At least eight different major programs and a terrifying 23.7% of costs including employee retirement, benefits, pensions, capital costs, and even its basic statewide administrative costs aren’t covered in the state budget.
That’s irrelevant to the legislation. The state correctional budget, not surprisingly, applies to state prisons. In the rare case that a detainer was issued against an incarcerated prisoner in a state institution, they were already being honored. These detainers under the legislation are issued for arrests at the city and county levels. By introducing the state correctional budget issue, you’ve introduced a factoid that has nothing to do with the legislation under discussion.
But there’s serious problem brewing even for dyed-in-the-wool alt-right supporters: No one on either side of the aisle has a clue who will pay for all this.
Well, that’s because it’s not very expensive. :-)
What the bill does is require a jurisdiction to keep somebody who has already been arrested and in jail a bit longer if ICE requests it. Therefore, costs are incremental. Your “math” assumes that they’re additive. Thus, your math is way off.
The cost of incarcerating anyone (you’re using $100 a day in your “math”) includes the processing cost on entry and exit. These individuals have already been arrested, so there’s no additional processing cost to keep them around on detainer; and the exit cost was going to happen either way. Therefore, you’re not talking $100 a day; you’re talking half that, perhaps less. Further, those costs are spread over thousands of local jurisdictions, not concentrated enough to cause any sort of budgetary problem at any level.
So, your error #1 is calculating the cost of any extended incarceration as if it is “new and additional” rather than an extension of an arrest that has already happened; and assuming it’s an aggregated cost rather than one that’s highly distributed.
Then, you move to error # 2; assuming that the 50,000 requests for detainers are being levied against citizens that pay, as you put it “$1,560,896,000 in state and local taxes annually”.
This assumes that all illegal aliens are producing equally. That’s nonsense, prima facie. It is intuitively obvious that people who break the law are economically less productive than people who do not break the law. So, one can assume that on average, those detainers are being issued against individuals who have less economic value to the state than individuals who do not become arrested. The math is pretty simple at that point. So, even if one assumes that the arrestees pay the same state taxes as the nonarrestees. the cost to the state would be 46.5M, or an amount of money which is .39% of the state’s 12B Rainy Day Fund.
So, more probably, the actual cost to the state of losing 50K detainers is probably closer to 20M than it is to 46.5M. Regardless, it’s a tiny percentage of cash on hand.
So, error 2 is assuming that the economic productivity of all illegals is the same. It’s not.
Which ties into error 3, that being the notion that if an illegal who works is deported, the job that generated the tax payments goes away. It doesn’t, of course.
If the holder of a job leaves that job, somebody else pops in to fill it. And with Texas having a net inward migration that is second highest in the nation (only Florida has a larger net inward migration), coupled with the fact that Texas is NOT a retirement destination (meaning the inward migrants are people looking for jobs, not retirement), I think we can comfortably say that those tax revenues are safe.
My point is this: it’s not just that ramping up deportations on the model of SB4 is morally wrong and legally tortuous.
You think it’s morally wrong to arrest people who have broken the law? :-)
It’s also prohibitively expensive.
Well, you’ve failed miserably in any effort to prove that.
We’ll never know the degree to which the Texas economic miracle was really a result of the grueling economic exploitation I’ve just described.
Laughs. “We’ll never know the degree?” Well, at least you’re admitting you’re engaging in sophistry.
But, since we’ll “never know the degree”, here’s my estimate as to what part of the Texas Economic Miracle is the result of illegal immigration:
Go ahead and prove me wrong.
But we do know that the undocumented are “floating” Texas to some degree.
1.4% of the state budget is hardly “floating”. So, no, we don’t “know” that.
and, if waves of deportations come, we know the economic downturn will be swift and lasting. In a state that already owes over $13,000 per person in debt, bankruptcy becomes a serious concern.
It’s……non existent as any sort of concern at all. And Texas has one of the higher bond ratings as states go. Other states have much higher debt per individual.
State Debt Per Capita
View state debts and per capita amounts for each state on our map.
Interesting how high debt per capita seems to be a blue-state phenomenon.
“Aberdeen PhD student”
Sorry, I have to ask this. What the eff is your PhD in? It’s certainly not math, stats, public policy, or any discipline that requires logical or rational thought.