1. Reports vary on economic impact
2. AZ court okays seizure of money
3. CA santuary city reviews policies
4. VA city mulls fate of billboard
5. VA county pol seeks regulations

1.
Do illegal immigrants help or hurt economy?
By Becky W. Evans
The Standard Times (New Bedford, MA), July 2, 2008

One of the most contentious issues in the immigration debate is whether illegal immigrants create a net loss or a net gain for local, state and federal government coffers.

To answer the question, one needs to know how much illegal immigrants contribute to the government through income, sales, property and other taxes; and how much they cost the government in using public services such as education, health care and law enforcement. Acquiring that information is not easy.

"I think it's very difficult to do that equation, because of all the intangibles that go into someone being in the economy and someone relying on society for different services," said New Bedford Mayor Scott W. Lang.

Numerous academic institutions, government agencies, think tanks and advocacy groups have published reports on the fiscal impact of illegal immigrants on local and state budgets. (None of the studies has focused on New Bedford or Massachusetts.) The studies, which use different methodologies, offer a variety of findings that make it difficult to draw a single conclusion.
. . .
The net fiscal impact of illegal immigrants on a town or state can fluctuate depending on what public services researchers choose to include in the equation, said Steven A. Camarota, director of research at the Center for Immigration Studies in Washington, D.C. The non-profit, non-partisan research organization has a "pro-immigrant, low-immigration vision which seeks fewer immigrants but a warmer welcome for those admitted," according to the group's Web site.

If researchers include only direct services such as health care, education and incarceration, the net fiscal impact "tends to come out more positive," Dr. Camarota said. Once you begin to account for the U.S.-citizen children of illegal immigrants and population-based services such as repairs to roads, bridges and other infrastructure, "it turns very negative, very fast," he said.

Randy Capps, a senior researcher at the Washington, D.C.-based Urban Institute, agrees that the net fiscal impact of illegal immigrants varies depending on how you measure taxes and service costs. The Urban Institute is a non-profit, non-partisan policy research and educational organization that aims "to promote sound social policy and public debate on national priorities," according to the group's Web site.

"To me, there is one simple bottom line," Dr. Capps said. "There probably are costs, but they are not that big because undocumented immigrants pay taxes. And the costs are much smaller compared to the economic benefits."

The money that illegal immigrants spend on goods and services in their local communities and around the state "reverberates throughout the whole economy, creates more jobs, more spending and more revenue," he said. "The scale of economic benefit far outweighs any costs on the fiscal side."

Dr. Capps co-authored a 2007 study on immigrants in Arkansas. The study, which was funded by the Winthrop Rockefeller Foundation, found that the total economic impact of Arkansas' 100,000 immigrants (of which 51 percent are undocumented) on the state economy is nearly $3 billion. The Texas Comptroller study found that the 1.4 million undocumented immigrants living in Texas in 2005 contributed $17.7 billion to the state economy.

Dr. Camarota discounts the theory that illegal immigrants have a large economic impact. Because illegal immigrants are generally less-educated than most Americans, and therefore earn lower wages, they don't actually contribute that much to the economy, he said.

"You can't get a big boost to the economy by having a lot of less-educated people coming into the United States, because they don't get paid that much," he said.
. . .
http://www.southcoasttoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080702/NEWS/...

********
********

2.
Appeals court says AZ can seize wired money
By Jacques Billeaud
The Associated Press, July 2, 2008

Phoenix (AP) -- An Arizona appeals court has reversed a ruling that prevented state prosecutors from seizing suspected immigrant smuggling money flowing from other American states into northern Mexico.

The Arizona Court of Appeals on Tuesday threw out a decision by a Maricopa County judge who in 2007 ruled that state prosecutors hadn't shown they had jurisdiction to seize money from locations outside Arizona.

For more than four years, prosecutors had used special court orders that allowed them to seize $17 million in wire transfers flowing to Arizona that authorities said were payments to smugglers.

Prosecutors said their previous efforts were so successful that smugglers began to route their payments from other American states to Mexico, even as traffickers continued to sneak people in through Arizona. Authorities responded by trying to seize money transfers going into the northern Mexican state of Sonora.
. . .
http://www.abc15.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=1c03c049-e22f-43f3...

********
********

3.
Migrant snafus bedevil S.F.;
The 'sanctuary city' can no longer escort juvenile immigrants back home -- or ship them to Inland Empire.
By Maria L. LaGanga, David Kelly and Anna Gorman
Los Angeles Times, July 2, 2008

San Francisco -- California's best-known sanctuary city -- a haven for illegal immigrants -- has been escorting convicted juvenile offenders back to their home countries at city expense for nearly a generation and shielding them from federal officials in the process.

But after several recent embarrassing incidents, this famously liberal enclave has been forced to reconsider how it deals with young undocumented criminals.

Ever since a city juvenile probation officer was detained by federal immigration authorities in Houston nearly seven weeks ago and questioned about two offenders he was escorting back to Honduras, the city has stopped flying such people home.

Instead, officials have increased the number sent to unsecured group homes in San Bernardino County. But then eight convicted juvenile drug dealers from Honduras walked away from facilities run by Silverlake Youth Services in recent days, creating an uproar among Inland Empire residents and officials.

"I was unaware that the city had its own foreign policy and immigration laws that superseded federal law," San Bernardino County Supervisor Gary Ovitt said, referring to San Francisco. "No one should have to suffer from a poorly thought-out policy such as this."

So San Francisco officials are shifting gears again.
. . .
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-me-immig2-2008jul02,0,...

********
********

4.
In Manassas, the Medium Is the Issue
By Nick Miroff
The Washington Post, July 2, 2008

In Manassas's quaint, red-brick Old Town neighborhood, a giant billboard greets visiting tourists and commuters, but it was not put there by the city or Chamber of Commerce.

"PWC and Manassas the National Capital of Intolerence," it declares, in hand-painted, none-too-subtle red and blue block lettering. The sign, 40 feet long and 12 feet high, sits on the property of Gaudencio Fernandez, 47, a contractor who immigrated to the United States from Mexico in 1979.

What follows is a rambling indictment of Prince William County and Manassas, likening efforts to target illegal immigrants in the jurisdictions with slavery, Jim Crow laws and the Ku Klux Klan. "We demand equality and justice for all," Fernandez's broadside concludes. "We will not be your slaves of the 21st century."

Since it first appeared last fall, the billboard, called "The Liberty Wall" by Fernandez's supporters because of its address at 9500 Liberty St., has become a political symbol and a rallying point for those who see it as a truth-to-power act of defiance. The sign's text has changed a few times, but its message has essentially remained the same: Latino immigrants have been exploited by ungrateful, racist white residents who took advantage of their labor and now want them to leave.

To many residents and business owners, "The Sign," as they call it, is an ugly diatribe and galling eyesore. Comparing tougher immigration enforcement with genocide and slavery is offensive, insulting and wildly exaggerated, they said.

Local editorials and letters to Manassas officials have urged the city for months to remove the sign. Vandals with less patience have attacked the structure on several occasions, including one failed attempt to destroy it with a firebomb last year.

Despite the public pressure, Manassas officials have proceeded cautiously. With a Justice Department investigation into unfair housing practices pending against the city, as well as an unresolved lawsuit accusing the city of discrimination, Manassas officials are wary of further litigation and racial criticism. For the most part, city staff and council members have been silent or circumspect in discussing Fernandez and his sign, eager to avoid an escalation. Instead, they have prodded Fernandez to obtain a building permit for the sign or remove the billboard, but so far he has rebuffed them, citing the right to freedom of speech.
. . .
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/01/AR200807...

********
********

5.
Residents call for zoning crackdown
By David Sherfinski
The Examiner (Washington, DC), July 2, 2008

Washington, DC -- Overcrowding complaints by Loudoun residents who charge that groups of illegal immigrants are packing houses zoned for single families have more than doubled in 2008, prompting a county supervisor to urge an investigation.

The issue has underscored rising tensions in the county between a growing population of immigrants and residents who say zoning and other regulations are being ignored.

“Residential, family-owned housing is not meant to be a barracks or a bunkhouse for workers in between jobs,” said Supervisor Eugene Delgaudio, R-Sterling, who sent the letter to county Administrator Kirby Bowers calling for a probe into the way zoning rules are being enforced.

Joe Budzinski, a member of the group Help Save Loudoun, said that a house across from him had five to seven pickup trucks parked out front almost nightly in early April. The zoning board investigated and found no violations, he said.

“If they crack down on the zoning issues, the illegal immigration issue will be solved as well,” said Budzinski.

Immigrant advocates said new arrivals in the county are unfairly being made the target of local anger.
. . .
http://www.examiner.com/a-1468855~Residents_call_for_zoning_crackdown.html