, both conservative organizations, have put forth this estimate, saying that 300,000 of the construction jobs created by the stimulus package "could go" or "would" go to illegal immigrants.
their studies. To be clear, there is no provision in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act that sets aside construction jobs for illegal immigrants. In truth, no one knows how many workers who are here illegally might end up with a job funded by stimulus money. But the calculations behind the 300,000 figure are highly questionable. The number is more than half the number of infrastructure jobs the White House says will be saved or created.
White House job-creation estimates for ARRA come nowhere close to that. The Obama administration has released job estimates for both "highway construction" and "infrastructure," neither of which come anywhere close to the 2 million jobs figure. On March 3,
the White House announced that $28 billion of ARRA funds would go to highway construction, creating or saving 150,000 jobs by the end of next year, only 95,000 of which are actually highway construction jobs. The rest are "indirect" jobs created when these workers spend their wages in the marketplace. The
White House has also said that $150 billion from the act would go to "infrastructure," a category that includes "roads, bridges, public transit, housing and broadband." And that $150 billion, which certainly would fund high-tech and engineering positions as well as lower-wage construction ones, would "save or create nearly 400,000 jobs." Even digging back to an early January report doesn't produce a figure in the millions. Back then, "]
White House economists predicted[/url], using another economist's analysis, that a stimulus bill that was similar to what Obama supported would create or save about 678,000 construction jobs.
These job estimates, as we've explained before, are fraught with uncertainty. But one would reasonably expect to see a higher job estimate from the White House, which has vigorously backed the stimulus, than conservative-leaning groups. (In fact, in other reports the Heritage Foundation called the administration's job estimates
"flawed" and
"audacious," saying that there are reasons to doubt them.) In addition, economist Mark Zandi, whose industry estimates served as the basis for the White House's original jobs figures, has
downgraded his total projection to 2.2 million jobs. We can't say whether Zandi's figure is correct, but it's worth noting that his total job estimate isn't much larger than CIS' and Heritage's projection for construction jobs alone.
The Federal Highway Administration says its estimate shouldn't be used to calculate job creation under ARRA. The April 2008 report isn't on the FHA's Web site, but spokesman Doug Hecox told us that somewhat
different estimates that are on the site are the most up-to-date. That Web page, however, warns: "This estimate does not represent an estimate for the highway construction expenditures under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. FHWA is reviewing the parameters of the legislation and will up date this estimate as necessary." For 2007, the more recent stats say, a $1 billion federal highway investment supported about 15,000 construction or supporting industry jobs (with another 15,000 jobs being supported by the wages those workers spend.) Hecox cautions that these figures "are based on one moment in time" and fluctuate depending on market conditions, such as material costs and the labor pool.
Even if the highway construction estimate was correct now, it can't be automatically applied to funds for railway, housing or other construction projects. Hecox referred us to the White House's Office of Management and Budget, which he said was coordinating job creation estimates under ARRA for various agencies. Federal agencies, he explained, were all doing their own respective math, such as using different levels of income to equal one job. Trying to apply these estimates to things that aren't rail-specific or highway-specific, he says, results in "awkward math." (We contacted OMB but have not received more specific construction job figures.)
<center>
The Root of the Issue?</center>
Behind this questionable number, is an issue worthy of debate. CIS and Heritage are concerned that the Senate version, and final bill, did not include a requirement that employers who get money from ARRA use
E-Verify, an electronic system operated by the Department of Homeland Security and the Social Security Administration to verify legal work status of employees. The House bill contained such a requirement.
The E-Verify site says that more than 87,000 employers are enrolled in the "free and voluntary" program, with that number growing "by over 1,000 per week." CIS and Heritage argue that without a requirement to use E-Verify, 15 percent of construction workers paid with stimulus dollars would be illegal immigrants. As we noted, they have no way of knowing how many illegal immigrants might be hired, nor can anyone say with certainty if some number of contractors who get ARRA money might already be using E-Verify or be planning to do so. Some business groups, however, aren't so keen on the idea.
An executive order signed by President George W. Bush said that federal contractors and subcontractors must use the system, a requirement that would have gone into effect in late February, but the Obama administration,
at the request of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, has pushed that back until May 21. The Chamber of Commerce, the Associated Builders and Contractors, and other groups have filed a lawsuit to block the requirement.
The
Immigration Policy Center, the research arm of an immigrant rights group, also argues that E-Verify isn't ready for widespread use. The group points to a
December 2006 report from the inspector general of the Social Security Administration, which estimated there were errors in about 17.8 million (or 4.1 percent) of its records which "could result in incorrect feedback when submitted" to E-Verify. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office
said in 2008 that if the system were greatly expanded, tax revenue would decline, as workers and employers did business off-the-books to avoid using the verification program. The government would also incur costs at DHS and SSA to expand the system.
We take no position on whether a requirement to use E-Verify should have been part of the bill. That's something for advocacy groups to wrangle over. We do take issue with the 300,000 jobs estimate being presented as a legitimate figure.
— Lori Robertson
