these dependent children, considered in their own right, 4 percent are first generation, 21 percent are second generation, and 75 percent are third-plus generation. There are as many second generation dependents as independent adults; their costs in part explain why first generation independent persons are more costly.

4 Available: https://www.census.gov//govs/local/historical_data.html [November 2016].

Suggested Citation:"9 State and Local Fiscal Effects of Immigration." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23550.
×

net fiscal burden result from differences in characteristics of first and second generation immigrants, such as their age distribution, education level, and number of dependents as compared to native born individuals.

We also assess how differences among states in net fiscal burden result from differences in taxation and spending policies of individual states and their localities. We finally present some analyses to indicate the sensitivity of our main results to alternative assumptions about some components of revenues and expenditures. The key driver of differences has to do with education costs—the largest single part of state and local expenditures.

As defined in Chapter 7, the approach used in this chapter is a static analysis, producing estimates for a point in time. We did not attempt, for example, to play out, over time, the consequences for a state of its investment in education of first and second generation immigrant children on the skill mix of its labor force at a future date. Such an analysis would be difficult to conduct, not least because of the mobility of the population among the states so that children educated in one state may, to a greater or lesser extent, work as adults in another state.

Constructing Independent Person Units for Analysis

Most people live in households, as opposed to institutions and other similar living situations. Although a significant number of household residents live alone, many others live with relatives or with nonrelatives as in a group house. Many tax and expenditure programs are carried out on a family or household basis (e.g., state income and local property taxes and benefits from many low-income assistance programs, such as school meals). So the household would seem to be a natural unit of analysis, and The New Americans (National Research Council, 1997) carried out its analysis of net fiscal state and local government burdens for California and New Jersey on a per-household basis. Households, however, change in their composition within and across years and also may contain a mix of immigrant generations and a mix of related and unrelated members. For this conceptual reason, we conducted our analysis in terms of persons, which is also the unit for our analysis of fiscal effects over time at the national level in Chapter 8. Specifically, we constructed “independent person” units, consisting of one independent adult plus an assignment of any dependent children in whole or in part, as described below. Box 9-1 repeats the definitions of independent persons and dependent children given in Box 8-2 and also defines “independent person unit.”

Having classified each individual in the sample as independent or dependent, we then constructed independent person units for analysis. The assignment of dependent children in a household to independent

Suggested Citation:"9 State and Local Fiscal Effects of Immigration." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23550.
×

individual(s) includes all of their revenue and expenditure flows.5 Dependent children and their flows are split between parents if they reside in a two-parent household; they are assigned fully to the resident parent if in a single-parent household. They are assigned to the grandparent(s) if their parents are dependents; they are assigned to the householder when parents are not present and the householder is a foster parent or grandparent. Dependents in households with family members other than parents or grandparents are assigned to the highest earning independent relative.

___________________

5 In the case when the dependent weights differ from that of the independent person they are assigned to, the dependents and their flow amounts are multiplied by their dependent weight and then divided by the weight of the independent person(s) they are assigned to.

Suggested Citation:"9 State and Local Fiscal Effects of Immigration." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23550.
×

Dependents in households without any family members are assigned to the highest earning independent household member. As with dependent children in two-parent households, nonchild dependents (related and unrelated) are split between married couples in cases where they are assigned to one of the spouses. Ninety-four percent of dependent children in our dataset are assigned to parents, with an additional 5 percent assigned to other family members (remaining dependents are assigned to nonfamily members).

Defining Immigrant Generations for Independent Person Units

The classification of independent person units by immigrant generation was performed on the basis of the independent person’s status as follows: as in the other analyses in this report, independent individuals born abroad who are not citizens or who are naturalized citizens are classified as first generation immigrants. Independent individuals who are native born (including those born in Puerto Rico) and one or both of whose parents are foreign born are classified as second generation, as are those born abroad to an American parent with their other parent foreign-born. As defined above, the third-plus generation includes independent individuals who are native born to two native-born parents, as well as those who are born abroad to two American parents.

It bears repeating that independent person units are classified by the generation of the independent person; children are assigned to one or two independent persons on the basis of relationship and not generation. Thus, first generation independent person units with children may include children born abroad, those who in their own right would be classified as second generation, or both. Similarly, second generation independent person units with children may include children who are second or third generation when considered in their own right.

Estimating State and Local Revenues per Independent Person Unit

After constructing independent person units, the next step was to assign the revenues each such unit provided to its state and locality, using 2011-2013 COG data on taxes and other forms of revenue. Revenues (and expenditures) were assigned to each individual, with flows for dependents then being wrapped up to the independent persons who support them. So, for example, any benefits received by a child living with two parents would be assigned to the child and then half of the value would be pulled into each parent’s independent person unit amounts. For many types of revenue, the amount assigned to each independent person unit depended on the unit’s demographic and economic information. For example, state income taxes paid depended on income and taxes reported in the CPS data. Because CPS

Suggested Citation:"9 State and Local Fiscal Effects of Immigration." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23550.
×

data, on average, underreport income, amounts allocated for income and sales taxes were scaled up to equal COG state aggregates. The following types of revenues were assigned to independent person units (their percentage of all state and local revenues is shown in parentheses, but these average numbers mask the wide variations among states):

  • property taxes (14%);
  • general sales taxes (10%);
  • selective sales taxes and public utilities (5%);
  • individual income taxes (9%);
  • business taxes (3%);
  • higher education charges (tuition, etc.) (3%);
  • school lunch sales (less than 1%);
  • other education charges (less than 1%);
  • insurance trust revenue (15%);
  • other revenue (22%); and
  • intergovernmental revenue (18%).

Table 9-11, in the Technical Annex to this chapter, provides detailed information on each revenue type and how the revenues for each type were allocated to independent person units.

Estimating State and Local Expenditures per Independent Person Unit

After the assignment of revenues, the next step was to assign state and local expenditures to independent person units using 2011-2013 COG data. Similar to revenues, these amounts often vary with individual characteristics; most notably, education expenses depend on the number and age of dependents. CPS noninstitutional Medicaid and public welfare expenditure amounts were scaled up to equal COG state aggregates. The following types of expenditures were assigned (their percentage of all state and local expenditures is shown in parentheses, and again these average values mask wide variations among states):

  • higher education expenditures (7%);
  • elementary and secondary education expenditures (16%);
  • other education expenditures and libraries (4%);
  • Medicaid and public welfare (16%);6
  • insurance trust expenditures (11%);

___________________

6 While it is included in the 16 percent of COG expenditures from Medicaid and public welfare, we do not assign the 2 percent of the total 2011-2013 COG expenditures that went to institutional Medicaid spending.

Suggested Citation:"9 State and Local Fiscal Effects of Immigration." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23550.
×
  • other expenditures and capital outlays (45%); and
  • intergovernmental expenditures (less than 1%).

Table 9-12 in the Technical Annex provides additional information on each expenditure type and how the expenditures for each type were allocated to independent person units.

Differences from the Approach Used in The New Americans

We followed a similar but not identical approach to that used in The New Americans (National Research Council, 1997, Ch. 6) to estimate the cross-sectional, point-in-time net fiscal effects of immigrants on state and local government budgets. Below we indicate key differences and the reasons for them:

  • Coverage. The 1997 report constructed net fiscal effects estimates for just two states—California and New Jersey—using March 1995 CPS data for California and the 1990 Public Use Microdata Sample for New Jersey. By using 3 years of pooled CPS ASEC data in our analysis,7 we were able to construct estimates for all 50 states and the District of Columbia, although small sample sizes for many states impair the quality of the estimates.
  • Unit of analysis. The 1997 report used households as the unit of analysis on the grounds that most government programs and services are planned on a household basis. As argued above, this panel views households as too heterogeneous in composition. We therefore used an independent person unit of analysis, consisting essentially of an adult and any dependent children (or shares of children if married). This difference in analysis unit means that dollar amounts of net effects per unit are not comparable between the 1997 study and this report (even if one accounted for inflation and other differences). The reason is that there are about twice as many independent person units as there are households. Section 9.6 includes information at the household level and highlights how differences in household size can affect relative costs or benefits.
  • Immigrant characteristics. The 1997 report distinguished between households headed by foreign-born individuals (further catego-

___________________

7 The CPS ASEC for any one year in 2011-2013 has about twice the sample size of the 1995 March CPS, and the pooling of the CPS ASEC over 3 years increases the CPS ASEC sample size of unique respondents twice again. We keep respondents appearing in 2 consecutive years in our sample for both years so that each of the 3 data years is fully representative of the non-institutionalized population in that year and we capture these respondents’ different revenue and expenditure flows in each of the 2 years.

Suggested Citation:"9 State and Local Fiscal Effects of Immigration." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23550.
×
  • rized by region of origin—Europe/Canada, Asia, Latin American, and other) and households headed by native-born individuals. Other household members might include a mix of foreign- and native-born people. This study, in contrast, looked at three groups of independent persons: first, second, and third-plus generation. (Dependent children were assigned to one or two parents or another independent person in their household regardless of their own immigrant generation.) This grouping permitted us to ascertain the contribution of second generation independent persons, which in many states provide a return on the investment made in their education as children through taxes paid when they become working-age adults. We did not look at region of origin for first generation independent persons, in part due to small sample sizes for many states.

  • Revenues and expenditures. The 1997 report broke out state from local revenues and expenditures, which we did not do because of differences among states in how functions such as education are allocated between the state and local governments. The 1997 report also looked at revenues and expenditures at the federal level for households living in California. In contrast, our analysis did not attempt to estimate federal fiscal effects for independent person units by state if those effects involved the individual directly rather than flowing through state or local governments. For example, federal funds for primary and secondary (K-12) education are included because the money is directed to the states and then distributed. In contrast, federal Social Security payments are excluded because the funds are directly sent to individuals. Similarly, state income taxes are included but not federal income taxes.

9.3 GEOGRAPHIC AND DEMOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION OF IMMIGRANTS

As background for our discussion of state and local fiscal effects, we provide information for two periods, 2011-2013 and 2000, not only on the geographic distribution of immigrants by state in the two time periods but also on variations among states in the demographic composition of their immigrant populations. For comparability when examining changes over time, we look at distributions of the foreign-born (noncitizens or naturalized citizens born abroad), which corresponds to the sum of “independent

Suggested Citation:"9 State and Local Fiscal Effects of Immigration." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23550.
×

persons” in the first generation plus any of their children born abroad.8 Comparisons across and within states among different groups are for the three generations of independent persons as defined above.

Geographic Distribution of the Foreign-born, 2000 Compared to 2011-2013

Table 9-1 shows the percentage of foreign-born in each state’s population for the period 2011-2013 compared with 2000, using data from the 2011-2013 ACS and the 2000 Decennial Census long-form sample. The states are ranked from highest to lowest percentage of foreign-born in 2011-2013. Also shown is the percentage point change between 2000 and 2011-2013. Percentages are expressed in whole numbers without decimals to remind the reader that the data are estimates from samples of the resident population.

For the United States as a whole, the foreign-born population as a percentage of the total increased by 2 percentage points over the period—from 11 percent in 2000 to 13 percent in 2011-2013. Percentage point increases by state ranged narrowly from no change in several states to 4 points in Maryland. Accordingly, it is not surprising that the patterns of geographic dispersion of the foreign-born were broadly similar in the two periods. Thus, the seven states with the highest percentages of foreign-born in 2011-2013—California, Florida, Hawaii, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, and Texas—were the states with the highest percentages of foreign-born in 2000, although overall the concentration of foreign-born individuals in these states has declined.

Table 9-1 also shows the numbers of foreign-born in 2011-2013 and the increase from 2000 (in thousands) by state. Numeric gains are important to keep in mind when considering how immigration may affect states’ fiscal pictures and their policies toward immigrants. Every state has experienced positive net numeric growth in its immigrant population since 2000. California, Florida, and Texas gained between 1 million and 1.4 million immigrants over the period, and New York State gained over 500 thousand. Six states gained between 300 and 500 thousand, five states gained between 200 and 300 thousand, and seven states gained between 100 and 200 thousand immigrants. Of the 22 states that experienced increases in numbers of immigrants of 100 thousand or more, 12 had populations with

___________________

8 Our analysis in this chapter is subject to the same caveats about the difficulties of identifying immigrants with existing data that are outlined in the Technical Annex to Chapter 2 above. In addition, as discussed further below, our state-level analysis is compromised by small sample sizes for many states in the CPS ASEC, even after pooling data over 3 years.

Suggested Citation:"9 State and Local Fiscal Effects of Immigration." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23550.
×

TABLE 9-1 Percentage Foreign-born Population by State, 2011-2013 and 2000, Ordered from Highest to Lowest Percentage Foreign-born in 2011-2013

State Percentage Foreign-born Percentage Point Change Since 2000 Number Foreign-born (in thousands)
2011-2013 2000 2011-2013 Change Since 2000
California 27 26 +1 10,262 1,397
New York 22 20 +2 4,376 508
New Jersey 21 18 +3 1,902 425
Florida 19 17 +2 3,760 1,089
Nevada 19 16 +3 528 211
Hawaii 18 18 0 249 37
Texas 16 14 +2 4,273 1,373
Massachusetts 15 12 +3 1,010 237
Connecticut 14 11 +3 491 121
District of Columbia 14 13 +1 90 16
Illinois 14 12 +2 1,801 272
Maryland 14 10 +4 835 317
Arizona 13 13 0 880 224
Rhode Island 13 11 +2 138 19
Washington 13 10 +3 922 308
Virginia 11 8 +3 937 367
Georgia 10 7 +3 955 378
Colorado 10 9 +1 502 132
New Mexico 10 8 +2 204 55
Oregon 10 8 +1 384 94
Delaware 9 6 +3 78 33
North Carolina 8 5 +3 738 308
Utah 8 7 +1 240 82
Alaska 7 6 +1 52 15
Kansas 7 5 +2 195 60
Minnesota 7 5 +2 400 140
Idaho 6 5 +1 94 30
Michigan 6 5 +1 610 87
Nebraska 6 4 +2 120 45
New Hampshire 6 4 +2 74 20
Oklahoma 6 4 +2 214 83
Pennsylvania 6 4 +2 778 270
Arkansas 5 3 +2 135 61
Indiana 5 3 +2 310 123
Iowa 5 3 +2 142 50
South Carolina 5 3 +2 227 111
Tennessee 5 3 +2 302 143
Wisconsin 5 4 +1 273 79
Suggested Citation:"9 State and Local Fiscal Effects of Immigration." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23550.
×
State Percentage Foreign-born Percentage Point Change Since 2000 Number Foreign-born (in thousands)
2011-2013 2000 2011-2013 Change Since 2000
Louisiana 4 3 +1 177 61
Missouri 4 3 +1 239 87
Ohio 4 3 +1 465 126
Vermont 4 4 0 26 3
Alabama 3 2 +1 165 77
Kentucky 3 2 +1 143 62
Maine 3 3 0 46 9
North Dakotaa 3 2 +1 19 6
South Dakota 3 2 +1 24 10
Wyoming 3 2 +1 20 9
Mississippi 2 1 +1 66 26
Montanaa 2 2 0 20 3
West Virginia 2 1 +1 28 8
United States 13 11 +2 40,918 9,910

aEstimate is from the American Community Survey 5-year estimates because 3-year estimates are not available due to small sample size.

SOURCE: Foreign-born in 2000 from 2000 Decennial Census long-form sample, Summary File 4, Table QT-P14, Population Group—Total population, Nativity, Citizenship, see http://www.census.gov [November 2016]. Foreign-born in 2011-2013 from American Community Survey 3-year estimates, Table S0501: Selected Characteristics of the Native and Foreign-Born Populations, see http://www.census.gov [November 2016].

13 percent (the U.S. average) or more foreign-born in 2011-2013, and 10 had populations with smaller percentages of foreign-born.

Geographic Distribution of Independent Persons by Generation, 2011-2013

Turning to our analysis for 2011-2013, we first consider the composition by state of independent person populations from the CPS ASEC, classified by immigrant generation (first, second, or third-plus). Table 9-2 provides estimates of the three immigrant generations as percentages of each state’s population of independent persons, ordered from highest to lowest percentage for the first generation. We use this ordering for subsequent tables as well, to help readers focus on the states with the largest percentages of first generation independent persons, which are also the states

Suggested Citation:"9 State and Local Fiscal Effects of Immigration." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23550.
×

TABLE 9-2 Percentage Independent Persons by Immigrant Generation, by State, 2011-2013, in Order from Highest to Lowest Percentage (first generation independent persons)

State Immigrant Generation (% of total independent persons in state)
First Second Third+
California 35 15 50
New Jersey 28 12 60
New York 27 12 60
Nevada 25 11 64
Florida 23 9 68
Texas 21 10 69
Hawaii 21 15 64
Maryland 19 7 74
Arizona 18 11 70
District of Columbia 17 8 74
Massachusetts 17 12 71
Illinois 17 8 75
Washington 17 10 74
Connecticut 16 11 72
Rhode Island 16 14 70
Virginia 14 5 82
Delaware 12 4 83
Georgia 12 3 85
New Mexico 12 7 81
Oregon 11 8 81
Colorado 11 7 82
Alaska 11 7 82
Nebraska 11 4 85
Idaho 10 5 85
North Carolina 10 4 87
Utah 9 6 85
Michigan 9 6 85
Minnesota 9 5 86
Kansas 8 4 88
Pennsylvania 7 6 87
Iowa 6 3 90
New Hampshire 6 8 86
Wisconsin 6 5 90
Tennessee 5 2 92
Arkansas 5 2 93
Kentucky 5 2 93
South Carolina 5 2 93
Oklahoma 5 3 92
Vermont 5 8 87
Suggested Citation:"9 State and Local Fiscal Effects of Immigration." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23550.
×
State Immigrant Generation (% of total independent persons in state)
First Second Third+
Indiana 5 4 92
Ohio 5 4 91
Louisiana 4 2 94
Missouri 4 3 93
South Dakota 4 4 92
Alabama 4 2 94
Maine 3 7 89
North Dakota 3 5 92
Wyoming 3 4 93
Montana 3 6 92
Mississippi 3 1 96
West Virginia 1 2 96
United States 16 8 76

NOTE: See text for definitions of independent person and immigrant generation. Rows may not sum to 100% for a state due to rounding error (values of 0.5 to 0.9 percent are rounded up).

SOURCE: Panel tabulations of the Current Population Survey Annual Social and Economic Supplement for 2011-2013.

with the largest sample sizes for the first generation. (Tables 9-13 and 9-14 in the Technical Annex provide, respectively, annualized weighted sample counts and total 3-year unweighted counts of first, second, and third-plus generation independent persons by state in the pooled CPS ASEC data for 2011-2013.)9 For the United States as a whole, first generation independent persons are 16 percent of all independent persons, second generation independent persons are 8 percent of all independent persons, and third-plus generation independent persons are 76 percent of all independent persons.10

By state, West Virginia has the lowest proportion of first generation

___________________

9 As noted in Tables 9-13 and 9-14 in the annex, the full 2011-2013 sample does not account for overlap among sample cases due to the rotation group design of the survey.

10 The estimated percentages of first generation independent persons in 2011-2013 in Table 9-2 are generally higher than the corresponding estimated percentages of foreign-born in Table 9-1 (e.g., 16% versus 13% for the United States). The reason is that the denominator in Table 9-2 is all independent persons (essentially all adults) and not the total population, combined with the fact that, proportionally, the first generation includes more independent persons compared with dependent children (considered in their own right) than does the remaining population. Nonetheless, the ordering of states is not that different between Tables 9-1 and 9-2.

Suggested Citation:"9 State and Local Fiscal Effects of Immigration." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23550.
×

independent persons in the state’s total independent population (1%) and California has the highest proportion (35%). Ten states have first generation independent populations that make up less than 5 percent of the state’s total independent population.11 First generation independent individuals in these 10 states (and the other 26 states below the national average of 16%) are less represented in the first generation independent population nationwide than are all of their independent individuals in the national independent population. Seven states have first generation independent populations that comprise at least 20 percent of their total independent population.12 First generation individuals in these seven states (and the other seven states and District of Columbia above the national average) are more represented in the first generation independent population nationwide than are all of their independent populations in the national independent population. Consequently, caution should be taken in comparing national averages of state and local revenue and expenditure flows for the first, second, and third-plus generations, due to the differing composition of individuals in each state among the three generations.

Demographic Distributions of Independent Persons, 2011-2013

The three immigrant generations of independent persons that we define differ among themselves within and among states on characteristics that affect the net fiscal benefit or burden they entail for their state (and its localities). Among these characteristics are age, number of dependent children associated with the independent person unit, unit income, and education, for which we provide a broad overview below.

Age

The age of an independent person has an effect on the person’s net fiscal benefit or burden for the state and locality. Working-age people with employment, for example, typically pay significantly more in taxes than they receive from expenditures and therefore provide a net fiscal benefit to their state and locality, other things equal. However, if their independent person unit includes dependent children, these benefits are lessened and often reversed because of costs for the children’s education and other services. We observed these patterns in the national level analyses in Chapter 8 as well. The net fiscal benefit or burden of retirees will depend on a state’s

___________________

11 These 10 states are Alabama, Louisiana, Maine, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

12 These seven states are California, Florida, Hawaii, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, and Texas.

Suggested Citation:"9 State and Local Fiscal Effects of Immigration." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23550.
×

tax structure and social services for the elderly; for low-income retirees on Medicaid, the net fiscal impact is likely to be negative.13

Table 9-3 shows the average age of independent persons by state and generation and the percentage who are 65 and older in our data for 2011-2013. Nationwide, first generation independent persons are 45.8 years on average; second generation independent persons are older, at 46.5 years on average; and third-plus generation independent persons are older still, at 48.5 years on average. Nationwide, the elderly population (age 65+) comprises 14 percent of first generation independent persons, 23 percent of second generation independent persons, and 19 percent of third-plus generation independent persons.

The general patterns evident for the nation hold for states, but there are some significant exceptions. For example, among the seven states with the highest percentages of first generation independent persons, the average age of this generation varies from 44 years in Texas to 51 years in Hawaii. Florida has higher-than-average percentages of people ages 65 and older in all three generations (20%, 27%, and 24%, respectively), while Hawaii has even higher percentages of people ages 65 and older in its first and second generation independent person populations (24% and 32%, respectively) but a lower-than-average percentage in its third-plus generation independent person population (17%).

Number of Dependent Children

The number of children in an independent person unit has an important effect on its net state and local benefit or burden, primarily stemming from the expenditure side of the ledger, for at least two reasons. First, education expenditures, which are allocated to school-age children, are a large item in state and local budgets (23% on average). Second, the more children in an independent unit, the larger the amount the unit is assigned for expenditures that are allocated to all persons (these expenditures total 49% on average—4% on other education and libraries and 45% on all other—see Table 9-12 in the Technical Annex to this chapter). Similarly, revenues that are allocated to all persons also total about half of revenues—see Table 9-11 in the Technical Annex to this chapter.14

___________________

13 As indicated in Table 9-12, Medicaid costs for the institutionalized, who are not represented in the CPS ASEC, are not included in the allocation of expenditures to independent person units.

14 A few of the expenditures and revenues we include in the group of those allocated to all persons are allocated selectively based on age. Liquor store expenditures, which are part of other expenditures, are allocated to all persons ages 21 and older. Motor fuels and tobacco product sales taxes, which are part of selective sales taxes, and motor vehicle license and motor vehicle operators license revenues, which are part of other revenues, are allocated to

Suggested Citation:"9 State and Local Fiscal Effects of Immigration." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23550.
×

TABLE 9-3 Average Age and Percentage, Ages 65 and Older, Independent Persons by Immigrant Generation by State, 2011-2013

State Immigrant Generation
First Second Third+ All
Avg. Age % 65+ Avg. Age % 65+ Avg. Age % 65+ Avg. Age % 65+
California 47 14 41 14 48 19 47 16
New Jersey 45 14 52 35 49 19 48 19
New York 48 19 49 28 48 17 48 19
Nevada 47 15 44 24 48 18 47 18
Florida 49 20 49 27 51 24 50 23
Texas 44 9 41 12 47 17 46 15
Hawaii 51 24 51 32 48 17 49 21
Maryland 45 13 45 20 48 18 48 17
Arizona 46 13 46 22 49 19 48 19
District of Columbia 42 10 39 11 45 17 44 16
Massachusetts 47 16 53 38 48 18 49 20
Illinois 45 13 45 22 49 19 48 18
Washington 45 14 47 22 48 18 48 18
Connecticut 47 15 55 38 49 17 49 19
Rhode Island 47 14 54 40 48 18 49 20
Virginia 44 11 44 13 49 19 48 18
Delaware 42 10 53 38 50 21 49 21
Georgia 42 9 39 9 47 16 46 15
New Mexico 44 8 45 18 50 23 49 21
Oregon 44 9 48 24 49 20 49 19
Colorado 44 12 47 21 47 17 47 16
Alaska 47 15 41 11 46 12 45 13
Nebraska 40 6 49 32 48 19 47 18
Suggested Citation:"9 State and Local Fiscal Effects of Immigration." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23550.
×
Idaho 43 11 43 17 49 21 48 20
North Carolina 42 6 44 20 49 21 48 19
Utah 42 7 43 15 45 16 44 15
Michigan 46 17 55 39 49 19 49 20
Minnesota 42 11 52 34 48 18 48 18
Kansas 43 10 47 26 48 21 48 20
Pennsylvania 44 13 58 45 49 20 49 21
Iowa 41 6 51 36 48 18 48 18
New Hampshire 46 13 57 42 48 17 49 18
Wisconsin 44 10 57 41 49 19 49 20
Tennessee 40 8 46 18 49 20 48 19
Arkansas 39 8 42 14 49 22 48 21
Kentucky 41 9 44 18 48 19 48 18
South Carolina 43 10 49 20 49 20 49 20
Oklahoma 42 7 40 15 48 20 48 19
Vermont 50 22 56 35 49 18 49 20
Indiana 43 10 47 24 49 20 49 20
Ohio 44 16 54 32 49 20 49 20
Louisiana 45 13 44 14 48 19 48 19
Missouri 44 12 52 32 48 19 48 20
South Dakota 41 8 59 49 48 18 48 19
Alabama 42 9 48 19 49 19 48 19
Maine 47 16 59 44 49 19 50 21
North Dakota 41 7 62 58 46 15 47 17
Wyoming 43 11 54 35 47 16 47 17
Montana 45 15 61 52 49 22 49 23
Mississippi 43 9 44 14 49 20 49 20
West Virginia 48 17 52 31 50 19 50 19
Suggested Citation:"9 State and Local Fiscal Effects of Immigration." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23550.
×
State Immigrant Generation
First Second Third+ All
Avg. Age % 65+ Avg. Age % 65+ Avg. Age % 65+ Avg. Age % 65+
Top 15 States by % in First Generation 47 15 45 21 48 19 48 18
United States 46 14 47 23 48 19 48 19

NOTES: See text for definitions of independent person and immigrant generation. States are listed from highest to lowest percentage of first generation independent persons in the state’s population of independent persons (see Table 9-2).

SOURCE: Panel tabulations of the Current Population Survey Annual Social and Economic Supplement for 2011-2013.

Suggested Citation:"9 State and Local Fiscal Effects of Immigration." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23550.
×

In our data for 2011-2013, nationwide, first generation independent persons have an average of 0.52 children per unit, second generation persons have an average of 0.33 children per unit, and third-plus generation persons have an average of 0.36 children per unit (see Table 9-15 in the Technical Annex to this chapter). For most states, independent individuals in the second generation have fewer children than those in the first and third-plus generations, although the second and third-plus generations are quite similar (independent persons of the second generation in California have more children on average than do those in the third-plus generation). Among the seven states with the largest percentages of first generation independent persons, the average number of children per first generation independent person unit ranges from 0.39 in Florida to 0.64 in Texas, while the range per second generation independent person unit is from 0.24 in New Jersey to 0.47 in Texas. The range per third-plus generation independent person unit is from 0.31 in Florida to 0.38 in Texas. For the next seven states and District of Columbia that have between 15 and 20 percent of their independent persons in the first generation, the variation is even greater, with the District of Columbia having the lowest average number of children in each generation. States with smaller shares of immigrants also show wide variation in their average number of children per independent person, with Vermont averaging 0.29 children while Utah averages 0.53 children.

Income and Education

Income levels affect taxes paid and benefits received for independent persons and their children (see Table 9-16 in the Technical Annex to this chapter). Nationwide, average adjusted gross income (AGI) is lowest among first generation independent person units at about $29,450 per unit, considerably higher among second generation independent person units at $34,900 per unit, and higher still among third-plus generation units at $35,900 per unit. Among the seven states with the highest percentages of first generation independent person units, average AGI for the first generation varies from $26,100 per unit in Texas to $35,700 per unit in New Jersey. Average AGI for the second generation in these seven states varies from $28,250 per unit in Nevada to $37,900 per unit in New Jersey. For third-plus generation independent person units, New Jersey again has the highest average income of $47,250, in contrast to the lowest average income for third-plus generation independent person units of $33,800 in

___________________

all persons ages 18 and older. Alcoholic beverage sales taxes, which are part of selective sales taxes, and liquor store revenues, which are part of other revenues, are allocated to all persons ages 21 and up.

Suggested Citation:"9 State and Local Fiscal Effects of Immigration." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23550.
×

Florida. Among states with over one-quarter of their independent persons in the first or second generation (or at least 15 percent of independent individuals in the first generation), Arizona has the lowest average income for first generation independent person units ($25,100).

Income levels relate to education levels, and education levels differ significantly across generations. A larger percentage of first generation independent persons have not received a high school degree (28%) than is the case for the second and third-plus generations (10% and 9%, respectively). However, the percentage of first generation immigrants with advanced degrees beyond a bachelor’s degree is comparable to that of the other two generations (all between 10% and 12%; Table 9-17 in the Technical Annex to this chapter presents the state-by-state figures). The percentage with at least a bachelor’s degree is likewise comparable between the first and third-plus generations (28% and 29%, respectively). However, these statewide averages in part mask differences in higher education both across and within states. For example, in California, 8 percent of first generation independent persons have more than a bachelor’s degree, compared with 10 percent for second generation and 12 percent for third-plus generation independent persons. The District of Columbia has the highest share of individuals with more than a bachelor’s degree (29%), but 45 percent of second generation independent persons have more than a bachelor’s degree compared to 27 and 28 percent, respectively, of first and third-plus generation individuals. Part of the difference comes about because many of the states with small immigrant populations also have lower numbers of residents with more than a bachelor’s degree.

9.4 FISCAL VARIATION AMONG STATES, 2011-2013

We next look at state and local government revenues and expenditures by state and immigrant generation. States must generally balance their budgets year by year, but they vary greatly in the types and amounts of taxes they levy and the level of services they provide. Given the large differences in population size among states, it is important when examining state and local government fiscal data to convert the information to an appropriate population base. While we have calculated revenues, expenditures, and net fiscal effects for all states, the discussion below focuses on the 14 states and the District of Columbia with at least one-quarter of independent persons in the first or second generation (these states and the District of Columbia also have the 15 highest percentages of first generation individuals). Calculations are available, and presented in the tables, for all states, but caution must be exercised when examining differences for other states, especially those near the bottom of the tables, due to limited sample sizes. We also round all dollar amounts to the nearest $50 to emphasize that the basis for

Suggested Citation:"9 State and Local Fiscal Effects of Immigration." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23550.
×

our estimates is a relatively small sample. In the remainder of the chapter, we present estimates of revenues, expenditures, and net fiscal effects on a per-independent person unit basis (where dependent children and their revenues and expenditures are assigned to their parents).

State and Local Government Revenues

While most state governments rely on general sales and income taxes and local governments rely primarily on property taxes, the composition of state and local revenues varies substantially. Nine states (including Florida, Nevada, Texas, and Washington) do not levy a broad-based personal income tax, and five states do not levy a general sales tax.

Table 9-4 provides population-based revenue estimates by state for all independent person units and those in each generation with per-unit amounts derived using the allocation process described in Table 9-11 in the Technical Annex to this chapter. For the United States as a whole, 2011-2013 annualized state and local government revenue averaged $14,700 per independent person unit. This amount masks considerable variation by state, particularly at the higher end. Thus, 17 states averaged between $11,650 and $12,950 per independent person unit; 13 states averaged between $13,000 and $14,500; 16 states averaged between $14,550 and $17,800; and five states exceeded $17,800 per independent person unit. The five jurisdictions with the highest average state and local government estimated revenue per independent person unit were Alaska ($36,400), the District of Columbia ($27,600), Wyoming ($24,150), New York ($22,400), and North Dakota ($20,300), while the five states with the lowest state and local government estimated revenue per independent person unit were Idaho ($11,650), Florida ($11,800), New Hampshire ($11,850), Georgia ($11,900), and Arizona ($11,900). If we limit our analysis to the 15 jurisdictions with the largest shares of first and second generation immigrants, the average revenue per independent person unit is $15,750 and varies from $11,800 in Florida to $27,600 in the District of Columbia.

By generation nationwide, state and local government revenue averaged about the same amount per first generation and third-plus generation independent person unit: $14,350 and $14,700, respectively. Revenue was higher for the second generation, averaging $15,500 per second generation independent person unit. However, these national similarities among generations mask large differences across states among generations. For the 15 jurisdictions with the largest shares of first and second generation immigrants, the average revenue for an independent person unit in the third-plus generation exceeds that of a unit in the first generation by $1,450 ($16,100 versus $14,650) and is only slightly lower than that of a unit in the second generation ($16,200).

Suggested Citation:"9 State and Local Fiscal Effects of Immigration." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23550.
×

TABLE 9-4 State and Local Revenues per Independent Person Unit (rounded to nearest $50), by Immigrant Generation by State, 2011-2013

State Immigrant Generation All Difference: First less Third+
First Second Third+
California $15,600 $18,450 $19,150 $17,800 −$3,550
New Jersey 14,350 15,050 16,700 15,850 −2,350
New York 20,200 22,200 23,450 22,400 −3,250
Nevada 11,500 12,350 13,100 12,650 −1,600
Florida 11,050 11,550 12,050 11,800 −1,000
Texas 11,950 12,950 12,850 12,650 −900
Hawaii 14,200 14,850 16,400 15,700 −2,200
Maryland 13,900 13,850 14,350 14,250 −500
Arizona 11,000 12,000 12,150 11,900 −1,150
District of Columbia 24,700 28,400 28,200 27,600 −3,500
Massachusetts 14,900 15,300 16,600 16,150 −1,700
Illinois 12,450 13,850 14,750 14,300 −2,250
Washington 14,650 14,900 15,250 15,100 −600
Connecticut 14,800 15,900 17,050 16,550 −2,250
Rhode Island 14,300 13,950 15,900 15,350 −1,600
Virginia 12,500 13,500 12,800 12,800 −300
Delaware 16,050 15,300 16,150 16,100 −100
Georgia 10,850 12,200 12,050 11,900 −1,200
New Mexico 17,450 15,400 14,850 15,200 2,600
Oregon 16,050 15,500 15,150 15,250 950
Colorado 12,950 14,200 14,250 14,100 −1,250
Alaska 37,250 38,700 36,100 36,400 1,150
Nebraska 15,700 15,550 16,400 16,300 −700
Idaho 10,400 11,600 11,800 11,650 −1,400
North Carolina 12,800 13,500 13,250 13,200 −450
Utah 13,650 13,650 13,900 13,850 −250
Michigan 12,300 12,450 13,250 13,100 −950
Minnesota 14,550 14,400 16,150 15,900 −1,600
Kansas 13,750 13,200 13,800 13,750 0
Pennsylvania 14,050 12,050 13,550 13,500 500
Iowa 15,750 15,000 15,150 15,200 600
New Hampshire 11,500 11,600 11,900 11,850 −400
Wisconsin 13,850 13,450 14,550 14,450 −700
Tennessee 12,000 11,750 12,250 12,250 −250
Arkansas 11,950 12,800 12,200 12,200 −300
Kentucky 12,200 13,750 12,050 12,100 150
South Carolina 13,150 14,550 12,900 12,950 300
Oklahoma 12,100 14,300 12,800 12,850 −700
Vermont 15,650 14,950 15,650 15,550 0
Indiana 12,400 12,350 12,250 12,250 150
Suggested Citation:"9 State and Local Fiscal Effects of Immigration." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23550.
×
State Immigrant Generation All Difference: First less Third+
First Second Third+
Ohio 13,450 14,450 14,850 14,750 −1,350
Louisiana 12,950 14,450 14,650 14,550 −1,650
Missouri 12,150 12,800 12,500 12,500 −350
South Dakota 12,900 10,550 13,500 13,350 −600
Alabama 12,650 12,200 12,500 12,500 150
Maine 12,750 12,050 12,700 12,650 50
North Dakota 20,700 17,050 20,450 20,300 250
Wyoming 24,100 21,950 24,250 24,150 −150
Montana 15,000 10,700 13,450 13,350 1,550
Mississippi 14,450 15,050 14,350 14,400 100
West Virginia 16,100 13,350 12,950 13,000 3,100
Top 15 States by % in First Generation 14,650 16,200 16,100 15,750 −1,450
United States 14,350 15,500 14,700 14,700 −350

NOTES: See text for construction of revenues by state and generation. Because the difference between first and third-plus generation revenue amounts is taken from the unrounded estimates and then rounded to the nearest $50, the value may differ from the first generation column less the third-plus due to rounding in some cases. States are listed from highest to lowest percentage of first generation independent persons in the state’s population of independent persons (see Table 9-2). Caution should be taken when examining the state-level estimates, especially those near the bottom of the table, because of small first (and second) generation populations for many states.

SOURCE: Panel estimates implemented on the Current Population Survey Annual Social and Economic Supplement for 2011-2013.

State and Local Government Expenditures

Spending varies across states, with some states raising and spending more money than others. Note that, due to balanced budget rules, the states that raised more revenues almost always spent more funds. Table 9-5 provides population-based expenditure estimates by state for all independent person units and by generation with per-unit amounts derived using the allocation process documented in Table 9-12 in the Technical Annex to this chapter. For the United States as a whole, 2011-2013 annualized state and local government expenditures averaged $13,850 per independent person unit, or about $900 less than was raised in revenue. Sixteen states had average expenditures between $10,450 and $11,950 per independent unit; 17 states were between $12,000 and $14,000; 13 states were between

Suggested Citation:"9 State and Local Fiscal Effects of Immigration." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23550.
×

$14,050 and $16,700; and five states exceeded $16,700 of expenditures per independent unit. The five states with the highest average state and local government expenditures per independent unit were Alaska ($29,950), California ($16,750); the District of Columbia ($28,500), New York ($20,700); and Wyoming ($20,750); the lowest were Arizona ($10,900); Arkansas ($10,900), Florida ($10,850), Idaho ($10,450, and Indiana ($11,250). If the analysis is limited to the 15 states with the largest state share in the first generation, the average spending per independent person unit is $14,950 (which is higher than the national average) and ranges from $10,850 in Florida to $28,500 in the District of Columbia: the same two lowest and highest jurisdictions among these 15 for average revenue per independent person unit.

TABLE 9-5 State and Local Expenditures per Independent Person Unit (rounded to nearest $50), by Immigrant Generation by State, 2011-2013

State Immigrant Generation All Difference: First less Third+
First Second Third+
California $17,650 $16,900 $16,050 $16,750 $1,600
New Jersey 16,200 12,750 16,000 15,650 200
New York 21,700 17,800 20,850 20,700 800
Nevada 12,800 11,350 11,150 11,550 1,650
Florida 11,450 10,350 10,700 10,850 700
Texas 14,000 13,350 11,450 12,200 2,500
Hawaii 14,900 13,600 14,700 14,600 200
Maryland 13,950 11,800 13,800 13,700 150
Arizona 12,350 11,750 10,400 10,900 1,950
District of Columbia 27,500 21,300 29,500 28,500 −2,000
Massachusetts 17,150 13,000 16,150 15,950 1,050
Illinois 15,150 13,250 13,750 13,950 1,400
Washington 17,750 14,300 14,500 15,000 3,250
Connecticut 15,400 12,300 15,750 15,300 −350
Rhode Island 15,800 11,800 14,300 14,200 1,500
Virginia 13,050 12,200 11,950 12,150 1,100
Delaware 16,550 13,250 15,450 15,450 1,150
Georgia 12,100 11,550 11,200 11,300 850
New Mexico 19,950 15,150 13,850 14,650 6,150
Oregon 17,950 13,250 13,450 13,950 4,500
Colorado 15,950 13,150 13,300 13,600 2,600
Alaska 33,300 32,950 29,250 29,950 4,050
Nebraska 17,900 14,100 14,500 14,850 3,400
Idaho 11,450 11,000 10,300 10,450 1,150
North Carolina 13,450 11,750 11,750 11,900 1,700
Suggested Citation:"9 State and Local Fiscal Effects of Immigration." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23550.
×
State Immigrant Generation All Difference: First less Third+
First Second Third+
Utah 15,550 14,100 13,400 13,650 2,200
Michigan 12,600 9,900 12,450 12,300 150
Minnesota 19,650 11,100 13,950 14,300 5,650
Kansas 16,200 12,050 12,600 12,900 3,600
Pennsylvania 15,300 10,300 13,300 13,250 2,000
Iowa 16,800 12,450 13,600 13,750 3,200
New Hampshire 12,050 9,850 11,350 11,300 700
Wisconsin 17,550 11,900 13,000 13,200 4,550
Tennessee 12,700 10,500 11,500 11,550 1,150
Arkansas 13,150 11,150 10,750 10,900 2,350
Kentucky 13,150 11,300 11,950 12,000 1,200
South Carolina 13,000 12,100 12,300 12,350 700
Oklahoma 11,900 12,350 11,350 11,400 600
Vermont 15,400 11,550 14,600 14,400 800
Indiana 12,250 10,600 11,200 11,250 1,050
Ohio 13,000 10,750 13,350 13,200 −300
Louisiana 13,400 15,550 14,850 14,800 −1,500
Missouri 12,350 10,550 11,300 11,350 1,050
South Dakota 13,450 9,050 11,650 11,600 1,800
Alabama 13,700 9,650 11,900 11,950 1,800
Maine 13,100 9,600 11,950 11,800 1,150
North Dakota 17,500 11,500 15,050 14,950 2,450
Wyoming 22,800 18,400 20,800 20,750 2,000
Montana 13,100 9,500 12,550 12,350 600
Mississippi 13,150 12,400 13,000 13,000 150
West Virginia 15,550 9,500 11,450 11,450 4,100
Top 15 States by % in First Generation 16,350 14,600 14,450 14,950 1,950
United States 15,950 13,800 13,400 13,850 2,550

NOTE: See text for construction of expenditures by state and generation. Because the difference between first and third-plus generation expenditure amounts is taken from the unrounded estimates and then rounded to the nearest $50, the value may differ from the first generation column less the third-plus due to rounding in some cases. States are listed from highest to lowest percentage of first generation independent persons in the state’s population of independent persons (see Table 9-2). Caution should be exercised when examining the state-level estimates, especially those near the bottom of the table, because of small first (and second) generation populations for many states.

SOURCE: Panel estimates implemented Current Population Survey Annual Social and Economic Supplement for 2011-2013.

Suggested Citation:"9 State and Local Fiscal Effects of Immigration." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23550.
×

By generation, for the United States as a whole, annualized state and local government expenditures for the 2011-2013 period were considerably higher for first generation independent person units ($15,950) than for second generation ($13,800) or third-plus generation ($13,400) independent person units. This was due to greater program participation (including public education). For the 15 states with the largest share of their independent population in the first generation, average expenditures for each immigrant generation were higher than the national averages by generation, but the gap between the generations was smaller (with average expenditures of $16,350 for the first generation versus $14,600 for the second and $14,450 for the third-plus generation).

9.5 AGGREGATE FISCAL EFFECTS BY STATE

Total state and local government revenues averaged $3.3 trillion per year in 2011-2013, while total state and local government expenditures averaged $3.17 trillion, nearly balancing out. In theory, when one looks across the amount of revenues contributed by each generation and the expenditures received by each generation, and if balanced budget rules held, the net total across generations in each state should be zero. In fact, because certain state and local funds run surpluses and deficits, no state actually has state and local revenues precisely equal to state and local expenditures. California, the state with the largest population and the largest number and percentage of first generation independent person immigrants, had the largest positive net difference in dollars between total average annual state and local revenue and expenditure flows in 2011-2013 ($22.9 billion) out of all 50 states and the District of Columbia. With spending exceeding revenues by $2.4 billion, Pennsylvania had the largest negative net difference in dollars. The District of Columbia had the largest negative net difference as a percentage of state and local revenues (−6%), while North Dakota had the largest positive net difference (+23%).

We exclude the institutional portion of Medicaid spending ($72 billion) from our estimates due to missing this population in our data, which widens the gap between aggregate U.S. revenues and expenditures in 2011-2013. After we take out institutional Medicaid spending, all but two states have positive budget balances (compared with seven negative-balance states when all expenditure flows are included).

Nationwide, the fact that the state and local government revenues we allocated exceeded expenditures by $197 billion, after excluding institutional Medicaid spending, means that an average net difference of $900 was assigned per independent person unit. By state, average net differences resulting from fiscal imbalances that were assigned at the unit level varied from -$850 in the District of Columbia to $6,450 in Alaska (see the “All”

Suggested Citation:"9 State and Local Fiscal Effects of Immigration." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23550.
×

column of Table 9-6). With net differences in revenues and expenditures ranging from positive to negative across states, when comparing net differences per independent person unit for different immigrant generations, it can be difficult to disentangle how much variation is from across-generation cost differences versus net cost differences among states.

Our analysis is for a specific time period for which state fiscal balances may not be typical. For example, the difference between state and local total revenues and total expenditures was positive in 2011 ($281 billion, or $353 billion after excluding Medicaid institutional spending). In 2012, this

TABLE 9-6 Net Difference between State and Local Revenues and Expenditures per Independent Person Unit (rounded to nearest $50), by Immigrant Generation by State, 2011-2013

State Immigrant Generation All Difference: First less Third+
First Second Third+
California −$2,050 $1,550 $3,100 $1,050 −$5,150
New Jersey −1,850 2,300 700 200 −2,550
New York −1,500 4,400 2,600 1,700 −4,050
Nevada −1,300 1,000 1,950 1,050 −3,250
Florida −350 1,200 1,350 950 −1,700
Texas −2,050 −400 1,400 450 −3,450
Hawaii −700 1,250 1,700 1,150 −2,400
Maryland −100 2,050 550 550 −650
Arizona −1,350 250 1,750 1,000 −3,100
District of Columbia −2,800 7,100 −1,300 −850 −1,500
Massachusetts −2,250 2,300 500 250 −2,750
Illinois −2,700 550 1,000 350 −3,650
Washington −3,050 600 750 100 −3,850
Connecticut −600 3,550 1,300 1,250 −1,900
Rhode Island −1,500 2,100 1,600 1,150 −3,100
Virginia −600 1,300 800 650 −1,400
Delaware −500 2,050 750 650 −1,250
Georgia −1,250 650 800 550 −2,050
New Mexico −2,550 250 1,000 550 −3,550
Oregon −1,900 2,250 1,650 1,300 −3,550
Colorado −2,950 1,050 900 500 −3,850
Alaska 3,950 5,800 6,850 6,450 −2,900
Nebraska −2,200 1,500 1,900 1,450 −4,100
Idaho −1,050 600 1,500 1,200 −2,550
North Carolina −650 1,700 1,500 1,300 −2,150
Utah −1,950 −450 500 250 −2,450
Michigan −250 2,550 800 800 −1,050
Suggested Citation:"9 State and Local Fiscal Effects of Immigration." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23550.
×
State Immigrant Generation All Difference: First less Third+
First Second Third+
Minnesota −5,100 3,250 2,200 1,600 −7,250
Kansas −2,450 1,150 1,150 850 −3,600
Pennsylvania −1,250 1,750 250 250 −1,500
Iowa −1,000 2,550 1,550 1,450 −2,600
New Hampshire −550 1,750 550 600 −1,100
Wisconsin −3,650 1,550 1,550 1,250 −5,250
Tennessee −700 1,250 750 700 −1,450
Arkansas −1,200 1,650 1,450 1,300 −2,650
Kentucky −950 2,400 100 100 −1,050
South Carolina 150 2,400 550 600 −450
Oklahoma 200 1,950 1,500 1,450 −1,300
Vermont 250 3,400 1,000 1,150 −750
Indiana 150 1,750 1,050 1,050 −900
Ohio 450 3,650 1,500 1,550 −1,050
Louisiana −400 −1,100 −250 −250 −200
Missouri −150 2,250 1,200 1,200 −1,400
South Dakota −550 1,500 1,850 1,750 −2,400
Alabama −1,100 2,500 550 550 −1,650
Maine −350 2,450 750 850 −1,100
North Dakota 3,250 5,500 5,400 5,350 −2,200
Wyoming 1,300 3,550 3,450 3,400 −2,150
Montana 1,850 1,250 950 950 950
Mississippi 1,300 2,600 1,350 1,400 −50
West Virginia 550 3,850 1,500 1,550 −950
Top 15 States by % in First Generation −1,700 1,650 1,650 800 −3,400
United States −1,600 1,700 1,300 900 −2,900

NOTES: See text for construction of revenues and expenditures by state and generation. Because the difference between first and third-plus generation net difference (revenue less expenditure) amounts is taken from the unrounded estimates and then rounded to the nearest $50, the value may differ from the first generation column less the third-plus due to rounding in some cases. Similarly, because differences between revenues and expenditures are calculated on unrounded numbers and then the difference is rounded, these values may differ from calculated differences between Tables 9-4 and 9-5. States are listed from highest to lowest percentage of first generation independent persons in the state’s population of independent persons (see Table 9-2). Caution should be taken when examining the state-level estimates, especially those near the bottom of the table, because of small first (and second) generation populations for many states.

SOURCE: Panel estimates implemented on the Current Population Survey Annual Social and Economic Supplement for 2011-2013.

Suggested Citation:"9 State and Local Fiscal Effects of Immigration." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23550.
×

switched to a negative difference, largely due to a very significant decline in insurance trust revenue (government employee retirement revenue fell from $554.3 billion to $169.9 billion) between the 2 years, reflecting changes due to delayed payments during the recession. In 2013, the net fiscal state balance became positive again. To smooth out these cycles, we averaged revenues and expenditures for 2011-2013. If 2011 rather than 2011-2013 state and local revenue and expenditure amounts were assigned to our sample, the average net difference per independent person unit would become even more positive, going from $900 to approximately $1,600 per independent person unit. If, instead, we had used 2012 amounts, the individual unit average net difference would turn negative (−$200). If we had eliminated all insurance trust contributions and payments along with excluding the institutional portion of Medicaid spending, averaged over the 2011-2013 period, 11 states would be estimated to have higher expenditures than revenues, while, on average per independent person unit, there would be $200 more in revenues raised than spent in the country as a whole.

9.6 NET EFFECTS OF IMMIGRATION ON STATE AND LOCAL BUDGETS

Estimated Differences in Net Fiscal Effects per Independent Person Unit by Generation

Table 9-6 shows the estimated net differences between state and local revenues and expenditures, by generation per independent person unit. Our estimates are derived using the replicate weights in the 2011-2013 CPS ASEC, whereby calculations of net differences are run many times in order to estimate an appropriate standard error and coefficient of variation, or CV (the standard error as a percentage of the estimate). We used replicate weights and show CVs in this part of the analysis (see Table 9-18 in the Technical Annex to this chapter) because we have reached the primary question of interest: How much do first and second generation units cost their states and localities? Also, the net differences are the result of balancing revenue and expenditure assignments, thereby magnifying the errors in each.15

As seen in Table 9-6, for the United States as a whole, first generation independent person units (which include first and second generation children assigned to independent first generation persons) cost the states on net about $1,600 each. In contrast, second generation independent

___________________

15 Not only does the CPS ASEC have sampling error, which is large for many states even pooled over 3 years, but also both the CPS ASEC and the COG have other sources of error, such as response error, imputation error, and the like.

Suggested Citation:"9 State and Local Fiscal Effects of Immigration." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23550.
×

person units (which include second and third generation children assigned to independent second generation persons) contribute on net to state and local budgets about $1,700 each, and third-plus generation independent person units (which include their children) contribute on net to state and local budgets about $1,300 each.16 These estimates of the fiscal impact imply that the total annual aggregate impact of the first generation and their dependents, averaged across 2011-2013, is a cost of $57.4 billion, while the second and third-plus generation individuals (and their children) create benefits of $30.5 billion and $223.8 billion, respectively. Note that the surplus revenues raised amount to $197 billion, which equals the surplus across all 50 states.17This overall pattern is largely driven by the larger education costs for first generation independent person units, which include more children on average than units of the other two generations. By the second generation, immigrants are a net win for the states as a whole, given that they have fewer children on average than first generation units and are contributing in revenues more than they cost in expenditures.18 State by state, however, there are wide variations in net gains or losses, although the panel is unable to make claims as precisely as we would like for many of our state and local estimates because of the large sampling errors.

The demographic differences between the first, second, and third-plus generation independent person units serve as the drivers of the differences

___________________

16 The finding here, that the first generation generates higher net fiscal costs at the state and local level, is consistent with that from the parallel analysis in Chapter 8 (Table 8-1). The numbers for the second and third-plus generations here and for the second and third-plus generation in Chapter 8 do not map exactly, due to slight methodological differences. The Chapter 8 analysis is for 2013, while the analysis here averages over the 2011-2013 period. More importantly, the two analyses treat grant-in-aid spending from the federal government (which pays for programs like Medicaid and some welfare programs) differently. Chapter 9 includes these revenue transfers to states in state revenues (with the exception of the institutional portion of Medicaid spending), while Chapter 8 does not. Also, in Chapter 8, the funding raised by the federal government to pay for the grants-in-aid is treated as either federal taxes or federal deficit spending, which leads to both lower spending and lower revenue estimates at the state and local level. Finally, in the Chapter 8 analysis, there is no balanced budget assumption—the aggregates are as reported in the National Income and Product Accounts. If grants-in-aid are taken off both sides of the state/local ledger, the net fiscal balance becomes more negative.

17 The $197 billion aggregate surplus here is calculated by totaling the unrounded estimates of net fiscal effects by state multiplied by the average number of independent persons in each year (see Table 9-13 in the Technical Annex to this chapter); this will differ somewhat from the total if the rounded estimates in Table 9-6 are used instead.

18 These results are driven by the fact that the costs of dependents are assigned to their parents. If, instead, taxes paid and services received were assessed at the individual level, with dependent children considered in their own right, the relative costs would shift across groups. Because half of all second generation individuals are dependents, allocating all costs and benefits to each person (rather than wrapping up dependent children to independents) would cause the average net fiscal cost for first generation individuals to decline and reverse sign in many states, while the costs for second generation individuals would increase.

Suggested Citation:"9 State and Local Fiscal Effects of Immigration." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23550.
×

in revenue and expenditure flows across them. First generation independent person units generate higher costs due to the presence of more dependent children, on average, in those units. Much of this comes from the assignment of K-12 education spending, which accounts for 16 percent of all state and local spending. If we remove all K-12 education expenditures from our estimates, rather than assigning school spending to the students themselves (which in most cases means wrapping it up to the independent parents/individuals who support them), the spending difference between the first and third-plus generations decreases from $2,900 to $1,950, a 32 percent decrease.

Beyond education spending, the 45 percent of spending flows that are classified as “other” (hospitals, health, veterans’ services, etc.—see Table 9-12 in the Technical Annex to this chapter) is allocated to all people, both dependent and independent, evenly. Thus, first generation independent individuals on average have higher total expenditure amounts from these flows allocated to all because they have more flows wrapped up from more dependent children. However, if a portion of these spending costs were treated as fixed expenditure flows, irrespective of population numbers (analogous to the treatment of national defense in some scenarios in Chapter 8), the addition of first generation independent person units to the population base would reduce these average costs for the second and third-plus generation units; the dollar amounts would be spread across a larger population (which is what we did in our baseline estimates), but the marginal cost to the state would not change. Additionally, although it is not evident in cross-sectional estimates, the majority of the dependent children of first generation immigrants who are second generation and whose costs are assigned to their parents will go on to become net contributors once they reach working ages.

Although per unit spending on the second generation independent person units is slightly more than it is on the third-plus generation units, the per unit net difference between revenues and expenditures is the most positive for second generation independent person units. With a positive net difference of $1,700, second generation independent person units contribute $400 more on average than third-plus generation units. This corroborates findings reported in Chapter 8. However, this is largely due to the distribution of second generation independent person units across states, rather than the relative contribution of second versus third-plus generation units within a state. The third-plus generation independent person units contribute less in taxes and other revenue flows on average than the second generation, despite having the highest average income of all three generations. Looking at specific tax flows, the second generation units contribute the most in both state income tax and general sales tax on average, followed by the third-plus generation units and then the first

Suggested Citation:"9 State and Local Fiscal Effects of Immigration." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23550.
×

generation independent person units, reflecting the lower average AGI of first generation independent persons in the sample. However, this is driven by differences in tax structures in place across different states, rather than differences in the characteristics of the independent person units.

Note that the average U.S. spending and revenues raised per independent person unit hide differences across states. Thus, because many of the states with small numbers of first generation independent person units also have lower spending and taxes, the spending per third-plus generation independent person unit is lower for these states than for the states where immigrants often settle. Focusing on the 14 states and the District of Columbia with the highest share of first generation independent person units, one can see differences across generations as well. Moreover, as noted above, these differences can vary from year to year depending on whether a state is running a surplus or deficit. While first generation independent person units have more spent on them than revenues contributed in these 15 jurisdictions, this amount varies from a net cost of $100 in Maryland to a net cost of $3,050 in Washington State. For the second generation independent person units, while on average across states more revenues are raised than money spent on them, the differences vary from a net cost of about $400 per second generation independent person unit in Texas to a net contribution of $7,100 per such unit to the District of Columbia’s budget. Similarly, whether an average third-plus generation independent person unit costs or contributes to a state (and local) budget varies from a net cost of $1,300 in the District of Columbia to a net contribution of $3,100 in California. These differences are largely driven both by different demographic and economic characteristics of individuals and by fiscal choices made by state and local governments.

Estimated Differences in Net Fiscal Effects at the Household Level

If, instead of independent person units, one were to use self-identified households, very similar patterns result across generations (as defined by the generation of the designated head of household), albeit the estimates are often about double the estimates for independent person units. That is, one finds that first generation households in general have higher state and local net costs or smaller contributions than do the second or third-plus generation households (see Table 9-7). Again, this pattern varies across states, with second generation households often, but not always, contributing more to a state and local surplus than either first or third-plus generation households. The estimated amounts are higher because, typically, average household size includes more than one independent person. Differences in household size and composition will affect the relative size of net contribution or burden. Table 9-19 in the Technical Annex to this chapter presents

Suggested Citation:"9 State and Local Fiscal Effects of Immigration." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23550.
×

TABLE 9-7 Net Difference between State and Local Revenues and Expenditures per Household Unit (rounded to nearest $50), by Immigrant Generation by State, 2011-2013

State Immigrant Generation (household units) All
First Second Third+
California −$4,400 $2,500 $5,750 $2,150
New Jersey −4,400 4,200 1,500 400
New York −2,750 7,600 4,600 3,100
Nevada −2,500 1,700 3,400 1,950
Florida −800 1,950 2,400 1,700
Texas −4,550 −300 2,500 900
Hawaii −2,300 3,150 3,600 2,400
Maryland −450 4,600 1,000 1,000
Arizona −2,800 −150 3,250 1,800
District of Columbia −5,650 11,100 −1,950 −1,400
Massachusetts −4,200 4,400 750 450
Illinois −5,350 750 1,650 600
Washington −6,600 800 1,450 200
Connecticut −1,050 5,200 2,550 2,300
Rhode Island −3,050 3,950 2,850 2,100
Virginia −1,650 3,900 1,400 1,200
Delaware −700 2,600 1,350 1,200
Georgia −2,450 300 1,450 1,000
New Mexico −5,050 −700 1,950 1,000
Oregon −3,900 4,500 3,000 2,400
Colorado −6,200 2,050 1,650 900
Alaska 7,350 10,300 12,300 11,700
Nebraska −4,450 2,750 3,300 2,600
Idaho −2,000 700 2,800 2,250
North Carolina −1,650 2,000 2,700 2,300
Utah −4,800 −1,150 1,050 450
Michigan −650 4,650 1,450 1,450
Minnesota −10,000 4,550 3,900 2,900
Kansas −5,050 2,200 2,000 1,550
Pennsylvania −2,150 2,950 450 450
Iowa −2,250 2,100 2,850 2,550
New Hampshire −1,000 2,050 1,150 1,100
Wisconsin −8,300 2,450 2,800 2,250
Tennessee −300 1,650 1,300 1,250
Arkansas −2,150 5,000 2,550 2,400
Kentucky −1,700 3,500 150 150
South Carolina −100 1,000 1,100 1,050
Oklahoma 500 3,150 2,650 2,550
Suggested Citation:"9 State and Local Fiscal Effects of Immigration." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23550.
×
State Immigrant Generation (household units) All
First Second Third+
Vermont −850 5,000 1,950 2,100
Indiana 200 4,700 1,800 1,850
Ohio 850 6,600 2,600 2,750
Louisiana −850 1,250 −500 −450
Missouri 50 3,150 2,100 2,050
South Dakota −2,300 3,400 3,200 3,050
Alabama −1,300 5,450 1,000 1,000
Maine −500 3,400 1,400 1,500
North Dakota 4,900 8,500 9,350 9,200
Wyoming 3,700 6,450 6,000 5,950
Montana 1,950 2,100 1,650 1,650
Mississippi 2,350 8,000 2,400 2,500
West Virginia 2,700 7,600 2,600 2,700
Top 15 States by % in First Generation −3,600 2,850 3,050 1,550
United States −3,300 3,000 2,400 1,600

NOTE: See text for construction of revenues and expenditures by state and generation and for definitions of household immigrant generation. States are listed from highest to lowest percentage of first generation independent persons in the state’s population of independent persons (see Table 9-2). Caution should be taken when examining the state-level estimates, especially those near the bottom of the table, because of small first (and second) generation populations for many states.

SOURCE: Panel estimates implemented on the Current Population Survey Annual Social and Economic Supplement for 2011-2013.

information on average household size by generation (of head of household) by state. Table 9-20 in the Technical Annex to this chapter provides annualized weighted sample counts of first, second, and third-plus generation households by state in the pooled CPS ASEC 2011-2013 data.19

An advantage of using households as the unit of analysis is that assumptions do not have to be made about allocation of income, dependents, or receipt of social services among independent persons in the household—they can be assigned to the whole household. However, a single generation status must be assigned to the entire household, even for cases in which different independent persons within the household are of different genera-

___________________

19 As noted in Table 9-20, the full 2011-2013 household sample does not account for overlap among sample cases due to the rotation group design of the survey.

Suggested Citation:"9 State and Local Fiscal Effects of Immigration." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23550.
×

tions. Thus, for the estimates presented here, the panel assigned generation status at the household level using the generational status self-reported by the householder. For mixed cases, if the nonimmigrant is more likely to be the householder (say, because of more facility with English), then our estimates will be muddied. While not the standard procedure, which would use either all individuals, all households, or all families, presenting results according to independent person units (and assigning dependent children to their parents to form a unit) provides a cleaner comparison, as it avoids inconsistencies caused by differences in household size or composition.

Decomposing Cross-Generation Differences

To highlight the relationship between the demographic and economic differences across generations of independent person units and the variations in state and local revenues and expenditures across these generations, the panel examined how differences in characteristics like age structure and education levels of the first, second, and third-plus generations impact the average net contribution (or burden) of independent person units of each generation. Table 9-8 shows results from multiple regression analyses that follow closely those conducted in Chapter 8 and reported in Table 8-3, in which net fiscal impact at the state and local level is regressed on generation as defined by independent person units.20 The third-plus generation of independent person units is used as the reference category so that coefficients can be reported on indicators for the first and second generations. We present six models, with each subsequent model adding more control variables to account for cross-generational differences. For brevity, we only report the regression coefficients for immigrant generation, which represent, in dollars, the net fiscal impacts associated with being a first or second generation independent person unit, compared to third-plus generation independent person units.

In almost all cases, the regression coefficients for immigration generation are statistically significant, with first generation independent person units having a net fiscal cost relative to the third-plus generation, while the opposite is true for second generation independent person units. Note that, because time since arrival is not accounted for, the net fiscal burden

___________________

20 Some of the methodological differences between Chapter 8 and Chapter 9 in how net fiscal impact estimates at the state and local level are generated are detailed in footnote 16. In addition, the sample for the estimates and regression analyses here in Chapter 9 differs from the sample used in Chapter 8. The Chapter 8 regression analysis uses observations of independent individuals from a pooled CPS 1994-2013 sample that has adjusted population weights to represent the total residential population (including institutionalized residents). Chapter 9 uses observations of independent individuals from a pooled CPS 2011-2013 sample that is representative of the noninstitutionalized population.

Suggested Citation:"9 State and Local Fiscal Effects of Immigration." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23550.
×

TABLE 9-8 Regression Analysis of Net Fiscal Impact at the State and Local Level per Independent Person Unit, by Immigrant Generation, 2011-2013

OLS regression With state fixed effects
Model 1 − Controls: none; N = 416,284
1st generation (+ dependents) −2,913 *** −3,183 ***
2nd generation (+ dependents) 384 *** 150 *
3rd+ gen (+ dependents) ref. group
R2 0.009 0.012
Model 2 − Controls: age group, year, sex; N = 416,284
1st generation (+ dependents) −2,429 *** −2,682 ***
2nd generation (+ dependents) 762 *** 547 ***
3rd+ gen (+ dependents) ref. group
R2 0.056 0.059
Model 3 − Controls: age group, year, sex, education; N = 416,284
1st generation (+ dependents) −1,478 *** −1,591 ***
2nd generation (+ dependents) 422 *** 327 ***
3rd+ gen (+ dependents) ref. group
R2 0.128 0.132
Model 4 − Controls: age group, year, sex, education, race/ethnicity; N = 416,284
1st generation (+ dependents) −1,166 *** −1,190 ***
2nd generation (+ dependents) 565 *** 537 ***
3rd+ gen (+ dependents) ref. group
R2 0.135 0.140

of a first generation independent person unit is not the same as that for a new first-generation immigrant (as just 14% of our first generation sample arrived in the U.S. after 2006). On average, recently arrived first generation independent person units (since 2006) have small net fiscal burdens relative to first generation units that have been in the United States longer because the new first generation immigrants heading the unit tend to be younger, have more education, and have fewer dependent children.

Following the same order as in Chapter 8, we add control variables that typically explain (statistically account for) demographic and economic differences; an additional model directly controls for income so that the importance of that factor can be discussed. Note that the order in which the control variables are added matters, so decreases in the difference from the comparison group (third-plus generation independent person units) with each additional variable can be seen as the additional marginal effect of including that variable. For example, the effects we find on age in part

Suggested Citation:"9 State and Local Fiscal Effects of Immigration." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23550.
×
Model 5 − Controls: age group, year, sex, education, race/ethnicity, number of dependents; N = 416,284
1st generation (+ dependents) −706 *** −660 ***
2nd generation (+ dependents) 258 *** 291 ***
3rd+ gen (+ dependents) ref. group
R2 0.407 0.412
Model 6 − Controls: age group, year, sex, education, race/ethnicity, number of dependents, income; N = 416,284
1st generation (+ dependents) −421 *** −243 ***
2nd generation (+ dependents) 19 *** 177 ***
3rd+ gen (+ dependents) ref. group
R2 0.553 0.559

NOTES: Each column presents coefficients and significance levels from a separate ordinary least squares (OLS) regression of net fiscal impact at the state and local level (dependent variable) on indicators for immigrant status (x variables) and indicators for the other characteristics listed. Coefficients are the marginal effects in terms of dollars per independent person unit that are associated with the given immigrant status, relative to third-plus generation independent person units. A positive number is an improvement or savings in net fiscal impact; a negative number is a reduction or deficit. Thus a coefficient on a “1st generation” independent person unit equal to +1,000 implies that, compared to a third-plus generation unit, a first generation unit has a more positive net fiscal impact by $1,000 at the state and local level. Age groups are measured in 5-year intervals. Asterisks denote statistical significance at the 1 percent (***), 5 percent (**), or 10 percent (*) level.

SOURCE: Panel estimates implemented on the Current Population Survey Annual Social and Economic Supplement for 2011-2013.

are related to the likelihood of having different numbers of dependents at different points in an independent person’s life cycle.

Model 1, which does not include any control variables, reports the difference in net fiscal impacts of the first and second generation independent person units relative to the third-plus generation units. Controlling for no other factors, a first generation independent person unit on average costs state and local governments $2,913 more than an additional third-plus generation independent person unit, while an additional second generation independent person unit contributes $384 more than an additional third-plus generation unit. If the regression analysis controls for average state spending and taxes by introducing state fixed effects, as is shown in the right-hand column of Table 9-8, first and second generation independent person units are on average about $200 more costly, compared to a third-plus generation independent person unit, than with no state fixed effects (middle column of Table 9-8, labeled “OLS Regression”). Table 9-8

Suggested Citation:"9 State and Local Fiscal Effects of Immigration." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23550.
×

includes regression model runs with and without state fixed effects, but the discussion below will focus on the coefficients for the model runs without the state fixed effects.

Model 2 adds a set of basic controls for age of the independent person, calendar year, and gender. As discussed in Section 9.3, the first generation independent individuals are on average the youngest of the three generations. With more independent persons concentrated in child-raising ages, the first generation units have, on average, more dependent children and consequently have higher state and local expenditures on education. Because we are limiting our estimates to a 3-year period that is at a similar point in the economic cycle, the year controls make little difference and the coefficients on calendar year are not significant in this model (although they do have small but statistically significant effects in later models).21 Similarly, the gender makeup of each generation does not affect the relative fiscal impact. While male independent person units appear to contribute more than females in this model, the difference in income between the two genders is driving this and there is no significant difference between men and women in our later model that controls for income.22 Thus, after controlling for age group (as well as year and gender), the fiscal impact of the first generation units (−$2,429) becomes less negative relative to the third-plus generation independent person units by about $500. The second generation units have the highest share of elderly independent persons in them (age 65 and older), relative to the units of the other two generations, leading to additional public costs. When this is controlled for under Model 2, the second generation’s fiscal impact (+$762) becomes more positive, relative to the third-plus generation by about $400.

Because the independent persons in the first generation units have less education on average than those in second and third-plus generation units, controlling for education (Model 3) shrinks the negative net fiscal impact for first generation independent person units to −$1,478 (a decrease of about 40 percent from the Model 2 net fiscal impact). Conversely, controlling for education lowers the positive net fiscal impact for second generation units due to the higher educational attainment of second generation independent persons compared to third-plus generation independent persons.

Model 4 incorporates controls for race and ethnicity in addition to the controls already included in Model 3. As noted in the discussion of the Chapter 8 regression analyses, race and ethnicity may proxy for differences

___________________

21 The coefficients on calendar years 2012 and 2013 (relative to the comparison group for calendar year 2011) in Model 2 are –34 and −72, respectively, and are not statistically significant.

22 The coefficient on male (relative to the female comparison group) in Model 2 is 1,689 and is statistically significant at the 1 percent level. However, when we introduce a control for income in our final model the coefficient on male is −36 and no longer statistically significant.

Suggested Citation:"9 State and Local Fiscal Effects of Immigration." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23550.
×

in treatment and opportunity, affecting earnings opportunities and possibly labor force participation. Under Model 4, the first-to-third-plus generation gap in net fiscal impact closes further (to just −$1,166) and the independent person units in the second generation show a small increase (going from +$422 to +$565) in their net fiscal impact relative to units in the third-plus generation.

Controlling for the number of dependent children (Model 5) has a dramatic effect on the relative costs of an average unit in the first and second generations, relative to an average third-plus generation unit. Because first generation independent person units have more dependent children on average compared with third-plus generation units (0.52 versus 0.36), they incur higher public education costs when education expenditures are assigned fully to school-aged children rather than a portion being considered a public good. Controlling for the number of dependents decreases the negative net fiscal impact of a unit in the first generation relative to third-plus generation units by close to $500 (going from −$1,166 to −$706). In contrast, due to having fewer dependent children as compared to third-plus generation independent individuals, the fiscal benefit of second generation units relative to third-plus generation independent person units declines by about half (to +$258), compared to the fiscal benefit before controlling for dependents (Model 4). The coefficient on number of dependents indicates that, for each additional dependent child, an independent person unit’s net fiscal impact is decreased by almost $9,750.23

Finally, Model 6 in Table 9-8 shows how the net impact changes when AGI is controlled for in the regression. With average incomes for first generation independent person units being the lowest of the three generations (see Table 9-16 in the Technical Annex to this chapter), they contribute less to state and local tax revenues and are more likely to receive government benefits. Adding income to the control variables already included in Model 5 further diminishes the difference in net fiscal impact between independent person units in the first and third-plus generations to just −$421, and the difference between independent person units in the second and third-plus generations is not statistically significant. The Model 6 coefficient on AGI indicates that for each additional $100 of income, a unit’s net fiscal impact is made more positive by about $11.24 Thus, after adding controls for age group, year, sex, education, race and ethnicity, number of dependents, and income, the average negative net fiscal impact of the first generation units relative to independent person units in the third-plus generation is

___________________

23 The coefficient on the number of dependents in Model 5 is −9,739 and is significant at the 1 percent level.

24 The coefficient on AGI in Model 6 is 0.107 and is statistically significant at the 1 percent level.

Suggested Citation:"9 State and Local Fiscal Effects of Immigration." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23550.
×

significantly diminished. Demographic and economic characteristics of first generation independent person units account for close to$2,500 of the original$2,931 gap relative to third-plus generation units. These characteristics also account for all of the positive contribution of second generation independent person units relative to the third-plus generation units.

When the regression analysis sample is limited to independent person units living in the 14 states and the District of Columbia in which at least one-quarter of all independent persons belong to the first or second generation, the results for the first generation are similar to those in the sample that includes all states. Demographic and economic characteristics of first generation independent person units in these jurisdictions account for close to $3,100 of their original $3,383 net fiscal cost relative to a unit in the third-plus generation. For second generation units in these jurisdictions, the initial difference in fiscal impact compared with third-plus generation independent person units is statistically insignificant, but after controlling for demographic and economic characteristics, a second generation unit would contribute $150 more than an average third-plus generation unit.

9.7 ALTERNATIVE TREATMENTS OF EDUCATION COSTS

As noted in Section 9.6, much of the differential expenditure burden for first generation independent person units comes from the cost of educating the dependent children in the unit. However, these children will grow up to be higher contributing second generation adults. In our baseline estimates, the panel assigned the cost of education to families that include children attending school. This means K-12 costs are assigned based on the presence of school-age children and public higher education payments are assigned to independent persons who are either attending, or have a dependent attending, an institution of higher education. This allocation ignores the future public benefit of education to those with and without children and the benefit to society of a better educated population. On average, K-12 spending per student is almost $9,000 in the United States as a whole but varies from $5,400 per pupil in Utah and $5,550 in Arizona to $26,950 in the District of Columbia.

To examine the possible public benefit spillovers, the panel re-ran the baseline estimates with various alternative assumptions about who receives the benefit (or would be responsible for the cost) of K-12 and public higher education. We first assigned half of the cost of K-12 education accruing to state and local governments to everyone within the state (including all independent and dependent persons) on a per capita basis. The remaining half was assigned to students as in the baseline scenario. This approach recognizes a level of public value to others of school spending. Table 9-9 shows how these differences in assigning education expenses affect estimates of

Suggested Citation:"9 State and Local Fiscal Effects of Immigration." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23550.
×

the relative costs for the United States as a whole and for specific states. Allocating half of K-12 expenses per capita in this manner, the net fiscal burden of first generation independent units declines by about $250 per independent unit (a change in net fiscal impact from −$1,600 to −$1,350). The costs borne by second generation independent person units increase by about $150 per unit, reflecting the lower number of dependents for second generation independent units overall; costs remain about the same for the third-plus generation units under this alternative scenario.

If we instead allocate half of the K-12 expenditures to just the independent persons, rather than to all persons, and the remaining half to students, the net fiscal impact of first generation units becomes −$1,250 and the second and third-plus generations have small increases in the costs they bear. This reduces the difference in net costs between first and third-plus generation independent person units from $2,900 to $2,500. Row 4 of Table 9-9 shows the results of assigning half of state and local spending on both K-12 and higher education to just the independent persons. Including higher education spending in this assignment approach has little effect on relative revenues and expenditures as reflected in the U.S. averages for independent person units in the first and third-plus generations.

The lower three panels of Table 9-9 illustrate, for specific states, how independent person units in the generations fare when education expenses are allocated differently. Most of the changes are small, but when we allocated half of the K-12 education benefits in California to independent persons, the net cost of first generation units declined by $300, with a similar decline in the net benefit from units in the second and third-plus generations. Interestingly, second generation Californian independent person units have increased fiscal contributions to the state under the scenario in which half of K-12 and higher education costs are attributed to all independent persons. This reflects higher-than-average usage of higher education by second generation Californians. Similarly, how educational expenses are allocated in New Jersey affects the relative costs and benefits between units in the first and second generations, with the relative benefits for third-plus generation units staying fairly constant.

9.8 MARGINAL VERSUS AVERAGE FIXED COSTS

The New Americans (National Research Council, 1997) included a theoretical discussion of the relative cost of a new immigrant family in terms of its marginal cost to governments. However, most of that report’s estimates of household level state and local finances were based on allocating revenues and expenditures across existing immigrant and nonimmigrant households on an average cost basis; the same was true for that report’s treatment of federal spending (with the exception of national defense).

Suggested Citation:"9 State and Local Fiscal Effects of Immigration." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23550.
×

TABLE 9-9 Net Difference between State and Local Revenues and Expenditures per Independent Person Unit with Alternative Assignment of Education Expenditures (rounded to nearest $50), by Immigrant Generation, 2011-2013

State Immigrant Generation
First Second Third+
All 51 States

Education expenditures to students

−$1,600 $1,700 $1,300

Half of K-12 expenditures to students, half to all as public good

−1,350 1,550 1,300

Half of K-12 expenditures to students, half to all independents as public good

−1,250 1,450 1,250

Half of K-12 and higher education expenditures to students, half to all independents as public good

−1,250 1,650 1,250
Top 15 States by % in First Generation

Education expenditures to students

−$1,700 $1,650 $1,650

Half of K-12 expenditures to students, half to all as public good

−1,500 1,450 1,600

Half of K-12 expenditures to students, half to all independents as public good

−1,400 1,400 1,550

Half of K-12 and higher education expenditures to students, half to all independents as public good

−1,400 1,600 1,550
California

Education expenditures to students

−$2,050 $1,550 $3,100

Half of K-12 expenditures to students, half to all as public good

−1,850 1,450 2,950

Half of K-12 expenditures to students, half to all independents as public good

1,750 1,400 2,900

Half of K-12 and higher education expenditures to students, half to all independents as public good

1,850 1,700 2,900
Florida

Education expenditures to students

−$350 $1,200 $1,350

Half of K-12 expenditures to students, half to all as public good

−300 1,150 1,300

Half of K-12 expenditures to students, half to all independents as public good

−250 1,100 1,300

Half of K-12 and higher education expenditures to students, half to all independents as public good

−200 1,250 1,250
New Jersey

Education expenditures to students

−$1,850 $2,300 $700

Half of K-12 expenditures to students, half to all as public good

−1,550 1,800 700

Half of K-12 expenditures to students, half to all independents as public good

−1,450 1,600 700
Suggested Citation:"9 State and Local Fiscal Effects of Immigration." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23550.
×
State Immigrant Generation
First Second Third+

Half of K-12 and higher education expenditures to students, half to all independents as public good

−1,550 1,750 700

NOTE: See text for construction of revenues and expenditures by state and generation.

SOURCE: Panel estimates implemented on the Current Population Survey Annual Social and Economic Supplement for 2011-2013.

The evidence on the public versus private nature of government-provided services is mixed. Whereas total public spending no doubt increases with the size of the population, some categories of spending are likely to be unaffected, at least for a small increase in immigrant population and in the short run.

For the analyses in this chapter, about half of all spending (and revenues) is allocated based on personal or family attributes. But for many spending categories such as public safety, hospitals, and libraries, the costs have been allocated across all persons (both independent and dependent). Similarly, some revenue sources—such as transfers from the federal government for roads and those from natural resource extraction, which would be the same even if there were more new immigrants—are allocated on a per capita basis. While the panel did not specify which particular expenditures are public goods, it is important to highlight that some of these fixed costs are not higher due to the presence of immigrants.25 The amounts of these fixed costs assigned to second and third-plus generation persons are lower than they otherwise would be due to the presence of more first generation arrivals as these costs become spread across a larger population. Not surprisingly, the implicit savings to nonimmigrants created by spreading fixed costs across a larger population varies with the population share in the first generation. For some communities, especially those facing declining populations, the influx of new immigrants can help lower their fixed costs. Indeed, for some costs, notably capital expenditures, bond repayments, and public pension obligations, the benefits of the government spending may have been received by earlier generations so having a larger population to pay off these debts benefits the existing population.

While not definitive, Table 9-10 highlights the difference in fiscal gaps that results from changing from an approach in which the fixed revenues

___________________

25 Fixed costs are the part of expenses that do not change with the addition of another individual.

Suggested Citation:"9 State and Local Fiscal Effects of Immigration." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23550.
×

and fixed costs for public goods are allocated to all individuals to a marginal allocation in which they are allocated only to second and third-plus generation independent persons and their dependents. When these fixed revenues and expenditures are assigned only to second and third-plus generation independents and their dependents on a per-person basis, instead of being assigned evenly to persons from all generations—thus assuming a marginal amount of zero to first generation independents and their dependents—the negative gap in net fiscal impact between first and third-plus generation independent person units decreases (in absolute terms) from −$2,900 to −$450 (Table 9-10). Thus, part of the higher fiscal costs for first generation independent units found in most of the analyses in this chapter are from these fixed costs. Under the assumption that first generation independent person units do not bear these costs, net positive fiscal impacts decrease or turn negative for second and third-plus generation independent person units—and these cost increases are highest in the states with more immigrants. For the 15 jurisdictions with the largest percentage of their populations in the first generation, the fiscal cost gap between first and third-plus generation independent person units closes from −$3,400 to −$150. In terms of overall fiscal impact, in California, for example, if these fixed costs (and revenues) were only allocated to second and third-plus generation independent persons and their dependents, the state’s first generation independent person units change from generating a large net negative burden for the state to making a net positive contribution (going from generating a net cost of $2,050 to a net fiscal benefit of $1,050—about $400 less than that of third-plus generation independent units under a marginal allocation). As the share of the population that is composed of first generation independent person units declines, the impact of shifting from an average to a marginal allocation of these fixed revenues and expenditures diminishes.

Note that, if one were to only shift the fixed costs (and revenues) currently being borne by new immigrants who have arrived since 2006 (rather than all first generation individuals) to the remaining population (including other first generation individuals previously resident), the fixed costs for the rest of the population (both independent and dependent) would increase by about $50 per independent person unit; and, in most states, recent immigrants would provide a net fiscal benefit. Again, the size of the shift in costs depends on the number and makeup of recent immigrant families. For example, the increase in net fiscal costs for nonrecent first generation independent person units in California would be about $100. This alternative approach recognizes that, in many states, first generation independent persons are long-term residents of this country.

Suggested Citation:"9 State and Local Fiscal Effects of Immigration." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23550.
×

9.9 CONCLUSIONS

While previous chapters have highlighted the role immigrants play in affecting federal budgets and in their impact across state and local governments combined, it is important to recognize that the burdens and contributions to fiscal balance sheets vary tremendously across states.26 Under the strictest set of assumptions, in which all costs of public education fall on the parents of those being educated and in which the cost of public goods are shared across the population equally, first generation independent person units are estimated to be the most costly relative to second and third-plus generation units. For the 2011-2013 period, first generation independent person units incurred a net cost on average of $1,600 per unit per year, compared to a net benefit of $1,700 for second generation independent person units and $1,300 for third-plus generation units.

Most states follow the national pattern in which units in the second generation contribute the most per unit due to slightly higher incomes and fewer average dependents, but this is not the case in California. Additionally, among the 15 states with the most first and second generation independent individuals, California has the largest difference, $5,150, between the fiscal shortfall of independent person units in the first generation (−$2,050) and the fiscal benefit of units in the third-plus generation ($3,100), while Maryland has the smallest difference at $650. In Maryland, independent person units in the second generation generate an even higher level of per-unit fiscal benefit ($2,050) than do units in the third-plus generation ($550), while in California, the positive fiscal impact of units in the second generation, at $1,550, falls short of that for units in the third-plus generation. Both states have progressive income taxes, and some of these differences appear to be related to Maryland having a larger percentage of first and second generation independent persons with more than a bachelor’s degree. In many of the states with the fewest first generation independent person units, the difference in relative contribution between units in the first and third-plus generations is negligible, while units in the second generation contribute more to a state’s bottom line.

The relative contribution or burden of any independent person unit is driven largely by that unit’s demographic and economic characteristics—most notably the number of dependents in the unit and the unit’s income levels. Because first generation units tend to have less income and more dependents than units in the second or third-plus generation, they are more costly to state and local governments. However, the children of

___________________

26 Fiscal impacts also vary widely at substate levels. Ideally, our analysis would estimate impacts at city and county levels, as insights about local jurisdictional responsibilities and benefits are of great interest to those governments. However, for the kinds of analyses done here, it is not possible to analyze at the local level with the available data, due to sample size limitations.

Suggested Citation:"9 State and Local Fiscal Effects of Immigration." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23550.
×

TABLE 9-10 Net Difference between State and Local Revenues and Expenditures per Independent Person Unit with a Marginal Allocation of Fixed Revenues and Expendituresa (rounded to nearest $50), by Immigrant Generation by State, 2011-2013

State Immigrant Generation All Difference: First less Third+
First Second Third+
California $1,050 −$150 $1,450 $1,050 −$350
New Jersey 750 1,350 −300 200 1,000
New York 1,750 3,250 1,350 1,700 400
Nevada 1,100 200 1,200 1,050 −100
Florida 850 850 950 950 −100
Texas −1,150 −650 1,150 450 −2,250
Hawaii 2,150 550 950 1,150 1,200
Maryland 2,100 1,550 50 550 2,050
Arizona −450 0 1,550 1,000 −1,950
District of Columbia 2,200 6,150 −2,350 −850 4,550
Massachusetts −100 1,850 50 250 −150
Illinois 300 −50 350 350 −50
Washington −250 100 200 100 −450
Connecticut 2,800 2,950 600 1,250 2,200
Rhode Island −950 2,000 1,500 1,150 −2,450
Virginia 1,200 1,000 500 650 700
Delaware 600 1,900 600 650 0
Georgia −100 500 650 550 −750
New Mexico −3,600 400 1,150 550 −4,700
Oregon −1,200 2,150 1,600 1,300 −2,800
Colorado −550 800 600 500 −1,200
Alaska −5,500 7,000 7,950 6,450 −13,450
Nebraska −950 1,350 1,750 1,450 −2,700
Idaho −800 600 1,500 1,200 −2,300
North Carolina 50 1,650 1,450 1,300 −1,350
Utah −700 −600 400 250 −1,100
Michigan 200 2,500 750 800 −550
Minnesota −3,500 3,150 2,050 1,600 −5,550
Kansas −900 1,050 1,050 850 −1,900
Pennsylvania 250 1,650 150 250 150
Iowa −300 2,500 1,500 1,450 −1,850
New Hampshire 850 1,650 450 600 400
Wisconsin −2,000 1,450 1,450 1,250 −3,450
Tennessee −550 1,250 750 700 −1,300
Arkansas −1,200 1,650 1,450 1,300 −2,650
Suggested Citation:"9 State and Local Fiscal Effects of Immigration." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23550.
×
State Immigrant Generation All Difference: First less Third+
First Second Third+
Kentucky −250 2,400 50 100 −300
South Carolina 450 2,400 550 600 −100
Oklahoma −300 2,000 1,500 1,450 −1,800
Vermont 800 3,350 1,000 1,150 −150
Indiana 1,150 1,700 1,000 1,050 150
Ohio 1,400 3,600 1,450 1,550 −50
Louisiana 850 −1,150 −300 −250 1,150
Missouri 600 2,200 1,200 1,200 −550
South Dakota 850 1,450 1,800 1,750 −950
Alabama −850 2,500 550 550 −1,400
Maine 700 2,400 700 850 0
North Dakota 850 5,600 5,500 5,350 −4,650
Wyoming −800 3,650 3,500 3,400 −4,300
Montana 2,400 1,200 900 950 1,500
Mississippi 750 2,650 1,400 1,400 −650
West Virginia −500 3,850 1,500 1,550 −2,000
Top 15 States by % in First Generation 700 700 900 800 −150
United States 500 1,000 950 900 −450

NOTES: Fixed revenue flows include other revenues and intergovernmental revenues (see Table 9-11 in the Technical Annex to this chapter for more information). Fixed expenditure flows include expenditures on other education and libraries, public welfare vendor payments to private vendors and administration expenditures, and other expenditures and capital outlays (see Table 9-12 in the Technical Annex to this chapter for more information). See text for more detail on the construction of revenues and expenditures by state and generation. Because the difference between first and third-plus generation net difference (revenue less expenditure) amounts is taken from the unrounded estimates and then rounded to the nearest $50, the value may differ from the first generation column less the third-plus due to rounding in some cases. States are listed from highest to lowest percentage of first generation independent persons in the state’s population of independent persons (see Table 9-2). Caution should be taken when examining the state-level estimates, especially those near the bottom of the table, because of small first (and second) generation populations for many states.

aThe marginal cost allocation of fixed expenditures in these estimates reassigns fixed revenues and expenditures to second and third-plus generation independents and their dependent children, rather than assigning them to all individuals (both independent and dependent) in all generations as in the average cost allocation in the baseline estimates (see Table 9-6).

SOURCE: Panel estimates implemented on the Current Population Survey Annual Social and Economic Supplement for 2011-2013.

Suggested Citation:"9 State and Local Fiscal Effects of Immigration." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23550.
×

immigrants who are being educated grow up to become second generation adults, the group that, in general (but not always), contributes the most, when assessed in terms of independent person units, to a given state’s fiscal health. In addition, the age distribution of independent persons also affects the relative contribution they make as a unit (with their dependents) to a state’s budget. The share of the population that is elderly increases costs and decreases tax revenues to states. While not as costly as dependent children, the smaller share of first generation independent persons who are ages 65 and older offsets some of the costs for states, most notably in the form of Medicaid payments.

While the characteristics of individuals within an independent person unit affect the relative contribution or burden made by that unit, decisions made by the state and local governments about the level and structure of taxes and services provided also affect the relative burden or contribution of the unit. In places with higher spending on K-12 schools, for example, the relative cost of units in the first generation is higher than for units in the second or third-plus generation because the first generation units include more dependents.

The differences in contributions or burdens across generations and states also depend on whether fixed costs are allocated to all persons equally. The cost of an additional independent person unit in the first generation (or for that matter, an additional unit in any generation) is dampened to the extent that many of the costs that accrue to state and local governments are not sensitive to a small increase in the population. Using a marginal cost allocation, under which an additional immigrant is presumed not to add to the costs of administering the subset of state and local government services categorized as public goods, leads to more similar estimates of per-unit fiscal impacts across the three generations. The reason is that expenditures for the second and third-plus generation units increase, while those for first generation units decrease. In this respect, the cross-generation fiscal patterns are quite similar to those presented in Chapter 8 for the national level.

9.10 TECHNICAL ANNEX: SUPPLEMENTAL TABLES

This annex includes tables referenced in the text of this chapter but that are not included at the point of reference.

Suggested Citation:"9 State and Local Fiscal Effects of Immigration." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23550.
×

TABLE 9-11 Census of Governments (COG) State and Local Revenue Flow Types and Allocation Methods

Revenue Flow Type (% of 2011-2013 COG revenue) Allocation to Independent Person Units (name of CPS ASEC variablea in italics)
Property Taxes
(14%)
CPS ASEC proptax if owner household, divided across all independents in the household. Property tax assigned to renters (CPS ownershp indicator for paying with cash rent) using the state average of property tax as a percentage of household income for owners from the CPS; property tax set to zero for renters if household income is less than or equal to zero. Difference between the sum of CPS property tax for owners plus property tax assigned to renters and the COG total amount assigned to all independent adults.
General Sales Taxes
(10%)
State sales tax amounts from IRS tables assigned based on CPS adjginc (split between spouses for married filing jointly and less remittances of 5% for first generation) and scaled up to match COG total.b
Selective Sales Taxes and Public Utilities
(5%)

Assigned to all ages 18 and older:

  • Motor fuels sales taxes
  • Tobacco product sales taxes

Assigned to all ages 21 and older:

  • Alcoholic beverage sales taxes

Assigned to all:

  • Public utilities and other selective sales taxes
Individual Income Taxes
(9%)
CPS stataxac scaled to match COG amount (split between spouses for married filing jointly).
Business Taxes
(3%)

Assigned within states based on AGI distribution:

  • Corporate income tax (split between spouses for married filing jointly); Documentary and stock transfer taxes; Corporations in general license; Alcoholic beverages license; Amusements license; Occupation and business license, NEC
Higher Education Charges
(3%)
Assigned to all in college (weighted for full time versus half time).
School Lunch Sales
(<1%)
Taken out of K−12 expenditures (see Table 9-12).
Other Education Charges
(<1%)
Remaining revenue from education charges assigned to all.
Suggested Citation:"9 State and Local Fiscal Effects of Immigration." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23550.
×
Revenue Flow Type (% of 2011-2013 COG revenue) Allocation to Independent Person Units (name of CPS ASEC variablea in italics)
Insurance Trust Revenues
(15%)

Assigned to all people with wage income:

  • Unemployment compensation contributions
  • Workers’ compensation contributions and other insurance trust revenue

Assigned to all state and local government employees:

  • State and local employee retirement contributions
Other Revenues
(22%)

Assigned to all:

  • Taxes: Death and gift taxes; Severance taxes; Taxes NEC
  • License taxes: Hunting and Fishing license; Public utilities license; Other license taxes
  • Current charges (excluding education): Hospital; Highways; Air transportation; Parking facilities; Sea and inland port facilities; Natural resources; Parks and recreation; Housing and community development; Sewerage; Solid waste management; Other charges
  • Miscellaneous general revenue
  • Utility revenue

Assigned to all ages 18 and older:

  • Motor vehicle license and motor vehicle operator’s license

Assigned to all ages 21 and older:

  • Liquor store revenues
Intergovernmental Revenues
(18%)
COG intergovernmental revenues (from federal government) less COG intergovernmental expenditures (to federal government) assigned to all.

aVariable names reflect CPS data variable names used in the Integrated Public Use Microdata Series.

bState sales tax amounts (prior to scaling to COG totals) come from the IRS Optional State and Certain Local Sales Tax Tables. We do not explicitly account for additional local sales taxes but expect them to be captured in scaling to COG totals. The one exception to this is Alaska, which has a statewide local sales tax but no state sales tax; in this case we use the IRS Optional Local Sales Tax Tables for Certain Local Jurisdictions.

Suggested Citation:"9 State and Local Fiscal Effects of Immigration." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23550.
×

TABLE 9-12 Census of Governments (COG) State and Local Expenditure Flow Types and Allocation Methods

Expenditure Flow Type (% of 2011-2013 COG expenditures) Allocation to Independent Person Units (name of CPS ASEC variablea in italics)
Higher Education Expenditures
(7%)
Amount (less capital outlays) assigned to all in college (weighted for full time versus half time).

Alternative—examine if half of the COG expenditure amount assigned to college students as above and the remaining half assigned evenly to all independent individuals in states.
Elementary and Secondary Education Expenditures
(16%)
Amount (less capital outlays and school lunch sales) assigned to all in K-12 (weighted for full time versus half time for high schoolers).

Alternative—examine if half of the COG expenditure amount assigned to K-12 students as above and the remaining half assigned evenly to all persons or all independent individuals in states.
Other Education Expenditures and Libraries
(4%)
Amount (plus capital outlays from higher education and elementary and secondary education) assigned to all.
Medicaid/Public Welfare
(16%)
Medicaid: CPS pmvcaid (for CPS recipients) scaled to match COG vendor payments amount (less the remainder of total Medicaid institutional spendingb after subtracting out COG spending on institutions for public welfare).

Other public welfare: CPS incwelfr (for CPS recipients) scaled to match COG public welfare spending on SSI, TANF, and other cash assistance.

Assigned to all:
  • Vendor payments to private vendors for services other than medical
  • Public welfare administration expenditures
Insurance Trust Expenditure
(11%)

Assigned to all people with wage income:

  • Unemployment compensation
  • Workers’ compensation and other insurance trust

Assigned to all state and local government employees:

  • State and local employee retirement
Suggested Citation:"9 State and Local Fiscal Effects of Immigration." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23550.
×
Expenditure Flow Type (% of 2011-2013 COG expenditures) Allocation to Independent Person Units (name of CPS ASEC variablea in italics)
Other Expenditures and Capital Outlays
(45%)

Assigned to all:

  • Hospitals; Health; Social insurance administration; Veterans’ services; Highways; Air transportation; Parking facilities; Sea and inland; Police protection; Fire protection; Correction; Protective inspection and regulation; Natural resources; Parks and recreation; Housing and community development; Sewerage; Solid waste management; Financial administration; Judicial and legal; General public buildings; Other governmental administration; Interest on general debt; Miscellaneous commercial activities; Other and unallocable
  • Utility expenditure

Assigned to all ages 21 and older:

  • Liquor store expenditure
Intergovernmental Expenditure
(<1%)
COG intergovernmental expenditure amount (to federal government) taken out of COG intergovernmental revenue amount (from federal government).

aVariable names reflect CPS data variable names used in the Integrated Public Use Microdata Series.

bTotal Medicaid institutional spending (2% of total 2011-2013 COG expenditures) is taken from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services 2015 report Medicaid Expenditures for Long-Term Services and Supports in FY 2013, appendix Table D. See http://www.medicaid.gov/medicaid-chip-program-information/by-topics/long-term-services-and-supports/downloads/ltss-expenditures-fy2013.pdf [November 2016].

Suggested Citation:"9 State and Local Fiscal Effects of Immigration." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23550.
×

TABLE 9-13 Annualized Weighted Sample Cases of Independent Persons by Immigrant Generation by State, Current Population Survey Annual Social and Economic Supplement for 2011-2013

State Immigrant Generation Total
First Second Third+
California 9,250,306 4,136,035 13,307,832 26,694,173
New Jersey 1,751,320 772,147 3,771,057 6,294,524
New York 3,861,185 1,723,287 8,503,595 14,088,067
Nevada 477,237 218,729 1,247,935 1,943,901
Florida 3,258,513 1,312,743 9,763,553 14,334,809
Texas 3,818,671 1,756,376 12,193,672 17,768,719
Hawaii 205,752 150,674 621,632 978,057
Maryland 814,468 307,380 3,159,673 4,281,520
Arizona 865,223 531,020 3,285,407 4,681,650
District of Columbia 85,316 40,448 362,412 488,176
Massachusetts 828,697 577,464 3,447,603 4,853,764
Illinois 1,540,692 718,036 6,908,763 9,167,490
Washington 822,229 482,882 3,655,282 4,960,393
Connecticut 415,692 293,845 1,861,099 2,570,636
Rhode Island 126,085 108,649 545,477 780,212
Virginia 782,112 275,958 4,710,072 5,768,143
Delaware 80,814 29,431 544,748 654,993
Georgia 815,187 235,106 5,750,442 6,800,735
New Mexico 168,429 107,035 1,184,370 1,459,834
Oregon 315,531 231,330 2,288,182 2,835,044
Colorado 398,306 264,829 2,975,143 3,638,278
Alaska 52,703 35,281 405,367 493,351
Nebraska 139,263 51,548 1,124,233 1,315,044
Idaho 107,882 57,765 928,129 1,093,776
North Carolina 652,743 260,141 5,944,608 6,857,492
Utah 173,479 109,824 1,552,991 1,836,295
Michigan 628,807 438,991 6,003,030 7,070,828
Minnesota 328,484 210,376 3,320,867 3,859,727
Kansas 160,448 83,215 1,769,231 2,012,894
Pennsylvania 654,971 542,680 8,283,510 9,481,161
Iowa 141,651 74,120 1,979,890 2,195,661
New Hampshire 62,234 77,990 842,922 983,146
Wisconsin 231,605 196,104 3,723,672 4,151,382
Tennessee 254,822 113,462 4,316,184 4,684,468
Arkansas 111,359 45,188 1,965,865 2,122,411
Kentucky 162,813 63,359 2,932,800 3,158,972
South Carolina 170,719 73,929 3,112,174 3,356,822
Oklahoma 134,805 85,287 2,466,798 2,686,889
Vermont 22,308 38,284 418,140 478,731
Suggested Citation:"9 State and Local Fiscal Effects of Immigration." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23550.
×
State Immigrant Generation Total
First Second Third+
Indiana 207,956 166,713 4,143,988 4,518,657
Ohio 376,581 355,286 7,577,243 8,309,110
Louisiana 136,282 68,343 2,955,957 3,160,582
Missouri 173,581 121,130 4,056,352 4,351,063
South Dakota 22,998 25,087 540,674 588,759
Alabama 133,617 71,586 3,249,440 3,454,644
Maine 34,121 75,909 907,094 1,017,124
North Dakota 16,025 25,584 460,026 501,636
Wyoming 13,059 15,212 385,954 414,226
Montana 19,432 41,598 678,111 739,141
Mississippi 52,251 28,357 1,956,632 2,037,241
West Virginia 19,248 30,344 1,327,807 1,377,398
Top 15 States by % in First Generation 28,121,384 13,129,714 72,634,993 113,886,092
United States 36,078,012 17,856,095 169,417,639 223,351,747

NOTES: See text for definitions of independent person and immigrant generation. These sample counts are the average number of weighted cases classified as independent persons per year in the Current Population Survey Annual Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC) for 2011-2013. Note that these counts are not representative of the annualized total U.S. population in these years because they do not include dependent children. The ASEC includes cases in February, March, and April of each year. Because of the rotation group design, by which addresses are in the sample for 4 months, out for 8 months, and in again for 4 months, the total 3-year sample double-counts individuals who are in the sample in pairs of years (2011-2012 or 2012-2013). States are listed from highest to lowest percentage of first generation independent persons in the state’s population of independent persons (see Table 9-2).

SOURCE: Panel tabulations of the Current Population Survey Annual Social and Economic Supplement for 2011-2013.

Suggested Citation:"9 State and Local Fiscal Effects of Immigration." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23550.
×

TABLE 9-14 Sum of Unweighted Sample Cases of Independent Persons by Immigrant Generation by State, Current Population Survey Annual Social and Economic Supplement for 2011-2013 Total

State Immigrant Generation Total
First Second Third+
California 15,823 6,653 18,173 40,649
New Jersey 2,706 983 4,899 8,588
New York 5,526 2,132 10,459 18,117
Nevada 1,901 739 3,914 6,554
Florida 4,889 1,580 10,966 17,435
Texas 6,087 2,731 15,425 24,243
Hawaii 1,725 1,216 4,838 7,779
Maryland 2,190 719 7,415 10,324
Arizona 1,232 663 3,485 5,380
District of Columbia 1,209 509 4,656 6,374
Massachusetts 1,185 697 4,338 6,220
Illinois 2,561 1,048 9,102 12,711
Washington 1,366 696 5,054 7,116
Connecticut 1,641 983 6,540 9,164
Rhode Island 1,222 894 4,589 6,705
Virginia 1,411 460 7,100 8,971
Delaware 905 277 5,311 6,493
Georgia 1,267 325 7,294 8,886
New Mexico 518 304 3,218 4,040
Oregon 766 474 4,460 5,700
Colorado 1,209 706 7,257 9,172
Alaska 587 355 3,964 4,906
Nebraska 828 251 5,125 6,204
Idaho 560 261 3,537 4,358
North Carolina 928 311 6,909 8,148
Utah 595 294 4,062 4,951
Michigan 900 550 7,827 9,277
Minnesota 1,019 498 7,927 9,444
Kansas 581 256 4,935 5,772
Pennsylvania 960 657 10,543 12,160
Iowa 618 256 6,535 7,409
New Hampshire 560 616 6,799 7,975
Wisconsin 533 355 6,759 7,647
Tennessee 330 138 4,982 5,450
Arkansas 304 96 3,876 4,276
Kentucky 328 115 5,280 5,723
South Carolina 311 120 4,929 5,360
Oklahoma 302 162 4,603 5,067
Vermont 289 436 4,816 5,541
Suggested Citation:"9 State and Local Fiscal Effects of Immigration." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23550.
×
State Immigrant Generation Total
First Second Third+
Indiana 341 226 5,391 5,958
Ohio 530 434 9,492 10,456
Louisiana 192 87 3,737 4,016
Missouri 284 187 5,852 6,323
South Dakota 263 232 5,511 6,006
Alabama 209 91 4,274 4,574
Maine 243 472 6,042 6,757
North Dakota 185 227 4,480 4,892
Wyoming 210 193 4,879 5,282
Montana 103 200 3,399 3,702
Mississippi 112 51 3,734 3,897
West Virginia 70 85 3,977 4,132
Top 15 States by % in First Generation 51,263 22,243 113,853 187,359
United States 70,614 33,001 312,669 416,284

NOTES: See text for definitions of independent person and immigrant generation. These sample counts are the total number of cases classified as independent persons in each Current Population Survey Annual Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC) for 2011-2013. The annual observations for each state and immigrant generation are approximately one-third of the counts listed above. The ASEC includes cases in February, March, and April of each year. Because of the rotation group design, by which addresses are in the sample for 4 months, out for 8 months, and in again for 4 months, the three-year sample counts shown above double count individuals who are in the sample in pairs of years (2011-2012 or 2012-2013). States are listed from highest to lowest percentage of first generation independent persons in the state’s population of independent persons (see Table 9-2).

SOURCE: Panel tabulations of the Current Population Survey Annual Social and Economic Supplement for 2011-2013.

Suggested Citation:"9 State and Local Fiscal Effects of Immigration." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23550.
×

TABLE 9-15 Average Number of Children (dependents) per Independent Person Unit, by Immigrant Generation by State, 2011-2013

State Immigrant Generation
(average number of children per independent person unit)
All
First Second Third+
California 0.52 0.39 0.34 0.41
New Jersey 0.48 0.24 0.37 0.38
New York 0.44 0.26 0.36 0.37
Nevada 0.56 0.34 0.34 0.39
Florida 0.39 0.28 0.31 0.32
Texas 0.64 0.47 0.38 0.44
Hawaii 0.44 0.28 0.36 0.37
Maryland 0.47 0.23 0.35 0.36
Arizona 0.59 0.46 0.34 0.40
District of Columbia 0.28 0.14 0.28 0.27
Massachusetts 0.44 0.22 0.35 0.35
Illinois 0.54 0.35 0.36 0.39
Washington 0.56 0.29 0.34 0.37
Connecticut 0.46 0.24 0.37 0.37
Rhode Island 0.47 0.22 0.32 0.33
Virginia 0.51 0.40 0.35 0.38
Delaware 0.49 0.28 0.36 0.37
Georgia 0.57 0.45 0.40 0.42
New Mexico 0.72 0.44 0.35 0.40
Oregon 0.64 0.29 0.32 0.35
Colorado 0.63 0.34 0.36 0.39
Alaska 0.56 0.53 0.40 0.43
Nebraska 0.64 0.33 0.36 0.39
Idaho 0.64 0.41 0.41 0.44
North Carolina 0.61 0.39 0.36 0.39
Utah 0.77 0.44 0.51 0.53
Michigan 0.49 0.22 0.38 0.38
Minnesota 0.64 0.25 0.35 0.37
Kansas 0.65 0.35 0.37 0.39
Pennsylvania 0.50 0.19 0.33 0.33
Iowa 0.56 0.27 0.36 0.37
New Hampshire 0.40 0.23 0.33 0.33
Wisconsin 0.70 0.27 0.35 0.36
Tennessee 0.57 0.29 0.35 0.36
Arkansas 0.64 0.4 0.35 0.37
Kentucky 0.47 0.29 0.36 0.37
South Carolina 0.55 0.37 0.37 0.38
Oklahoma 0.60 0.46 0.37 0.39
Suggested Citation:"9 State and Local Fiscal Effects of Immigration." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23550.
×
State Immigrant Generation
(average number of children per independent person unit)
All
First Second Third+
Vermont 0.36 0.19 0.30 0.29
Indiana 0.56 0.43 0.40 0.41
Ohio 0.43 0.27 0.37 0.37
Louisiana 0.40 0.32 0.42 0.41
Missouri 0.46 0.34 0.36 0.36
South Dakota 0.53 0.25 0.38 0.38
Alabama 0.74 0.23 0.37 0.38
Maine 0.40 0.18 0.30 0.30
North Dakota 0.44 0.16 0.35 0.34
Wyoming 0.46 0.23 0.36 0.36
Montana 0.29 0.18 0.35 0.34
Mississippi 0.52 0.28 0.43 0.43
West Virginia 0.56 0.24 0.32 0.32
Top 15 States by % in First Generation 0.51 0.34 0.35 0.39
United States 0.52 0.33 0.36 0.38

NOTE: See text for definitions of independent person unit, dependent person or child, and immigrant generation. States are listed from highest to lowest percentage of first generation independent persons in the state’s population of independent persons (see Table 9-2).

SOURCE: Panel tabulations of the Current Population Survey Annual Social and Economic Supplement for 2011-2013.

Suggested Citation:"9 State and Local Fiscal Effects of Immigration." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23550.
×

TABLE 9-16 Average Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) per Independent Person Unit (rounded to nearest $50), by Immigrant Generation by State, 2011-2013

State Immigrant Generation ($ AGI per independent person unit) All
First Second Third+
California $28,800 $35,950 $42,450 $36,700
New Jersey 35,700 37,900 47,250 42,900
New York 28,650 37,550 39,200 36,100
Nevada 26,650 28,250 34,700 32,000
Florida 26,350 32,050 33,800 31,950
Texas 26,100 29,850 37,550 34,300
Hawaii 28,750 29,000 36,400 33,650
Maryland 38,700 45,450 44,700 43,600
Arizona 25,100 28,500 36,100 33,200
District of Columbia 41,950 74,150 55,750 54,850
Massachusetts 35,850 41,200 43,500 41,950
Illinois 27,650 35,200 39,850 37,450
Washington 33,300 34,800 40,900 39,050
Connecticut 40,350 43,050 47,600 45,900
Rhode Island 29,500 29,100 39,650 36,550
Virginia 42,200 52,750 42,200 42,700
Delaware 33,200 32,800 33,250 33,200
Georgia 28,200 37,450 34,000 33,450
New Mexico 31,300 33,050 34,750 34,200
Oregon 28,650 32,850 32,800 32,350
Colorado 29,550 39,150 41,800 40,250
Alaska 33,800 43,050 39,450 39,100
Nebraska 24,800 31,100 37,250 35,700
Idaho 23,100 28,700 31,350 30,400
North Carolina 29,850 35,800 30,900 31,000
Utah 27,100 31,450 34,900 33,950
Michigan 30,700 31,900 32,650 32,400
Minnesota 28,200 34,050 39,650 38,400
Kansas 24,750 27,550 34,850 33,750
Pennsylvania 33,650 29,200 33,950 33,700
Iowa 26,400 25,050 33,850 33,050
New Hampshire 41,850 35,100 41,100 40,650
Wisconsin 24,200 29,900 34,900 34,100
Tennessee 28,650 27,500 28,500 28,500
Arkansas 23,500 31,550 25,950 25,950
Kentucky 22,550 35,650 27,500 27,450
South Carolina 30,350 37,500 27,550 27,900
Suggested Citation:"9 State and Local Fiscal Effects of Immigration." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23550.
×
State Immigrant Generation ($ AGI per independent person unit) All
First Second Third+
Oklahoma 32,300 37,000 32,300 32,450
Vermont 31,550 34,000 34,750 34,500
Indiana 35,400 32,300 30,900 31,150
Ohio 28,150 38,450 30,850 31,050
Louisiana 20,850 25,950 29,200 28,800
Missouri 29,550 33,750 34,000 33,800
South Dakota 24,150 23,150 32,800 32,050
Alabama 28,250 39,650 30,050 30,150
Maine 32,750 28,400 32,050 31,800
North Dakota 37,000 22,650 39,800 38,850
Wyoming 27,100 30,300 35,800 35,300
Montana 23,450 21,650 28,900 28,350
Mississippi 30,000 30,550 26,850 27,000
West Virginia 36,150 39,450 28,200 28,600
Top 15 States by % in First Generation 29,150 35,150 39,850 36,700
United States 29,450 34,900 35,900 34,800

NOTES: See text for definitions of independent person unit and immigrant generation. States are listed from highest to lowest percentage of first generation independent persons in the state’s population of independent persons (see Table 9-2).

SOURCE: Panel tabulations of the Current Population Survey Annual Social and Economic Supplement for 2011-2013.

Suggested Citation:"9 State and Local Fiscal Effects of Immigration." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23550.
×

TABLE 9-17 Percentage with Less Than a High School Degree (<HS) and More Than a Bachelor’s Degree (>BA), Independent Persons by Immigrant Generation by State, 2011-2013

State Immigrant Generation (independent persons) All
First Second Third+
<HS >BA <HS >BA <HS >BA <HS >BA
California 34 8 10 10 7 12 17 11
New Jersey 18 13 9 15 7 12 10 13
New York 22 11 9 16 9 14 13 13
Nevada 26 6 13 6 7 8 12 8
Florida 19 8 6 13 8 10 10 10
Texas 43 7 18 8 10 9 18 8
Hawaii 17 8 8 9 4 10 8 10
Maryland 19 21 4 23 8 15 10 16
Arizona 36 9 12 9 8 11 14 11
District of Columbia 23 27 3 45 8 28 10 29
Massachusetts 19 17 6 22 7 17 9 17
Illinois 26 12 8 13 7 11 10 11
Washington 25 12 7 12 5 11 9 11
Connecticut 17 19 9 16 7 16 9 17
Rhode Island 33 9 13 11 9 13 14 12
Virginia 16 17 4 19 9 13 10 14
Delaware 27 14 5 11 8 9 10 10
Georgia 23 12 6 14 10 9 12 10
New Mexico 40 12 14 17 11 14 15 14
Oregon 25 12 4 16 7 10 9 11
Colorado 37 10 9 14 5 14 9 13
Alaska 18 8 11 7 7 9 8 8
Suggested Citation:"9 State and Local Fiscal Effects of Immigration." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23550.
×
State Immigrant Generation (independent persons) All
First Second Third+
<HS >BA <HS >BA <HS >BA <HS >BA
Nebraska 45 9 10 6 5 9 9 9
Idaho 45 6 12 9 6 8 10 8
North Carolina 32 12 13 16 11 9 13 9
Utah 30 9 8 10 6 9 8 9
Michigan 19 19 7 16 8 9 9 10
Minnesota 26 13 8 10 5 9 7 10
Kansas 31 15 14 17 6 11 9 11
Pennsylvania 14 17 10 12 10 9 10 9
Iowa 37 13 13 12 8 7 10 7
New Hampshire 10 19 8 14 6 12 7 12
Wisconsin 31 12 13 12 6 9 8 9
Tennessee 31 8 7 6 12 8 13 8
Arkansas 37 10 9 5 13 6 14 6
Kentucky 24 17 4 13 13 7 13 8
South Carolina 24 16 8 17 13 9 13 9
Oklahoma 31 14 17 13 9 8 10 9
Vermont 12 15 8 16 8 13 8 13
Indiana 32 14 10 6 9 8 10 8
Ohio 22 15 8 12 10 7 11 8
Louisiana 26 7 6 10 14 7 14 7
Missouri 18 21 14 19 11 9 11 10
South Dakota 33 10 17 4 7 7 9 7
Alabama 42 14 9 14 13 9 14 9
Suggested Citation:"9 State and Local Fiscal Effects of Immigration." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23550.
×
Maine 14 19 14 10 8 9 8 10
North Dakota 16 18 19 5 6 7 7 7
Wyoming 26 12 14 5 7 7 8 7
Montana 11 14 8 10 6 9 6 9
Mississippi 21 9 NA 8 16 7 16 7
West Virginia 8 39 3 12 13 7 13 8
Top 15 States by % in First Generation 29 10 10 12 8 12 13 11
United States 28 11 10 12 9 10 12 10

NOTES: See text for definitions of independent person and immigrant generation. States are listed from highest to lowest percentage of first generation independent persons in the state’s population of independent persons (see Table 9-2). NA: Not available (Mississippi has no sample persons in this category).

SOURCE: Panel tabulations of the Current Population Survey Annual Social and Economic Supplement for 2011-2013.

Suggested Citation:"9 State and Local Fiscal Effects of Immigration." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23550.
×

TABLE 9-18 Net Difference between State and Local Revenues and Expenditures per Independent Person Unit (rounded to nearest $50), Including Coefficient of Variation Below, by Immigrant Generation by State, 2011-2013

State Immigrant Generation All
First Second Third+
California −$2,050 $1,550 $3,100 $1,050
(9%) (15%) (6%) (13%)
New Jersey −1,850 2,300 700 200
(23%) (15%) (45%) (130%)
New York −1,500 4,400 2,600 1,700
(24%) (12%) (12%) (15%)
Nevada −1,300 1,000 1,950 1,050
(24%) (38%) (9%) (16%)
Florida −350 1,200 1,350 950
(46%) (20%) (9%) (10%)
Texas −2,050 −400 1,400 450
(9%) (68%) (9%) (23%)
Hawaii −700 1,250 1,700 1,150
(77%) (26%) (13%) (19%)
Maryland −100 2,050 550 550
(407%) (24%) (37%) (33%)
Arizona −1,350 250 1,750 1,000
(32%) (172%) (15%) (20%)
District of Columbia −2,800 7,100 −1,300 −850
(35%) (14%) (48%) (60%)
Massachusetts −2,250 2,300 500 250
(23%) (24%) (61%) (116%)
Illinois −2,700 550 1,000 350
(13%) (72%) (17%) (50%)
Washington −3,050 600 750 100
(22%) (76%) (35%) (196%)
Connecticut −600 3,550 1,300 1,250
(66%) (10%) (20%) (16%)
Rhode Island −1,500 2,100 1,600 1,150
(33%) (18%) (16%) (20%)
Virginia −600 1,300 800 650
(73%) (48%) (23%) (25%)
Delaware −500 2,050 750 650
(130%) (33%) (36%) (39%)
Georgia −1,250 650 800 550
(29%) (103%) (18%) (24%)
Suggested Citation:"9 State and Local Fiscal Effects of Immigration." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23550.
×
State Immigrant Generation All
First Second Third+
New Mexico −2,550 250 1,000 550
(30%) (338%) (27%) (46%)
Oregon −1,900 2,250 1,650 1,300
(36%) (29%) (15%) (17%)
Colorado −2,950 1,050 900 500
(14%) (31%) (20%) (37%)
Alaska 3,950 5,800 6,850 6,450
(31%) (21%) (5%) (6%)
Nebraska −2,200 1,500 1,900 1,450
(29%) (45%) (13%) (14%)
Idaho −1,050 600 1,500 1,200
(50%) (89%) (21%) (25%)
North Carolina −650 1,700 1,500 1,300
(74%) (43%) (12%) (14%)
Utah −1,950 −450 500 250
(31%) (146%) (36%) (82%)
Michigan −250 2,550 800 800
(189%) (18%) (18%) (18%)
Minnesota −5,100 3,250 2,200 1,600
(18%) (20%) (11%) (14%)
Kansas −2,450 1,150 1,150 850
(37%) (57%) (16%) (23%)
Pennsylvania −1,250 1,750 250 250
(41%) (23%) (56%) (57%)
Iowa −1,000 2,550 1,550 1,450
(58%) (24%) (14%) (15%)
New Hampshire −550 1,750 550 600
(104%) (19%) (26%) (23%)
Wisconsin −3,650 1,550 1,550 1,250
(23%) (43%) (11%) (16%)
Tennessee −700 1,250 750 700
(71%) (60%) (27%) (27%)
Arkansas −1,200 1,650 1,450 1,300
(89%) (72%) (17%) (18%)
Kentucky −950 2,400 100 100
(77%) (38%) (156%) (170%)
South Carolina 150 2,400 550 600
(441%) (42%) (31%) (28%)
Oklahoma 200 1,950 1,500 1,450
(345%) (44%) (12%) (12%)
Suggested Citation:"9 State and Local Fiscal Effects of Immigration." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23550.
×
State Immigrant Generation All
First Second Third+
Vermont 250 3,400 1,000 1,150
(414%) (16%) (23%) (19%)
Indiana 150 1,750 1,050 1,050
(574%) (36%) (14%) (14%)
Ohio 450 3,650 1,500 1,550
(153%) (18%) (12%) (11%)
Louisiana −400 −1,100 −250 −250
(211%) (99%) (97%) (88%)
Missouri −150 2,250 1,200 1,200
(478%) (37%) (22%) (23%)
South Dakota −550 1,500 1,850 1,750
(169%) (42%) (13%) (13%)
Alabama −1,100 2,500 550 550
(86%) (39%) (33%) (35%)
Maine −350 2,450 750 850
(360%) (17%) (26%) (22%)
North Dakota 3,250 5,500 5,400 5,350
(33%) (12%) (4%) (4%)
Wyoming 1,300 3,550 3,450 3,400
(61%) (21%) (6%) (5%)
Montana 1,850 1,250 950 950
(54%) (69%) (32%) (32%)
Mississippi 1,300 2,600 1,350 1,400
(110%) (52%) (19%) (19%)
West Virginia 550 3,850 1,500 1,550
(250%) (24%) (18%) (17%)
United States −1,600 1,700 1,300 900
(5%) (6%) (3%) (4%)

NOTES: See text for construction of revenues and expenditures by state and generation. Coefficient of variation (CV) = standard error divided by the estimate; generally estimates with a CV of less than or equal to 10 percent of the estimate are considered statistically reliable in the profession. States are listed from highest to lowest percentage of first generation independent persons in the state’s population of independent persons (see Table 9-2). Caution should be taken when examining the state-level estimates, especially those near the bottom of the table, because of small first (and second) generation populations for many states.

SOURCE: Panel estimates implemented on the Current Population Survey Annual Social and Economic Supplement for 2011-2013.

Suggested Citation:"9 State and Local Fiscal Effects of Immigration." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23550.
×

TABLE 9-19 Average Household Size per Household Unit, by Immigrant Generation by State, 2011-2013

State Immigrant Generation (household units) All
First Second Third+
California 3.35 2.85 2.41 2.77
New Jersey 3.13 2.17 2.48 2.60
New York 2.77 2.22 2.34 2.43
Nevada 3.19 2.51 2.36 2.55
Florida 2.70 2.25 2.25 2.34
Texas 3.42 2.87 2.46 2.68
Hawaii 3.31 2.55 2.73 2.81
Maryland 3.20 2.37 2.50 2.60
Arizona 3.00 2.68 2.34 2.49
District of Columbia 2.31 1.84 1.99 2.02
Massachusetts 2.83 2.24 2.52 2.53
Illinois 3.20 2.41 2.34 2.47
Washington 3.23 2.39 2.41 2.53
Connecticut 2.93 2.14 2.49 2.51
Rhode Island 2.81 2.07 2.40 2.41
Virginia 3.33 2.33 2.43 2.52
Delaware 3.37 2.16 2.47 2.55
Georgia 3.11 2.90 2.42 2.50
New Mexico 3.20 2.42 2.37 2.47
Oregon 3.26 2.25 2.34 2.43
Colorado 3.20 2.44 2.39 2.47
Alaska 3.07 2.90 2.43 2.52
Nebraska 3.29 2.31 2.37 2.45
Idaho 3.44 2.52 2.62 2.69
North Carolina 3.23 2.61 2.33 2.40
Utah 3.75 2.92 2.97 3.03
Michigan 2.97 2.20 2.45 2.48
Minnesota 3.27 2.05 2.38 2.42
Kansas 3.05 2.35 2.36 2.41
Pennsylvania 2.76 2.01 2.38 2.38
Iowa 3.12 2.15 2.36 2.39
New Hampshire 2.86 2.17 2.49 2.48
Wisconsin 3.30 2.03 2.35 2.38
Tennessee 3.00 2.11 2.36 2.39
Arkansas 3.39 2.73 2.36 2.42
Kentucky 2.54 2.19 2.36 2.37
South Carolina 3.18 2.41 2.33 2.37
Oklahoma 2.96 2.57 2.43 2.46
Vermont 2.55 2.11 2.36 2.34
Suggested Citation:"9 State and Local Fiscal Effects of Immigration." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23550.
×
State Immigrant Generation (household units) All
First Second Third+
Indiana 3.01 2.47 2.46 2.48
Ohio 2.70 2.16 2.39 2.39
Louisiana 2.71 2.14 2.43 2.44
Missouri 2.86 2.32 2.37 2.38
South Dakota 2.98 2.10 2.39 2.40
Alabama 3.26 2.00 2.40 2.42
Maine 2.52 2.02 2.33 2.31
North Dakota 2.54 1.77 2.33 2.30
Wyoming 2.74 2.19 2.41 2.41
Montana 2.64 1.84 2.32 2.30
Mississippi 2.89 2.27 2.47 2.48
West Virginia 2.85 2.15 2.32 2.32
Top 15 States by % in First Generation 3.12 2.53 2.39 2.57
United States 3.11 2.46 2.40 2.50

NOTE: See text for definitions of household immigrant generation. States are listed from highest to lowest percentage of first generation independent persons in the state’s population of independent persons (see Table 9-2).

SOURCE: Panel tabulations of the Current Population Survey Annual Social and Economic Supplement for 2011-2013.

Suggested Citation:"9 State and Local Fiscal Effects of Immigration." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23550.
×

TABLE 9-20 Annualized Weighted Sample Cases of Households by Immigrant Generation by State, Current Population Survey Annual Social and Economic Supplement for 2011-2013

State Immigrant Generation (household units) All
First Second Third+
California 4,165,605 1,909,347 7,290,777 13,365,729
New Jersey 800,286 417,914 2,014,610 3,232,810
New York 1,931,804 938,610 4,799,345 7,669,759
Nevada 221,452 114,295 708,295 1,044,042
Florida 1,633,088 714,054 5,590,941 7,938,082
Texas 1,790,863 897,525 6,734,224 9,422,612
Hawaii 87,836 75,432 298,703 461,970
Maryland 355,518 167,081 1,692,462 2,215,061
Arizona 434,177 288,928 1,840,934 2,564,039
District of Columbia 45,174 25,062 230,009 300,244
Massachusetts 402,195 326,099 1,849,285 2,577,578
Illinois 725,138 398,153 3,941,849 5,065,140
Washington 396,778 262,069 2,011,809 2,670,655
Connecticut 209,041 166,248 1,006,186 1,381,475
Rhode Island 64,911 61,840 302,730 429,481
Virginia 344,930 146,510 2,616,571 3,108,012
Delaware 33,915 17,280 298,211 349,406
Georgia 382,297 116,885 3,286,581 3,785,763
New Mexico 85,943 65,467 650,302 801,713
Oregon 157,829 133,985 1,249,616 1,541,430
Colorado 197,560 148,757 1,659,617 2,005,935
Alaska 25,451 18,874 227,630 271,955
Nebraska 65,732 30,673 639,860 736,265
Idaho 51,831 30,059 507,833 589,722
North Carolina 292,724 142,004 3,429,987 3,864,714
Utah 75,762 56,737 790,040 922,539
Michigan 309,768 242,271 3,310,617 3,862,656
Minnesota 162,845 133,355 1,868,256 2,164,456
Kansas 79,486 45,724 1,027,262 1,152,473
Pennsylvania 332,324 332,286 4,593,236 5,257,846
Iowa 67,251 47,449 1,124,796 1,239,496
New Hampshire 29,221 46,888 444,335 520,444
Wisconsin 108,938 126,223 2,098,162 2,333,323
Tennessee 128,032 61,266 2,444,634 2,633,932
Arkansas 51,843 20,457 1,097,159 1,169,458
Kentucky 91,897 39,889 1,660,988 1,792,775
South Carolina 74,065 35,736 1,746,109 1,855,910
Oklahoma 68,796 51,493 1,393,898 1,514,187
Vermont 10,733 22,360 230,817 263,910
Suggested Citation:"9 State and Local Fiscal Effects of Immigration." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23550.
×
State Immigrant Generation (household units) All
First Second Third+
Indiana 103,939 99,918 2,341,293 2,545,150
Ohio 180,261 226,818 4,293,483 4,700,562
Louisiana 67,474 36,549 1,649,038 1,753,061
Missouri 86,649 77,525 2,327,948 2,492,123
South Dakota 11,226 16,247 309,966 337,439
Alabama 67,486 40,388 1,780,690 1,888,564
Maine 20,112 45,719 499,588 565,419
North Dakota 7,936 16,919 266,819 291,675
Wyoming 6,955 9,593 219,098 235,646
Montana 7,903 26,384 394,971 429,258
Mississippi 23,561 16,190 1,097,737 1,137,487
West Virginia 10,119 21,168 751,852 783,140
Top 15 States by % in First Generation 13,263,865 6,762,657 40,312,156 60,338,678
United States 17,086,659 9,508,706 94,641,157 121,236,522

NOTES: See text for definitions of household immigrant generation. These sample counts are the average number of weighted cases classified as households per year in the Current Population Survey Annual Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC) for 2011-2013. The ASEC includes cases in February, March, and April of each year. Because of the rotation group design, by which addresses are in the sample for 4 months, out for 8 months, and in again for 4 months, the total 3-year sample double-counts households that are in the sample in pairs of years (2011-2012 or 2012-2013). States are listed from highest to lowest percentage of first generation independent persons in the state’s population of independent persons (see Table 9-2).

SOURCE: Panel tabulations of the Current Population Survey Annual Social and Economic Supplement for 2011-2013.

Suggested Citation:"9 State and Local Fiscal Effects of Immigration." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23550.
×
Page 495
Suggested Citation:"9 State and Local Fiscal Effects of Immigration." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23550.
×
Page 496
Suggested Citation:"9 State and Local Fiscal Effects of Immigration." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23550.
×
Page 497
Suggested Citation:"9 State and Local Fiscal Effects of Immigration." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23550.
×
Page 498
Suggested Citation:"9 State and Local Fiscal Effects of Immigration." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23550.
×
Page 499
Suggested Citation:"9 State and Local Fiscal Effects of Immigration." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23550.
×
Page 500
Suggested Citation:"9 State and Local Fiscal Effects of Immigration." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23550.
×
Page 501
Suggested Citation:"9 State and Local Fiscal Effects of Immigration." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23550.
×
Page 502
Suggested Citation:"9 State and Local Fiscal Effects of Immigration." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23550.
×
Page 503
Suggested Citation:"9 State and Local Fiscal Effects of Immigration." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23550.
×
Page 504
Suggested Citation:"9 State and Local Fiscal Effects of Immigration." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23550.
×
Page 505
Suggested Citation:"9 State and Local Fiscal Effects of Immigration." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23550.
×
Page 506
Suggested Citation:"9 State and Local Fiscal Effects of Immigration." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23550.
×
Page 507
Suggested Citation:"9 State and Local Fiscal Effects of Immigration." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23550.
×
Page 508
Suggested Citation:"9 State and Local Fiscal Effects of Immigration." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23550.
×
Page 509
Suggested Citation:"9 State and Local Fiscal Effects of Immigration." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23550.
×
Page 510
Suggested Citation:"9 State and Local Fiscal Effects of Immigration." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23550.
×
Page 511
Suggested Citation:"9 State and Local Fiscal Effects of Immigration." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23550.
×
Page 512
Suggested Citation:"9 State and Local Fiscal Effects of Immigration." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23550.
×
Page 513
Suggested Citation:"9 State and Local Fiscal Effects of Immigration." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23550.
×
Page 514
Suggested Citation:"9 State and Local Fiscal Effects of Immigration." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23550.
×
Page 515
Suggested Citation:"9 State and Local Fiscal Effects of Immigration." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23550.
×
Page 516
Suggested Citation:"9 State and Local Fiscal Effects of Immigration." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23550.
×
Page 517
Suggested Citation:"9 State and Local Fiscal Effects of Immigration." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23550.
×
Page 518
Suggested Citation:"9 State and Local Fiscal Effects of Immigration." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23550.
×
Page 519
Suggested Citation:"9 State and Local Fiscal Effects of Immigration." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23550.
×
Page 520
Suggested Citation:"9 State and Local Fiscal Effects of Immigration." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23550.
×
Page 521
Suggested Citation:"9 State and Local Fiscal Effects of Immigration." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23550.
×
Page 522
Suggested Citation:"9 State and Local Fiscal Effects of Immigration." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23550.
×
Page 523
Suggested Citation:"9 State and Local Fiscal Effects of Immigration." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23550.
×
Page 524
Suggested Citation:"9 State and Local Fiscal Effects of Immigration." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23550.
×
Page 525
Suggested Citation:"9 State and Local Fiscal Effects of Immigration." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23550.
×
Page 526
Suggested Citation:"9 State and Local Fiscal Effects of Immigration." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23550.
×
Page 527
Suggested Citation:"9 State and Local Fiscal Effects of Immigration." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23550.
×
Page 528
Suggested Citation:"9 State and Local Fiscal Effects of Immigration." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23550.
×
Page 529
Suggested Citation:"9 State and Local Fiscal Effects of Immigration." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23550.
×
Page 530
Suggested Citation:"9 State and Local Fiscal Effects of Immigration." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23550.
×
Page 531
Suggested Citation:"9 State and Local Fiscal Effects of Immigration." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23550.
×
Page 532
Suggested Citation:"9 State and Local Fiscal Effects of Immigration." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23550.
×
Page 533
Suggested Citation:"9 State and Local Fiscal Effects of Immigration." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23550.
×
Page 534
Suggested Citation:"9 State and Local Fiscal Effects of Immigration." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23550.
×
Page 535
Suggested Citation:"9 State and Local Fiscal Effects of Immigration." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23550.
×
Page 536
Suggested Citation:"9 State and Local Fiscal Effects of Immigration." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23550.
×
Page 537
Suggested Citation:"9 State and Local Fiscal Effects of Immigration." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23550.
×
Page 538
Suggested Citation:"9 State and Local Fiscal Effects of Immigration." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23550.
×
Page 539
Suggested Citation:"9 State and Local Fiscal Effects of Immigration." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23550.
×
Page 540
Suggested Citation:"9 State and Local Fiscal Effects of Immigration." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23550.
×
Page 541
Suggested Citation:"9 State and Local Fiscal Effects of Immigration." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23550.
×
Page 542
Suggested Citation:"9 State and Local Fiscal Effects of Immigration." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23550.
×
Page 543
Suggested Citation:"9 State and Local Fiscal Effects of Immigration." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23550.
×
Page 544
Suggested Citation:"9 State and Local Fiscal Effects of Immigration." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23550.
×
Page 545
Suggested Citation:"9 State and Local Fiscal Effects of Immigration." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23550.
×
Page 546
Suggested Citation:"9 State and Local Fiscal Effects of Immigration." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23550.
×
Page 547
Suggested Citation:"9 State and Local Fiscal Effects of Immigration." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23550.
×
Page 548
Suggested Citation:"9 State and Local Fiscal Effects of Immigration." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23550.
×
Page 549
Suggested Citation:"9 State and Local Fiscal Effects of Immigration." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23550.
×
Page 550
Suggested Citation:"9 State and Local Fiscal Effects of Immigration." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23550.
×
Page 551
Suggested Citation:"9 State and Local Fiscal Effects of Immigration." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23550.
×
Page 552
Suggested Citation:"9 State and Local Fiscal Effects of Immigration." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23550.
×
Page 553
Suggested Citation:"9 State and Local Fiscal Effects of Immigration." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23550.
×
Page 554
Suggested Citation:"9 State and Local Fiscal Effects of Immigration." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23550.
×
Page 555
Suggested Citation:"9 State and Local Fiscal Effects of Immigration." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23550.
×
Page 556
Suggested Citation:"9 State and Local Fiscal Effects of Immigration." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23550.
×
Page 557
Suggested Citation:"9 State and Local Fiscal Effects of Immigration." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23550.
×
Page 558
Suggested Citation:"9 State and Local Fiscal Effects of Immigration." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23550.
×
Page 559
Suggested Citation:"9 State and Local Fiscal Effects of Immigration." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23550.
×
Page 560
Suggested Citation:"9 State and Local Fiscal Effects of Immigration." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23550.
×
Page 561
Suggested Citation:"9 State and Local Fiscal Effects of Immigration." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23550.
×
Page 562
Suggested Citation:"9 State and Local Fiscal Effects of Immigration." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23550.
×
Page 563
Suggested Citation:"9 State and Local Fiscal Effects of Immigration." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23550.
×
Page 564
Suggested Citation:"9 State and Local Fiscal Effects of Immigration." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23550.
×
Page 565
Suggested Citation:"9 State and Local Fiscal Effects of Immigration." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23550.
×
Page 566
Next: 10 Research Directions and Data Recommendations »
The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $129.00 Buy Ebook | $104.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration finds that the long-term impact of immigration on the wages and employment of native-born workers overall is very small, and that any negative impacts are most likely to be found for prior immigrants or native-born high school dropouts. First-generation immigrants are more costly to governments than are the native-born, but the second generation are among the strongest fiscal and economic contributors in the U.S. This report concludes that immigration has an overall positive impact on long-run economic growth in the U.S.

More than 40 million people living in the United States were born in other countries, and almost an equal number have at least one foreign-born parent. Together, the first generation (foreign-born) and second generation (children of the foreign-born) comprise almost one in four Americans. It comes as little surprise, then, that many U.S. residents view immigration as a major policy issue facing the nation. Not only does immigration affect the environment in which everyone lives, learns, and works, but it also interacts with nearly every policy area of concern, from jobs and the economy, education, and health care, to federal, state, and local government budgets.

The changing patterns of immigration and the evolving consequences for American society, institutions, and the economy continue to fuel public policy debate that plays out at the national, state, and local levels. The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration assesses the impact of dynamic immigration processes on economic and fiscal outcomes for the United States, a major destination of world population movements. This report will be a fundamental resource for policy makers and law makers at the federal, state, and local levels but extends to the general public, nongovernmental organizations, the business community, educational institutions, and the research community.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!