Loaded Orygun: Immigration in OR: Fact vs...Plagiarism?

[Well, this turned out to be a popular subject; as of this update, a shorter crossposted version is now the #1 recommended diary at Daily Kos....]

What with all of the noise being made at both the federal and statewide levels regarding undocumented immigrants and policies to guide immigration, the atmosphere is rife for misleading charges, faulty statistics, and demagogic rhetoric. For instance, GOP goobernor hopeful Ron Saxton has been running radio ads proclaiming "hundreds of millions" in costs to Oregon taxpayers as a result of illegal-status immigrants, and pledging to end the provision of state services to illegal immigrants. Putting aside the fact that illegal immigrants are already ineligble for almost all types of state aid, where does he get his cost figure? It's not clear; of course he does not say.

There's no doubt that precise quantifications of either the number of undocumented workers, or their dollar effect on the state economy, are hard to come by. Obviously since undocumenteds wish to avoid detection and do not openly participate in the programs from which we typically derive our data, there will never be 100% accurate data. However, there are ways to estimate economic impacts, and the Oregon Center for Public Policy has done their best to bring rational, supportable information to the table. To wit:

Undocumented immigrants contribute annually to Oregon between $66 million and $77 million in property taxes, state income taxes, and excise taxes.

Undocumented immigrant workers in Oregon pay between $58 million and $67 million annually in Social Security taxes, and another $13 million to $16 million annually in Medicare taxes. Employer contributions match these payments.

I'll spare you the methodology for these estimates (it's in the article), but they rely primarily on the Pew Institute's estimate of about 150,000 undocumented immigrants in Oregon, and models from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP), which allow researchers to estimate tax payments based on income data. Put it all together, and roughly $300 million flows into tax coffers of all kinds as a result of undocumented labor (UL)--money that more often than not never makes it back to the worker in the form of services.

Wondering how that stacks up against any honest appraisal of gross costs to taxpayers resulting from UL, I began to search around. I found little that was substantiated; an anti-immigration outfit called FAIR uses Dept. of Education data to suggest that $167 million is being used to teach non-citizen children in Oregon; an Oregon audit of Medicaid services in 2002 gave a rough estimate of $6 million in costs as a result of services to UL. Unfortunately, because both sides of the argument want to present their cause in as favorable a light as possible, I have yet to find a comprehensive look at both cost AND benefit pertaining specifically to Oregon.

But I did find something interesting, nonetheless. Back in March the McMinnville News-Register published a local commentary on the subject by Jim Ludwick, president of Oregonians for Immigration Reform. I read it, considered the numbers, recoiled a bit at some of the veiled rhetoric, and moved on.

And in time I found the rather unspecifically named American Chronicle, a right-wing online fountain of God, guns and (no) gays. One of the writers, Barbara Anderson ("What is important to her are: God, family, country, heritage, and borders") had also chosen the costs of undocumenteds as a topic, and cited the same Bear Stearns estimates Jim Ludwick had. In fact, it cited them in a really familiar kind of way. I went back to the News-Register piece, and then back at Anderson's seemingly coincidental writeup just 5 days later. And then you know what I found just 5 days after that? Another article by Anderson, this time in The New Media Journal but clearly a reprise of her AmeriChron version.

You know how these things work--first I'll show you what Ludwick wrote, and then Anderson's version five days later:

According to Bear Stearns, those 5 million illegal aliens cheat the government out of over $35 billion a year in income taxes. At the same time, they receive $30 billion a year in government largess.

In December, the Milken Institute released a study entitled "The Los Angeles Economy Project." The study was done in partnership with the City of Los Angeles and County of Los Angeles. What they found was that 15 percent of the workforce (680,000 workers) were paid under the table. That is just in LA county alone. They estimate 61 percent are illegal aliens.

The 680,000 workers cheat the government out of $2 billion a year in taxes. Bear in mind, LA County Supervisor Michael Antonovich estimates that illegal aliens cost LA County about $1 billion a year in just health care, criminal incarceration and public education.

...

Bear Stearns reports that those 5+ millions cheat the government out of over $35 Billion a year in income taxes. At the same time they receive $30 billion a year in government largess. Not a good trade-off for the American taxpayer.

Another study was released in December by Milken Institute entitled “The Los Angeles Economy Project”. The study was done in partnership with the City of Los Angeles and County of Los Angeles. What they found was that 15 percent of the workforce (680,000 workers) were paid under the table. That is just in LA county. They estimate that 61 percent are illegal aliens.

Those 680,000 workers cheat the government out of $2 Billion a year in taxes. LA County Supervisor Michael Antonovich estimates that illegal aliens cost LA County about $1 Billion a year just in health care, criminal incarceration and public education.

Not exactly subtle, is she? Let's try another one. Again, Ludwick first, Anderson 5 days later:

Using Census Bureau data, it is estimated that 96 percent of the increase in enrollment in public schools is due to immigration. If 96 percent of the increase in enrollment is of students whose parents contribute little or nothing in taxes to support their education, something has to give. Either programs and teachers must be cut, or taxes raised on those American citizens who pay taxes.

Over the past two years, there has been an increase in the number of English Language Learners (ELL) in the McMinnville School District from 772 to 1,138. A 32 percent increase! Any wonder that the school district has put a $96 million bond levy on the May ballot?

Last year, the Salem School District spent over $7 million on ELL programs but only $668,000 on the Talented and Gifted Program (TAG). What that amounted to was an extra $2,500 per ELL student and a paltry extra $131 per TAG student.

...

Using Census Bureau data, it is estimated that 96 percent of the increase in enrollment in public schools is due to immigration. This being so, and parents of those students contribute little or nothing in taxes to support their education, something has to give. Usually, it is the taxpayer. Thus, programs and teachers must be cut or taxes raised on the American citizens who do pay taxes...

Over the past two years, there has been an increase in the number of English Language Learners (ELL) in the McMinnville School District from 772 to 1,138, a 32 percent increase. The district has had to put a $96 million bond levy on the May ballot. Last year, the Salem School District spent over $7 million on ELL programs, but only $668,000 on the Talented and Gifted Program (TAG). That meant that an extra $2,500 was spent on an ELL student, but a mere extra $131 per TAG student.

Uncanny, isn't it? This last one is my favorite, because not only is Anderson completely stealing from Ludwick (or at best citing him without credit; I'm forwarding this post to Oregonians for Immigration Reform to check), she also rips off the LA Economy Project report Ludwick dutifully cites:

The authors of the Los Angeles Economy Project concluded in Section 9 of the report:

Given this large number of informal jobs and the continuing practice by many employers of avoiding legally mandated payroll taxes, there is a real risk that a steadily increasing number of employers will adopt this illicit labor management practice in order to remain competitive with the marketplace.

The region's underground economy, now estimated at an $8.1 billion payroll annually, siphons off vast sums of money as workers and employers fail to make payments to Social Security, workers compensation, health insurance and other social safety-net programs.

...

The region’s underground economy, now estimated at an $8.1 Billion payroll annually, siphons off vast sums of money as workers and employers fail to make payments to Social Security, workers compensation, health insurance and other social safety net programs.

There are more examples, and the 3rd link I cited essentially pirates from Anderson's first plagiaristic column. For people who claim to support "the party of ideas," why do they keep stealing them from each other and recycling them in other forums?

I'm interested to see if any of the parties involved respond to the request for comment. Jim Ludwick may cover for the cause and claim consented use, but I'm not so sure the News-Register will see it that way, seeing as how it says this at the bottom:
© 1999-2006 News-Register Publishing Co. AP materials © 2006 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.[emph mine] I'm also wondering if the AmeriChron and "www.therant.us" are interested in keeping Ms. Anderson on after they're made aware of it. Any bets?

Update, 1045AM--
Whaddya know. Here's what the editor of New Media Journal had to say about it this morning:

It is usually more appropriate to contact the author of the piece with criticism or comments. I have forwarded your email.

Frank Salvato
Managing Editor
www.NewMediaJournal.us
"A new media news issues e-zine"

To which I asked,
"Are you saying you have no interest or concern as to whether columnists under your masthead are reproducing other authors' work without attribution? Should the false provenance of Ms. Anderson's article for NMJ be concretely established, it will not fail but to reflect on your organization. You may wish to take a more active role in vetting her work. "

and to which he responded,

We will find out the FACTS first. We are not reactionary. And because I don't know YOU from a hole in the wall and Ms. Anderson is widely published I look on your accusation with skepticism until I am furnished with evidence otherwise.

Feel free not to contact me again.

My reply to that...
"The evidence exists in the passages of text that are easily compared and not attributed. And you said nothing about finding out the facts, which is why I was concerned; you said only that you would forward the information. "

To which he said:

Questions abound. How am I to know that the piece you cite wasn't stolen from her? Dates mean nothing on the Internet as they can be easily manipulated. Unless you have a copyright on the piece you cited from the Library of Congress I suggest you be very careful with accusations that cannot be readily and legally verified.

Your concerns were forwarded to the author. She has been asked to explain why someone who no one knows is accusing her of a crime. Other editors have contacted me about your claim and we have isolated your IP address should this turn out to be a smear and Ms. Anderson should want to pursue slander claims against you.

That is as far as I care to go.

Please do not bother me again with regard to this matter or I will have to block your IP address from access to my email.

My last response was,
"Why would someone steal from her, and then take the time to cite a source she herself did not cite? Read the passage: Ludwick quotes explicitly from the LA Economy Project; Anderson not only copies that passage wholesale, she REMOVES the cite placed there by Ludwick.

I also find it amusing that you're hypothesizing that the McMinnville News-Register manipulated the date of publication of Ludwick's article.

Are you sure you're an editor for a news organization? They would know that slander is a verbal offense; perhaps the term you're seeking is libel.

Thank you for your comments, which I'm happy to publish. I'll leave the task of seeking further comment from you--as the story develops--to others. "

And his final rebuttal was: