I received an email and a follow up call from Daniel Lucio who is a native of Texas and a representative of Battleground Texas.  The email I received grabbed my attention last week because as a resident of Arizona, I discovered how the Texas legislature is now trying to introduce a similar Arizona law that ended up costing taxpayer dollars to defend when the Supreme Court essentially gutted it out.  The controversial anti-immigrant law also cost Arizona millions and millions of dollars in tourism once the former Governor Jan Brewer signed it.  Finally, most of SB1070 was gut out out and the Supreme Court ruled that Arizona cannot require immigrants to carry proof of their legal status at all times. It also ruled that Arizona police cannot detain someone simply on the suspicion that they are in the country illegally. The court also ruled Arizona cannot make it a crime for undocumented immigrants to apply for employment.

Indeed the CBO chimed in and stated S. 744 (immigration reform law) would boost economic output—CBO projects—by 3.3 percent in 2023 and by 5.4 percent in 2033.

Now we are hawkish with Texas SB 185, and we will focus on the supporters of this draconian law and tie their heads to the economic millstone when we remind them how much SB 1070 cost our State.

From the Immigration Policy Center:

Anti-immigration measures harm states’ economies.

• If unauthorized immigrants leave, states will lose workers, taxpayers, and consumers who earn and spend money in the state. Unauthorized immigrants comprised roughly 5.2% of the national workforce (or 8,000,000 workers) in 2010, according to a report by the Pew Hispanic Center.
• Experiences from states that have passed harsh immigration laws tell a cautionary fiscal tale:

• Alabama’s HB 56 could shrink the state’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by up to $10.8 billion, according to Professor Samuel Addy at the Center for Business and Economic Research at the University of Alabama. Prof. Addy estimates that a loss of 40,000 to 80,000 unauthorized immigrants who earn between $15,000 and $35,000 annually could result in:

• 70,000 to 140,000 lost jobs with $1.2 to $5.8 billion in earnings;
• $2.3 to $10.8 billion reduction in Alabama GDP, or 1.3% to 6.2% of the state’s $172.6 billion GDP in 2010;
• $57 to $264 million loss in state income and sales tax collections; and
• $20 to $93 million loss in local sales tax collections.

• A 2011 report by Dr. Raul Hinojosa-Ojeda and Marshall Fitz found that deporting all of the unauthorized immigrants in Arizona would decrease total employment by 17.2%, eliminate 581,000 jobs for immigrants and native-born workers alike, shrink the state economy by $48.8 billion, and reduce state tax revenues by 10.1%.

• Similarly, Hinojosa-Ojeda and Fitz found that if all of the unauthorized immigrants in California were removed, the state would lose $301.6 billion in economic activity, decrease total employment by 17.4%, and eliminate 3.6 million jobs.
• A study released in July 2007 by the University of Arizona’s Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy concluded that economic output would drop annually by at least $29 billion, or 8.2%, if all non-citizens, which include unauthorized workers, were removed from Arizona’s workforce. About 14% of the state’s 2.6 million workers are foreign-born, and about two-thirds to three-fourths of non-citizens are unauthorized.

Harsh immigration laws have produced severe worker shortages.

The agricultural industry has been devastated in states that have passed harsh immigration laws. Immigrant workers have failed to show up for work and millions of dollars of produce has been left to rot in the fields. Legal U.S. workers have not been filling the open jobs. The uncertainty about how much labor will be available affects growers’ ability to prepare and plant for next year.

• After passing its immigration enforcement bill (HB 87), Georgia’s agriculture industry experienced severe labor shortages. A survey of farmers conducted by the Georgia Department of Agriculture found 56% of those surveyed were experiencing difficulty finding workers. Early reports from the state estimate economic losses for the 2011 growing season to be between $300 million and $1 billion.
• Alabama Agriculture Commissioner John McMillan stated, “the economic hardship to farmers and agribusiness will reverberate throughout Alabama’s economy, as one-fifth of all jobs in our state come from farming.” Alabama growers have reported planting less due to concerns that there may not be enough workers to harvest the crops.
• A Georgia Restaurant Association survey found that nearly half (49%) of surveyed restaurants reported labor shortages, and 88% were concerned about future shortages. Lack of workers and related business losses have cut some restaurants’ revenue by as much as $80,000 per month.

Harsh immigration laws result in lost tax revenues.

• States stand to lose millions of dollars in tax revenues if unauthorized immigrants—as well as legal immigrants whose lives are made difficult by the law—were to leave. Unauthorized immigrants in the United States paid $11.2 billion in state and local taxes in 2010, according to data from the Institute for Taxation and Economic Policy, which includes:

• $1.2 billion in state income taxes;
• $1.6 billion in property taxes; and
• $8.4 billion in sales taxes.
• Estimates for your state are available here.

• In Alabama, according to Professor Addy, HB 56 could result in a loss of between $56.7 and $264.5 million in state income and sales tax collections and up to $93.1 million lost in local sales tax collections.

Harsh immigration laws discourage economic growth.

Many states are hoping for a manufacturing renaissance to help reduce unemployment and lift their economies out of recession. For these hopes to succeed, states will require business-friendly public policy. Investors need to expect a hassle-free experience for work permit-holding foreign managers and workers alike, which cannot happen when state officials and law-enforcement officers are required to verify immigration status even in routine encounters.

• Foreign companies employ 77,500 workers, or 5% of Alabama’s workforce; the auto industry supports nearly 45,000 in the state. In November 2011, a German Mercedes-Benz executive, visiting an auto plant in Tuscaloosa, Alabama, was arrested during a routine traffic stop for failing to produce evidence that he was in the United States legally. Soon afterwards, a Japanese Honda employee was issued a ticket when his international driver’s license was deemed insufficient. These examples illustrate the kind of bureaucratic hassle to be faced by authorized and unauthorized workers and executives alike under the new immigration laws.

• According to Gerald Dial, Alabama State Senate Republican whip and former HB 56 supporter, an unintended consequence of the legislation in that state has been to make other states more attractive for investors. “Other states will say, ‘Hey, you don’t want to go to Alabama now,’” said Dial. “We’re probably going to lose those people. We won’t know about it. There won’t be a big red flag: ‘Hey, we didn’t go to Alabama, we’re going to go to Arkansas or we’re going to go to South Carolina.’ That’s probably the most detrimental part of the whole bill.”
• In Nashville, Tennessee, the Chamber of Commerce called harsh immigration-control legislation “detrimental to work force development and international trade efforts,” while the president of a local commercial real estate firm said it would “make Tennessee unattractive to businesses looking to relocate.”
• International tourism is an extremely profitable and growing market for the United States. In 2010, international visitors spent more than $134.4 billion in the U.S., and travel and tourism exports accounted for 24% of U.S. services exports and 7% of all U.S. exports. Despite the global recession, Mexican tourists spent $8.7 billion in 2010—an 8% increase since 2009. Harsh enforcement laws could create an unwelcoming environment for international tourists, threatening this vital source of revenue.

Harsh immigration laws make it more difficult and expensive for businesses to operate.

• Two of Indiana’s largest employers, Eli Lilly and Co. (a drug manufacturer) and Cummins Inc. (an engine manufacturer), published a statement arguing that Indiana’s proposed immigration enforcement law (SB 590) would impede their ability to compete globally and grow in Indiana. According to Eli Lilly and Co., Indiana has a sizeable and growing biosciences industry, with almost 90,000 employees and supporting a total of $22.7 billion in economic output—direct, indirect, and induced. Spokesman Ed Sagebiel said the company’s “ability to thrive in Indiana is dependent on an environment that is welcoming.” Similarly, Cummins Inc. highlighted 550 new high-paying jobs they brought to the state as a result of Indiana’s friendliness to new business.
• States could experience significant blows to tourism/convention profits. After Arizona passed SB 1070, major groups and associations cancelled events and conventions in the state. A report by the Center for American Progress (CAP) estimates that Arizona will lose $45 million in lodging revenue alone. Arizona was eventually forced to spend $250,000 for a marketing campaign to help improve its image after SB 1070 was enacted.
• Some proposed laws require the mandatory use of the E-Verify employment verification system. Bloomberg estimates that implementing E-Verify costs small businesses an average of $435 per year. There are also costs to U.S. citizens and legal immigrants who are erroneously flagged as not eligible to work by E-Verify and must take time off of work to navigate the bureaucracy to fix the error.
• State immigration enforcement laws mean businesses must incur additional costs. Economist Jeremy Thornton of Samford University points to the “shadow costs” employers incur when they take steps to protect themselves from the law’s stiff penalties. Businesses will spend more on employee screening to protect themselves from provisions of the law that bar them from knowingly hiring unauthorized workers. There could also be increased litigation costs for businesses because any legal worker could sue the employer if they have hired an unauthorized worker. “Every business that now has to comply with this legislation, that’s just extra cost. And anytime you raise costs, businesses shrink, Thornton said.” Businesses will likely have to spend more on third party assistance for employment eligibility paperwork and extra human resources staff.
• Alabama had to push back the deadline for businesses to obtain or renew their licenses “due to the hardship placed on Alabama businesses” that could not get business licenses in October because of implementation of the new law. The new law requires individuals and businesses obtaining or renewing business and store licenses to show additional documentation, which has led to long lines at courthouses and other delays.
  

Implementing and enforcing harsh immigration laws cost states millions.

Implementing these new measures will cost taxpayers dearly at a time when states are already having tremendous difficulty balancing their budgets. Potential costs include:

• Cost to Police: Costs associated with a projected increase in arrests and overtime.
• Cost to Jails: Costs associated with a projected increase in jail population.
• Other Criminal-Justice Costs: Cost of projected increase in prosecutorial and public-defender staff, jail space, court rooms, and support offices needed to handle increased caseload.
• Costs to State Agencies: Costs associated with additional personnel and time necessary to check the identification documents of all persons applying for certain state benefits. Also, cost of foster-care for children of detained immigrants.
• Costs to Schools: Costs associated with checking and reporting the immigration status of children enrolled in schools and lost federal or state funding for schools due to decreases in school enrollment.
• Legal Costs: Legal costs incurred by the state to defend against lawsuits.

Some states that considered immigration enforcement laws in 2010-2011 backed off once they considered cost estimates for implementation.

• In Kentucky, an enforcement bill died after an estimate showed it would cost the state $89 million per year to enforce.
• In Louisiana, a bill was withdrawn when it was estimated to cost $11 million to implement.
• In Tennessee, immigration bills are stalled in 2012 until “sufficient funds can be generated to finance it.” In 2011, the General Assembly Fiscal Review Committee found that their proposal would increase expenditures by $3 million for the first year and $1.8 million every year after that.
• In Indiana, state police said they would have to spend $5 million to train for and enforce the law.

States will have to spend millions to defend laws in the courts.

Most anti-immigration measures have immediately been challenged on constitutional and other grounds. Defending the law in the courts can be very expensive.

• Utah’s immigration control bill, HB 497, has cost taxpayers more than $85,000 to defend in federal court. The price tag will likely increase a great deal before a final ruling is reached.

• In Arizona, seven lawsuits were filed to stop implementation of SB 1070, and other states are likely to see numerous lawsuits against similar legislation. At the end of February 2011, Arizona had already spent more than $1.5 million defending SB 1070.

• Farmers Branch, Texas, has already spent about $3.2 million to defend itself since September 2006, when it launched the first of three ordinances. The city has budgeted $623,000 for legal expenses through the rest of the fiscal year related to the ordinance defense. Legal costs could exceed $5 million by the end of the fiscal year.

• Riverside, New Jersey, rescinded an ordinance that penalized renting to or employing unauthorized immigrants after the town of 8,000 accumulated $82,000 in legal fees.

The majority of the Hispanic / Latino population pie in the United States are those of Mexican descent.  Mexican American Chicanos for the most part heavily populate the southwestern part of our Nation.  Now that Florida’s Cuban American Senator via Sen. Marco Rubio is running for President, we believe it is time to remember the facts and bring up history in an effort to remind ourselves how weak his leadership skills really are.

Chicano Sin No. 1:   Senator Marco Rubio supported Arizona’s “papers please” law that would have directly affected brown-skinned Chicanos and Latinos here in Arizona with regard to SB 1070.  He has not recanted his support for SB 1070.

Chicano Sin No.2:   His support for immigration reform via the Gang of 8 until he reversed his position and backed out.

Chicano Sin No.3:   Senator Marco Rubio did not take a stand against the RNC’s anti-immigrant policy adopted in 2012 that was essentially written and blessed by Kris Kobach.  If Rubio cannot express strong leadership skills within his own Party as a “Hispanic” — how can we trust he is able to run this Nation of ours?

Rubio’s main Latino constituency in Florida are of Cuban descent, therefore we believe he doesn’t understand, feel or hear the outcry experienced by Mexicans (living in the southwest) and other Latin groups who do not receive the privilege of automatic citizenship given to Puerto Ricans, or the immigration amnesty given to Cuban immigrants.    Currently under the unique Cuban amnesty program, Cuban immigrants can receive at least one year of government entitlements once their foot touches American soil without first contributing to our tax paying system.  Republicans have long forgotten that the GOP has indeed supported immigration amnesty for years under the Cuban Adjustment Act (CAA) while damning Mexicans, and other Latin immigrants who do not receive Cuban amnesty.

According to a CNN Op-ed by  Raul Reyes:

Back in 2013, Rubio was a member of the Senate “Gang of 8″ that crafted a bipartisan proposal for comprehensive reform, including a path to citizenship for the nation’s estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants. He later distanced himself from the bill after it ran into resistance from House Republicans, and now says he favors a piecemeal approach, starting with securing the border.

His retreat on immigration means that Rubio has missed an opportunity to set himself apart from most of the presumptive Republican presidential candidates. That’s a shame, for this issue was supposed to be his calling card to Latino voters.

Instead, Rubio has embraced a typical conservative approach to immigration. He believes that President Obama’s Deferred Action program, offering deportation relief to young immigrants, should be ended. He has stated that the President’s executive action on immigration, on hold pending a circuit court review, sets a “horrifying precedent.”

Meanwhile, both the Deferred Action program and President Obama’s executive action on immigration are overwhelmingly favored by Hispanics. No wonder the research firm Latino Decisions reports that, “We find no evidence that Rubio’s candidacy will draw significant Latino support for his candidacy or for his party more generally.” So, if Rubio is counting on his ethnicity and personal history as the son of immigrants to win over fellow Hispanics, he is mistaken.

I’ll agree with Reyes’ opinion and will add to it.  Within the last decade the Republican Party has transformed since 2000 when they used to fight to keep Elian Gonzales as Latinos galvanized themselves in Florida. On the other hand, we have witnessed the GOP using Marco Rubio as a Trojan Horse today as a tool to deport the “Mexican equivalents” to Elian Gonzales, and this will only serve to galvanize Latinos in the entire southwest against Republicans during the 2016 election cycle.

C/S

It's a well known fact there are a few DREAMers who were hijacked by the Republican Party.  We call them "TeaDREAMers" for pushing the Republican Party agenda ... never mind the 2012 anti-immigrant platform adopted by the Republican National Committee in 2012 on the eve of their GOP convention that was essentially blessed by Kris Kobach [sarcasm included]. 

These TeaDREAMers include DREAMACTIVIST.org and cohorts of Mohammad Abdollahi,  [and whom Rep. Luis Gutierrez had to distance himself from for their racist views], DRM Action (a for profit company) with the likes of Erika Andiola downplaying importance of the Latino vote even though she can't vote herself, and their surrogates.  Our organization asked Jose Antonio Vargas and Gaby Pacheco to take leadership and speak against folks who supported the likes of Mohammad Abdollahi for stating he wanted to hijack comprehensive immigration reform in 2013 but we saw no leadership from the likes of them. 

Now we are seeing more backlash from folks we consider allies. 

Lack of "DREAM Act" leadership and turning a blind eye leads to heckling and showing utter disrespect for the Office of the Presidency. 

Ungrateful TeaDREAMers who find it cute to disrespect the President of the United States and interrupt his immigration speech are getting more backlash from those who are considered immigration allies.  (See below.)

Mexican-Americans account for almost 70% of the entire “Latin” population pie, and they are also the fastest growing population in the country.  We await the United States Senate as we compile a list of those who stood on the right side of immigration vs. those who do not stand on the right side of immigration.  “DREAMers” may not be able to vote, but you can bet your bottom dollar that Mexican – Americans can vote on behalf of them.  Mexican-Americans who can vote are already looking ahead to 2016, because we are well aware of the approximate 500,000 new coming of age Latin voters per year, and unfortunately Rep. Steve King is putting the GOP on the path to extinction. 

Ranking by Population — Pew

No Party Preference

By Ryan Trabuco

“I am an American; free born and free bred, where I acknowledge no man as my superior, except for his own worth, or as my inferior, except for his own demerit.” — Theodore Roosevelt

My decision. My choice. Certainly, this wasn’t easy. Allow me to think this through.

I’ve always admired Theodore Roosevelt. He fought corruption, spoke out passionately about his beliefs in much-needed reforms, and was noted for his fairness in policy and politics.

Of course, you may also read that folks at the turn of the 20th century considered him belligerent and opinionated. Hell, I’ve been called worse. For every one of his critics, however, there were many more who considered him “the hero America needed” as author Michael L. Cooper penned in his 2009 biography on our nation’s 26th President.

What I admire most about Teddy’s legacy and leadership, was his ability to bring folks together — often transcending partisan politics — and in doing so, for the good of our country.

Many of Teddy Roosevelt’s decisions were not easy, such as leaving the Republican Party in 1912 — a party he was active in and helped lead as a New York Assemblyman, Police Commissioner, Governor, Vice-President, and President. The Republican Party had left him and tacked a hard right turn, and Roosevelt, through the passion of defiance, left the party to continue to champion those reforms, values, and ideas he held dear.

Today, I feel it’s the same path I must take as well. Today, I re-registered to vote as “No Party Preference” (a.k.a. “Independent”).

I assure you, no decision could have been harder for me, personally.

Freedom. Opportunity. Self-Reliance. State’s Rights. Government efficiency.  There’s a sense of tradition and a value system — that I cherish and hold dear — you just don’t find in other political parties.

There’s a proud history of nearly 10 years here registering Republican voters. Volunteering. Fundraising. Knocking on doors, calling voters, doing anything I could possibly do to help Republican candidates win elections — pouring blood, sweat, and often tears into these efforts. Oh Lord, did I mention the tweeting?

For now, in this moment, I just felt it was the right choice to make.

As unfortunate (for a number of reasons) that I felt 2008 was a bad year politically, nothing could’ve prepared me for the slaughter of 2012. Of course, in the heat of election cycles, it’s easy to re-hash the talking points of a campaign, and paraphrase why you feel it’s better that voters should choose your side. There’s facts, graphs, logic, and ideology at play. What’s often overlooked though is governing, and the plan to govern.

There hadn’t been much thought about re-registering until recently, while watching the fiscal cliff debate play out over weeks on end. Speculation. Finger-pointing. The constant will-they-won’t-they approach to politics. Quite honestly, it was sick. For as bad as it was for Democrats, I couldn’t honestly sit back and defend the Republicans’  seemingly hands-off approach to governing.

I kept asking myself, “Where’s the leadership? Where’s the plan?”

Then, allowing the Democrats to figure it out on their own and then dictate the terms of whatever the compromise would be was embarrassing to say the very least. I can’t defend that.

I admit, I said for a long time that wild horses couldn’t drag me from my party — and they didn’t. The selfish behavior of those who would rather bring our country to its’ knees, rather than face the challenges ahead of us have drug the party away from me. The constant kowtowing to the Tea Party and like-minded ideologues have damaged the brand, the mission, and the spirit of the Republican Party.

Look at California. The Republican Party, here, is a mess. Enough said.

In San Diego, it’s not nearly as bad but there’s problems here as well. There’s nothing wrong with good-natured, well-intentioned, and much-needed government reforms, but there is a significant problem when you allow a single elected official — an emotional and personality equivalent to Mr. Toad’s Wild Ride — to dictate the focus of the party, and whether you are or aren’t welcome within the apparatus.

When Nathan Fletcher left the Republican Party last spring, I admit, I was more than disappointed and reflected those feelings to him over the phone. He said he was tired and over the drama. All the critics said it was political. After much soul-searching these last few weeks, I have to say that Nathan was right. I’m tired and over it, too.

All in all, I don’t feel there’s leadership. Or focus. I don’t feel there’s necessary attention being paid to strengthen the Republican Party. All talk, no action. I’ve said for years that the GOP needed to embrace it’s roots founded in the original 1856 Platform — a document that reads more like the blueprint for ideas in freedom and governance, rather than today’s GOP platform which specifically says what you can or can’t do in life.

Where’s the allure? What’s the difference between the Republicans and the Democrats, aside from being polar opposites on the political spectrum? Nothing. God forbid you find yourself in the political center. You have no where to go.

All that said, where do we go from here?

I’m sure folks will say I’ve always been a squish. Not committed. Not conservative enough. That’s fine. That just shows that those folks have very little respect for the consistent work I did all those years. All the more reason for my decision to step aside, and re-register.

I am now a simple, registered voter who states that I have NO PARTY PREFERENCE. That doesn’t change who I am or what I believe. Our spending needs to be under control, I’m not in favor of big government or higher taxes — we need some desperate spending cuts, for sure. However, if I ever served as an elected official, I would have sense enough to know not to bring a government to its knees because of hard-headedness (a heartfelt sentiment to both parties).

Thankfully, I have no designs on political office. I’m too honest for it.

Now, there are good Republicans, and there are good Democrats. I’m honored to know both. It’s the self-interested ones on both sides of the aisle who need to reappraise their purpose in politics.

Hopefully, there will be a time in the very near future when the Republican Party evaluates itself in the tradition of Abraham Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt. I pray it does.  It would be an honor to re-register as a Republican under such circumstances. Until then, I will spend my time focusing on my commitments and service to my community, and encouraging camaraderie among others — no matter what their political persuasion may be.

Teddy Roosevelt once said, “Keep your eyes on the stars, and your feet on the ground.” I’ve always been inspired to reach for the stars, and although I’m no longer a Republican, I feel as grounded as I’ve ever been.