The truth about Ricky Perry's jobs

Rick Perry claims that he created lots of jobs in Texas, and that’s why you should vote for him. But the Center for Immigration Studies reports the real facts:

Governor Rick Perry (R-Texas) has pointed to job growth in Texas during the current economic downturn as one of his main accomplishments. But analysis of Current Population Survey (CPS) data collected by the Census Bureau show that immigrants (legal and illegal) have been the primary beneficiaries of this growth since 2007, not native-born workers. This is true even though the native-born accounted for the vast majority of growth in the working-age population (age 16 to 65) in Texas. Thus, they should have received the lion’s share of the increase in employment. As a result, the share of working-age natives in Texas holding a job has declined in a manner very similar to the nation a whole.

Among the findings:

• Of jobs created in Texas since 2007, 81 percent were taken by newly arrived immigrant workers (legal and illegal).
• In terms of numbers, between the second quarter of 2007, right before the recession began, and the second quarter of 2011, total employment in Texas increased by 279,000. Of this, 225,000 jobs went to immigrants (legal and illegal) who arrived in the United States in 2007 or later.
• Of newly arrived immigrants who took a job in Texas, 93 percent were not U.S. citizens. Thus government data show that more than three-fourths of net job growth in Texas were taken by newly arrived non-citizens (legal and illegal).
• The large share of job growth that went to immigrants is surprising because the native-born accounted for 69 percent of the growth in Texas’ working-age population (16 to 65). Thus, even though natives made up most of the growth in potential workers, most of the job growth went to immigrants.
• The share of working-age natives holding a job in Texas declined significantly, from 71 percent in 2007 to 67 percent in 2011. This decline is very similar to the decline for natives in the United States as a whole and is an indication that the situation for native-born workers in Texas is very similar to the overall situation in the country despite the state’s job growth.
• Of newly arrived immigrants who took jobs in Texas since 2007, we estimate that 50 percent (113,000) were illegal immigrants. Thus, about 40 percent of all the job growth in Texas since 2007 went to newly arrived illegal immigrants and 40 percent went to newly arrived legal immigrants.
• Immigrants took jobs across the educational distribution. More than one out three (97,000) of newly arrived immigrants who took a job had at least some college.
• These numbers raise the question of whether it makes sense to continue the current high level of legal immigration and also whether to continue to tolerate illegal immigration.

So we see that there were a lot of new jobs in Texas that went to immigrants, many of them in the country illegally, but native-born Americans didn't benefit from any of this.

I will be voting for Mitt Romney, and I hope that you will also.

Comments

[anon]

It is foolish as an HBD aware conservative to vote for the Republican. Obama will have a much more difficult time passing amnesty because he will face resistance from the right.

Perry or Romney will get more partisan support from the right with re: to amnesty, as well as leftist support.

This is why Reagan and W. Bush were able to accomplish the most.

Obama and a Republican Congress in gridlock is your best bet.

Think about it.

[Michael Vassar]

What about Huntsman?

[davver]

I know nothing about all the non Romney candidates, but I know Romney is a wall street stooge so I guess I'm sitting out another election.

Is voting for Romney just about social proof for you (I'm voting for the non-hick republican).

[Cum Lade]

Important post, everyone should read this. Romney is not perfect, but on the most important issue facing us today Perry is no conservative.

[davver]

The elite do not believe in nationalism. If mexican immigrants all get better jobs in America they feel that the increase in happiness of these poor immigrants is greater then the lose of happiness of displaced Americans. As globalists they only care about the net happiness of the world, not the happiness of their own citizens (since they do not believe in nationhood and see themselves as global citizens).

Of course this fits in with the fact that it helps them economically, but if you pressed one for a moral basis behind their arguement they would argue that immigration helps poor people in the third world more then it hurts Americans.

[outlaw josey wales]

Immigration is a funny topic that both D's and R's don't want to tackle. D's because of wanting Latino votes and R's because of the same thing and also because the Chamber of Commerce wants cheap immigrant labor. Thus both (presumed) votes and money are aligned against immigration reform. So, it will not happen.

[Peter A]

Wait, why on earth would you vote for Romney if your hot button issue is immigration? You need to explain that Sig. Are you saying that Romney is better than Perry on all the other issues? Romney has to be, without question, the most pro immigration of all the Republican field, certainly worse than Perry.

[HS: There is no major Republican candidate who takes a strong stand against immigration, but Romney will be a lot better than Obama.

Romeny is supported here because he's smart and he doesn't come accross as a religious nut (even though he does wear Mormon underwear).]

[alonzo portfolio]

In non-recession times, 40% of all jobs are construction related. A high percentage of construction jobs are at least partially funded by fedgov, which then gets to decide the hiring standards, and this now means non-whites. As an example take San Francisco's Presidio, formerly an army base and now part of the national parks system. Lots of construction work going on, and a nary a white man to be seen.

[rob]

40% of the new jobs Perry's Texas went to criminal aliens?!?! He should really be running for El Presidente del Mexico. Texans, white and tan, Mexico can have them all as far as I care.

[Daniel]

>>>immigration is a funny topic that both D's and R's don't want to tackle. D's because of wanting Latino votes and R's because of the same thing and also because the Chamber of Commerce wants cheap immigrant labor. Thus both (presumed) votes and money are aligned against immigration reform. So, it will not happen.

You are wrong here. Both parties want to tackle immigration. They both wish to create more and more and browner and browner immigration. Both parties equally are your enemy.

[Black Death]

I don't like any of the Republican candidates, but if you're really concerned about immigration, Michele Bachmann is the best. Her grade from Numbers USA is a B, the best of any. Romney gets a C- and Perry, a D- (for all you Libertarians out there, Ron Paul gets an F). HS, your points about Perry's record of job creation in Texas are correct, but Michael Dukakis created more jobs as governor of Massachusetts than Romney. During Romney's governorship, Massachusetts had the fourth worse job creation record in the nation. And while he was at Bain Capital, Romney specialized in creating jobs - overseas.

My real fear is that the Republicans will win next year and we'll end up with another RINO, a la GWB (or his father). But we sure don't want to allow Obama to kake any more Supreme Court appointments, so I'll vote for the GOP and hope we do better this time. 'm not too confident, though.

[jeanne]

"and also because the Chamber of Commerce wants cheap immigrant labor."

Don't forget cheap gardeners & domestic help. They all have a "Pedro" somewhere, who does excellent work you know.

[Odds]

>2011
>still thinking that your vote means anything in a national election

I seriously hope you guys don't think this.

[Park Slope Pubby]

If Ron Paul won (BIG IF, I know), and if he put in true libertarian policies, then there would be no welfare to attract immigrants, and no free medical care (see last debate). So whatever his rating from Numbers USA, immigration would go down substantially, in my opinion.

Every immigrant I know is fully aware of all the benefits available in the USA. And they'd know they were cut. No free medical care? No food stamps? May as well go back to Mexico.

[Jack]

"Romney has to be, without question, the most pro immigration of all the Republican field, certainly worse than Perry."

Do you have evidence to back this up? Because from everything I've seen in the debates, Perry supports no fence and supported in state tuition for illegal aliens in Texas. Romney did not support this in Massachusetts and supports a border fence, as well as sanctions against employers. Please show one instance where Romney is worse than Perry on immigration. There isn't one. Please know what you are talking about before making statements, Peter A.

[Newt]

If you want limits and enforcement on immigration, a vote for Obama is your only rational choice.

Remember that Bush cut immigration enforcement 99% in his first term compared to Clinton. Then Obama, even in a climate of reduced illegal crossings, doubled and massively increased again deportations and workplace immigration enforcement.

Perry and Romney are just like Bush, cheap labor big business crony Republicans. They will take any chance they can to impose amnesty and increase immigrant numbers. Any Republican president will have the support of some of the Republican congress to pass guest worker programs and amnesties.

Obama, on the other hand, will never get an amnesty through any congress he is likely to face. Organized labor and Republican threats to call hum soft on crime will force him to actually have some immigration enforcement. There would be no pressure on a Republican president to do any immigration enforcement.

So vote for Obama. He's the best you could possibly get.

[HS: First of all you must have missed Obama's executive order to not enforce any immigration actions against college students or their families.

On top of that, Obama will appoint leftists to the Supreme Court who will declare that any future anti-immigration polices are unconstitutional. Voting for Obama, if you are anti-immigration, is just plain stupid.]

[Drole Prole]

"If Ron Paul won (BIG IF, I know), and if he put in true libertarian policies, then there would be no welfare to attract immigrants, and no free medical care (see last debate). So whatever his rating from Numbers USA, immigration would go down substantially, in my opinion.

Every immigrant I know is fully aware of all the benefits available in the USA. And they'd know they were cut. No free medical care? No food stamps? May as well go back to Mexico."

Actually, only a tiny percentage of illegal immigrants take advantage of gov't bennies and most operate under the radar. If we took a more libertarian approach to immigration, more people would immigrate to the US not fewer. Most illegal Mexicans bust their asses and would still thrive in the US without welfare.

[Drole Prole]

Also, the majority of jobs created in Texas under Perry were min wage jobs. People seem to be dismissive about Romney's prospect of beating Obama, but I think his being a more liberal republican will be to his advantage. Nearly 100% of Republicans voters will vote for him while 15% or so Democrats will vote for him mostly because they are sick of Obama and believe Romney is liberal enough for their vote. Ron Paul will not run as a 3rd party candidate and there aren't any Ross Perot-type candidates to siphon votes away from Romney or Obama.

[davver]

Drole Prole,

I think he is counting free public education, not paying taxes for public services, and free emergency room as beenfits.

Anyway, RP is the most anti immigration candidate.

[Commander Shepard]

"First of all you must have missed Obama's executive order to not enforce any immigration actions against college students or their families." Half Sigma

You'd be surprised at how disappointed Latinos are in Obama. The executive order for college students didn't increase his popularity due to NAMs not being well represented in higher learning. His latest move to focus on deportations of illegals with criminal records was politically calculated to restore some support. Like others I believe a Republican president is much more likely to push for and possibly succeed at enacting amnesty if history is any indication.

"On top of that, Obama will appoint leftists to the Supreme Court who will declare that any future anti-immigration polices are unconstitutional. Voting for Obama, if you are anti-immigration, is just plain stupid." - Half Sigma

That's a major stretch. To my knowledge immigration matters have never been a major focus of any Democratic judicial appointment. Mostly support for abortion/unions.

[Johnny]

Bachmann spoke out about the 1965 immigration act. By the standards of modern day politics, that's amazing. She'll be getting my vote.

Do not vote for Rick Perry.

[Superior]

The reason why immigrants benefited is that the americans feel ENTITLED to many things, including going through college without learning anything and expecting a good job afterwards.

Try dating a young american girl today and you'll see what I mean. She feels so entitled that it's disgusting.

Simply put immigrants are motivated, have less expectations and are willing to work harder and actually study in school. (see who gets PhDs in sciences in the US)

[destructure]

Perry used to be a Democrat. Now, he's a RINO. He's the establishment's Manchurian Candidate just like McCain and Bush were. I agree with the first comment that a pro amnesty GOP president would be more likely to get it passed than a Dem because of resistance on the right. But I don't see anyone going for amnesty in this economy. It's not like the construction industry needs the workers. And with unemployment high and local governments short on revenue it would be political suicide.

If Newt weren't such a sleazebag I would vote for him. But I can't trust someone whose done the things he has. That leaves Bachman and Romney. I'm not religious but I still prefer Bachman's views. Still, Bachmann would be a lightning rod and that would undermine her effectiveness. I'm not completely comfortable with Romney because I'm not sure he's conservative enough on immigration or anything else. But I may have to go with him, too.

[destructure]

In tonights debate Rick Perry says, "I Don't Think You Have a Heart" If You Oppose In-State Tuition for Children of Illegal Immigrants.

Ok, Sigma. You win. He's an idiot. I predict tonight marks the beginning of his long downward slide in the polls. Not that I was going to vote for him anyway.

[Heldebrand]

Maybe Tom Tancredo will take another stab at it. Spiced things up last time at any rate.

Anyway, as far as I can tell, the Republicans are worse on immigration than the Democrats. Well, McCain and Bush were fanatically pro illegal.

Best to have Dem in the White House and avoid the Invade the world/Invite the World ideology Sailer speaks of. And then you can have a Republican congress that nixes amnesty.

[not too late]

"Perry used to be a Democrat. Now, he's a RINO. He's the establishment's Manchurian Candidate just like McCain and Bush were."

LOL

Perry went to A&M.

There is no way he is the establishment candidate.

Romney is the establishment candidate, and that's fine. He is pretty good and can maybe win and doesn't say stupid crap.