James Coburn and Courtney Bryce

EDMOND — Four opinionated economists met at the University of Central Oklahoma to share their views Thursday about the economic impact of Oklahoma’s immigration policy in wake of state House Bill 1804. Illegal immigration has created heated opinions and rhetoric in Oklahoma.

State Rep. Randy Terrill, R-Moore, authored the state’s anti-illegal immigration bill that was signed into law in 2007 by Gov. Brad Henry. The bill took effect Nov. 1 and makes it a crime to knowingly hire, house or transport illegal immigrants.

“What I want us to do is shed some light on this issue, not to really avoid controversy or controversial statements, but to help us understand what’s going on and the consequences for our city, our state and our nation,” said Mickey Hepner, associate professor and director of the UCO Public Policy Institute, who moderated the discussion.

An economic analysis of the bill detailing a list of economic burdens to the state was released earlier this week by the Economic Impact Group LLC authored by economists Kyle Dean and Russell Evans. Dean and Evans own the economic consulting business. Both are adjunct professors of economics at UCO who were hired by the Oklahoma Bankers Association to do the economic impact study. Dean and Evans have authored the only economic study on illegal immigration in Oklahoma, Hepner said.

“In an ideal world, as far as I am concerned, for a competitive market to be truly competitive, we’re not supposed to have any borders,” said Susanne Currier, assistant professor of economics at UCO. “The activity has to be mobile.”

Supporters of House Bill 1804 have said undocumented immigrants have cost Oklahoma $200 million on an annual basis.

HB 1804 states, “The state of Oklahoma finds illegal immigration is causing economic hardship and lawlessness in the state, and that illegal immigration is encouraged by public agencies within this state that provide public benefits without verifying immigration status.”

Scott Carter, assistant professor of economics at the University of Tulsa, said the “risky” legislation presents no investigative evidence to support its statement. He questioned that an economic impact study was never conducted prior to the bill’s passage.

“The answer is such an economic study does not exist,” Carter said.

Carter said the contributions of Oklahoma’s undocumented workers in terms of productivity and adding to the state’s gross state product exceeds the $200 million cost attributed to them by proponents of HB 1804.

There is not any quantifiable data available about how many workers have left the state, Dean said. So he and Evans created three scenarios of the number of undocumented workers leaving Oklahoma — the lowest being a 25,000 undocumented worker outflow.

“If we did our study like the Texas study ... a 25,000-worker outflow would have a negative impact on gross state product of approximately $785 million,” he said. “A 50,000 worker outflow would have roughly a $1.77 billion impact or a 1 percent change in GSP (gross state product). And a 90,000 worker outflow would roughly have a $3 billion impact on GSP.”

The study examines the combined pool of foreign-born workers whether they be documented, undocumented or naturalized citizens, Evans said. Evidence suggests that as undocumented workers leave, they sometimes take with them their families and social network of friends and other documented workers.

“It is, we believe, a confirmation of the reality that we could have potentially serious economic consequences,” Evans said.

Evans said the state’s undocumented workers are not returning home to Mexico because of HB 1804, but mostly are relocating to Texas, Arkansas, Missouri and Kansas.

“The Oklahoma contractors will face a serious competitive disadvantage with respect to their Texas counterparts due to the excessively rigid labor conditions that exist on this side of the Red River,” Evans said.

Carter said the study does not assert the state’s undocumented workers are entitled to breaking the law in Oklahoma, but that the notion that their contributions do not benefit the state’s economy is flawed.

“I challenge the supporters of this bill to come forward with their own economic analysis that shows the contrary,” Carter said.

Several people have pointed out that documented Oklahoma workers could just fill the jobs vacated by undocumented workers.

“Certainly, it’s possible,” Evans said. “Based on our current estimates, it’s insufficient to fill all vacated jobs.”

The report is not an indictment of HB 1804, Evans said. Some may conclude that the information reported is worth the cost of achieving a greater social objective.

“We see our report not as a conclusion to research done on House Bill 1804 or immigration in Oklahoma — but an introduction,” Evans said. “It is a confirmation that there is an economic question here that merits further probing. So we see our report not as the end but the introduction to forthcoming research that we hope comes from economists around the state.”

Dean said one positive impact of House Bill 1804 could be an increase in per capita income.

Zhen Zhu, an economist who attended the discussion, said the model Dean and Evans used is a good first step even though he doesn’t necessarily agree with the study’s results.

“The model is kind of simple and is not going to be able to include all of the aspects,” Zhu said. “The answer is not going to be as simple as what they’ve shown.”

He said the study did not take into consideration the impacts on average income, health care and social issues.

No one on the discussion panel openly and completely supported House Bill 1804.

jcoburn@edmondsun.com | 341-2121, ext. 114