Illegal immigrants in Maryland will pay $275 million in state and local taxes this year, according to a study released Monday by a Washington group that advocates for immigrants. The report ranks Maryland as the 11th-highest state in the nation in collecting tax receipts from unauthorized immigrants.
Maryland comes in after California, Florida and New York but ahead of Nevada and New Mexico. The state will collect $76 million in state income taxes, $22 million in property taxes and $177 million in sales taxes in the 2010 tax year, according to the Immigration Policy Center study.
The report’s authors acknowledge that “it is difficult to know precisely how much these families pay in taxes, because the spending and income behavior of these families is not as well documented as is the case for U.S. citizens.” The study’s release was timed to coincide with Monday’s deadline to file state and federal income taxes.
“Tax Day is an appropriate time to underscore the often-overlooked fact that unauthorized immigrants pay taxes,” according to an Immigration Policy Center release sent Monday. “Add this all up and it amounts to billions in revenue to state and local governments.”
In all, the group estimates that households headed by illegal immigrants will pay $11.2 billion in state and local taxes in 2010.
The Immigration Policy Center supported a proposal in Congress known as the DREAM Act that would have created a path to citizenship for some immigrants if they spent two years in the military or in college. The proposal failed. The group's estimates are based on a model developed by the Institute for Taxation and Economic Policy, whose board includes four academics as well as the co-editor of the liberal American Prospect and a union official.Read more...
In addition to recommendations of cities to visit during the holidays and a guide to office gift exchanges, this holiday issue includes an alum's memories of a road trip in Texas and the exchange visitor of the month's encounter with a friendly bus driver in Chicago.
It seems immigrants coming into the U.S. are generally a highly-educated bunch.
College-educated immigrants now outnumber those entering the country with just a high school degree - and the variation is much bigger in urban areas, a report says.
They outnumber those educated at high school by 25 per cent in 44 major American cities - and 30 per cent of working-age immigrants now have a college degree, compared to 19 per cent in 1980.
Talented arrivals: College-educated immigrants now outnumber those entering the country with just a high school degree - and the variation is much bigger in urban areas, a report by the Brookings Institution says
An increase in demand from U.S. employers has seen more college-educated immigrants arriving in the U.S. over the past decade than immigrants without high school education, reported Yahoo News.
Only 28 per cent of U.S. immigrants are without a high school diploma and half of skilled immigrants are overqualified for their jobs, a report by the Brookings Institution in Washington D.C. said.
One reason behind the rise seems to be U.S. employers favouring a foreign-born workforce because they already have the required training and expect to be paid less, reported the Washington Post.
Changes: An increase in demand from U.S. employers has seen more college-educated immigrants arriving in the U.S. over the past decade than immigrants without high school education
Samir Kumar, 39, said he looks for immigrants with the same skills and education as U.S.-born workers for his Virginia IT business.
‘They actually don't demand a very high amount of salary, the expectations are kind of grounded and they don't jump around so much,’ he told the Washington Post.Read more...
On May 18, 2009, a divided Supreme Court reversed the Second Circuit's decision upholding the denial of a motion to dismiss respondent's complaint alleging constitutional violations by defendants. Following his arrest and detention for more than 150 days in a maximum security detention center after 9/11 attacks, respondent Iqbal, who is a Muslim and a native of Pakistan, filed a lawsuit against then-Attorney General, John Ashcroft and other officers and officials. The complaint alleged that government officials adopted an unconstitutional policy of subjecting certain individuals to harsh conditions of confinement based on their race, religion, or national origin. Iqbal claimed that petitioners violated his First and Fifth Amendment rights. Read more...
The International Exchange Center is proud to announce Yves Thiers as this month’s Exchange Visitor of the Month. Yves came to the United States from Belgium soon after graduating with a Master of Industrial Science degree. He hoped to be able to gain hands on knowledge of the engineering projects he studied at university. His host company, Dal-Tile Corporation, was just the place for this. Dal-Tile Corporation is a tile manufacturer and distributor based out of Dallas, TX. Read more...
On August 3, 2011, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals set a new legal precedent when it issued its opinion in Prestol Espinal v. Attorney General, No. 10-1473 (2011) granting the client of San Francisco immigration lawyer Jacqueline Brown Scott petition for review. The Court invalidated the so-called "post-departure bar" on motions to reopen and motions to reconsider, finding that the regulation prohibiting such motions conflicts with the clear language of the statute. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) had denied the timely motion by Brown Scott's client to reconsider on jurisdictional grounds. The Third Circuit reversed and remanded the case to the BIA so that it could consider the legal arguments presented in the motion to reconsider.
Federal immigration law gives noncitizens the right to file motions to submit new evidence or arguments after their removal orders become final. Nevertheless, the BIA has maintained for decades that it cannot consider such motions if a foreign national is outside the United States, even if the government, the other party in the litigation, is the cause of removal of the foreign national.
The government has an incentive to remove noncitizens from the country before they have an opportunity to file such motions. "In my client's case, this is exactly what happened-the government forcibly removed him during the 30-day period in which he was permitted to file his motion to reconsider," explains Brown Scott.
Brown Scott says this new ruling means people who are in immigration court proceedings in the jurisdiction of the Third Circuit will not be denied their statutory right to file one motion to reopen or reconsider, and submit new evidence or advance new legal arguments, even if the government has already removed them from the country. The fact that they may no longer be in the United States is irrelevantRead more...