Cost of Illegal Immigrants
By Justin Bank
Posted on April 6, 2009
AddThis Sharing Buttons
Share to Facebook
9.1K
Share to Twitter
Share to Tumblr
Share to Email
Q: Do illegal immigrants cost $338.3 billion dollars a year? More than the Iraq war?
A: A chain e-mail that makes this claim is loaded with errors and misleading assertions. Published studies vary widely but put the cost to government at a small fraction of that total.
FULL QUESTION
I wonder if much of this is true? Is this on your radar screen?
This is astounding and infuriating. Why isn’t this in the papers? Please read and pass it on.
⬐ Click to expand/collapse the full text ⬏
FULL ANSWER
This chain e-mail has been forwarded to us by readers many times over the past year. The most recent version adds a new angle, claiming that the amount of money taxpayers spend on illegal immigrants would be enough to "stimulate the economy." But no matter the spin, the e-mail is rife with errors.
It also contains several red flags that should tip off readers that this is more bogus than believable. For one thing, the figures given don’t add up to a "whopping $338.3 billion dollars a year" spent on illegal immigrants in the U.S., as the e-mail claims.
The e-mail lists 14 claims about illegal immigrants, all of which were included in a longer list penned by anti-immigration activist Frosty Wooldridge and published on the conservative Web site NewswithViews.com on Jan. 22, 2007. Another NewswithViews columnist, Lynn Stuter, included Wooldridge’s list, with some updated links, in an article posted on April 15, 2008.
The source cited for at least nine of the items is either the conservative Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) or the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), both of which call for more restrictive immigration laws. CIS spokesman Bryan Griffith told us that he had never seen the e-mail but that he suspected something was out there because of occasional surges in traffic that forced him to rewrite Web pages. When told about the e-mail’s contents and conclusion of a $338.3 billion yearly cost, he responded that CIS "never said anything of the like and is not going to comment on a chain e-mail that is in no way scientific."
The e-mail also continually blurs the important distinction between legal and illegal immigrants – a sign of sloppy and untrustworthy work.
Summary
Because we’re gluttons for punishment, we’ve gone through each claim in turn and report on each in detail farther down. But here are a few highlights (or lowlights) of what we found:
The e-mail includes a link to a CIS report that contradicts some of the e-mail’s own claims. The report found that illegal immigrant welfare use "tends to be very low." It also estimates the total federal net cost of households headed by illegal immigrants at under $10.4 billion, a small fraction of what this message claims.
One "paper" that is cited is a non-peer-reviewed, non-scientific study that essentially fabricates a number for illegal immigrant criminals.
Five of the links lead to transcripts of Lou Dobbs’ cable television show, which fulminates regularly against illegal immigration and is hardly a neutral source. Furthermore, in all instances, the e-mail then takes the original Dobbs reporting out of context.
So, how much do illegal immigrants cost federal, state and local governments in the U.S.? Estimates vary widely, and no consensus exists. The Urban Institute put the net national cost at $1.9 billion in 1992; a Rice University professor, whose work the Urban Institute criticized, said it was $19.3 billion in 1993. More recently, a 2007 report by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office examined 29 reports on state and local costs published over 15 years in an attempt to answer this question. CBO concluded that most of the estimates determined that illegal immigrants impose a net cost to state and local governments but "that impact is most likely modest." CBO said "no agreement exists as to the size of, or even the best way of measuring, that cost on a national level."
The Details
For those who want more, we take on each of the e-mail’s claims in order:
1. "$11 Billion to $22 billion is spent on welfare to illegal aliens each year."
This item is completely false. The link given to "verify" the claim actually leads to an issue brief by the conservative Federation for American Immigration Reform. But the FAIR brief says nothing of the sort. It says: "Each year, state governments spend an estimated $11 billion to $22 billion to provide welfare to immigrants." That’s welfare payments in 2001 to all immigrants – both legal and illegal – plus households including U.S. citizens if they are headed by a person who was born outside the United States.
The site says the FAIR report was last updated in October 2002, but a footnote credits this statistic to a March 2003 report from the Center for Immigration Studies. CIS began as an off-shoot of FAIR. But the CIS report doesn’t actually say anything about $11 billion or $22 billion. And it explains that its references to "immigrant households" include persons here legally and persons born outside the U.S.
CIS report: Like the Census Bureau, and other academic work that has examined this question, this report looks at welfare use by immigrant and native households. Households are defined as immigrant or native based on the nativity of the household head. As already indicated, this report uses the terms immigrant and foreign-born synonymously.
CIS estimated that welfare payments to illegal immigrant households averaged $1,040 per household in 2001, mainly Medicaid "on behalf of their U.S.-born children." But the report did not attempt to come up with a total for all such households.
2. "$2.2 Billion dollars a year is spent on food assistance programs such as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches for illegal aliens."
3. "$2.5 Billion dollars a year is spent on Medicaid for illegal aliens."
These figures supposedly come from a 2004 report by CIS that estimated the costs to the federal government of households headed by illegal immigrants in 2002. But the CIS report actually put the costs of food stamp, WIC and free school lunch programs to "illegal alien households" at $1.9 billion, not the $2.2 billion claimed in the e-mail. The $2.5 billion figure for Medicaid to such households is quoted accurately, but again, much of this was in benefits for U.S.-born children, who are citizens.
Most interesting is that the CIS report includes a total net cost estimate to the federal government for illegal immigrants of just under $10.4 billion for the year, after accounting for the taxes these immigrants paid. That doesn’t include any potential costs to state or local governments, but it’s a far cry from this e-mail’s cost claim of $338.3 billion.
CIS report: Households headed by illegal aliens imposed more than $26.3 billion in costs on the federal government in 2002 and paid only $16 billion in taxes, creating a net fiscal deficit of almost $10.4 billion, or $2,700 per illegal household.
Even CIS’ figures have been questioned by other researchers. The Urban Institute reviewed a related 2003 CIS paper and concluded that its "methods overstate the percentage of the population receiving Medicaid and the share of immigrants on Medicaid, resulting in misleading conclusions about welfare use among immigrants."
Even so, the CIS report actually rebuts claims repeated by this chain e-mail:
CIS: Our findings show that many of the preconceived notions about the fiscal impact of illegal households turn out to be inaccurate. In terms of welfare use, receipt of cash assistance programs tends to be very low, while Medicaid use, though significant, is still less than for other households. Only use of food assistance programs is significantly higher than that of the rest of the population. Also, contrary to the perceptions that illegal aliens don’t pay payroll taxes, we estimate that more than half of illegals work “on the books.”
4. "$12 Billion dollars a year is spent on primary and secondary school education for children here illegally and they cannot speak a word of English!"
5."$17 Billion dollars a year is spent for education for the American-born children of illegal aliens, known as anchor babies."
Both links given to "verify" these claims lead to an April 1, 2006, episode of "Lou Dobbs Tonight" on CNN. During the show, correspondent Christine Romans cited both of these stats and attributed them to FAIR. A FAIR research paper from 2005 does include these cost projections, but a closer look shows that the underlying assumptions are inflated or unsupported.
The FAIR report starts with the presumption that there are "1.5 million school-aged illegal immigrants residing in the United States." That figure is attributed to an Urban Institute presentation that doesn’t actually say that. Instead, the Urban Institute said: "We estimate that there are about 1.4 million undocumented children under 18 with about 1.1 million of school age (5 -19)."
The FAIR report also assumes there are 2 million "U.S.-born siblings" of illegal immigrant families. However, the Urban Institute makes no estimates of U.S.-born siblings and FAIR gives no citation for its figure. And in any case, again, those U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants are themselves U.S. citizens and not "illegal aliens."
6. "$3 Million Dollars a DAY is spent to incarcerate illegal aliens."
7. "30% percent of all Federal Prison inmates are illegal aliens."
Both of these claims can be traced back to that same April 1, 2006, episode of "Lou Dobbs Tonight" on CNN, in the same segment, with the same correspondent, Christine Romans. But the e-mail misrepresents what Romans said. She gave figures for people who are "not U.S. citizens," a category that would include legal residents as well as "illegal aliens."
Romans said that "according to the Federal Bureau of Prisons, 30 percent of federal prisoners are not U.S. citizens," adding that "most are thought to be illegal aliens." Actually, the Federal Bureau of Prisons does not keep figures on illegal immigrants. What solid numbers we can find point to a much smaller figure. A Department of Justice report from 2003 found that only 1.6 percent of the state and federal prison populations was under Immigration and Customs Enforcement jurisdiction, and thus known to be illegal immigrants. Half of these prisoners were detained only because they were here illegally, not for other crimes.
The Bureau of Prisons does track prisoners by offense when information is available. By that metric, 10.7 percent of prisoners in federal jails were incarcerated for immigration offenses in 2009. In 2006, when Romans gave her report, the figure was 10.2 percent.
The "$3 million dollar a day" figure is based on the false assumption that 30 percent of all inmates are illegal immigrants, and thus is greatly inflated.
8. "$90 Billion Dollars a year is spent on illegal aliens for Welfare & social services by the American taxpayers."
The link to "verify" this claim is dead. However, we found a transcript of a Lou Dobbs episode on Oct. 29, 2006, in which Robert Rector of the conservative Heritage Foundation made the following statement:
Robert Rector, Oct. 29, 2006: Well, assuming that we have about 11 million immigrants in the U.S., the net cost or the total cost of services and benefits provided to them, education, welfare, general social services would be about $90 billion a year, and they would pay very little in taxes. It’s important to remember that at least half of illegal immigrants are high school dropouts.
We checked with Rector, who said he was referring to both legal and illegal low-skill immigrant households (those headed by someone who doesn’t have a high school diploma). His research also looked at many forms of government spending per household, including money spent on parks and transportation.
9. "$200 Billion Dollars a year in suppressed American wages are caused by the illegal aliens."
Again, this is from that same April 1, 2006, Lou Dobbs episode. On the show, Dobbs said that "estimates by the most authoritative and recent study put the suppressed wages at $200 billion a year, as a result of immigration, both legal and illegal." The e-mail continues its practice of ignoring any distinction between legal and illegal immigration.
We couldn’t find any study that supported Dobb’s figure.
10. "The illegal aliens in the United States have a crime rate that’s two and a half times that of white non-illegal aliens. In particular, their children, are going to make a huge additional crime problem in the US"
This is false. The "verify" link leads to yet another transcript of Lou Dobbs speaking with Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation. This one is dated June 12, 2006, and Rector says, "Hispanics in the United States have a crime rate that’s two and a half times that of white non-Hispanics."
Rector said Hispanics, not illegal immigrants, as the e-mail alleges. Considering there are 45.4 million Hispanics in the country, and an estimated 11.9 million illegal immigrants, the distinction is notable. Rector’s statistic for all Hispanics is correct, according to a 2003 report from the Justice Department.
11. " During the year of 2005 there were 4 to 10 MILLION illegal aliens that crossed our Southern Border also, as many as 19,500 illegal aliens from Terrorist Countries. Millions of pounds of drugs, cocaine, meth, heroin and marijuana, crossed into the U. S from the Southern border. "
The link goes to a 2006 report written by the Republican staff of the House Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Homeland Security. To start, the "19,500" number of "illegal aliens from Terrorist Countries" is nowhere to be found in this report. In fact, the report estimates the number of illegal immigrants coming over the southern border from countries known to harbor terrorists to be in the "hundreds." We’ve seen a similar scare tactic used previously in ads advocating for a border fence.
And the 4 million to 10 million statistic is extrapolated using some imprecise reasoning. The committee report figures that since "Border Patrol apprehended approximately 1.2 million illegal aliens" in 2005 and since "Federal law enforcement estimates that 10 percent to 30 percent of illegal aliens are actually apprehended," that "therefore, in 2005, as many as 10 to 4 million [sic] illegal aliens crossed into the United States." That simplistic math produces a figure starkly different from more widely accepted estimates. The Pew Hispanic Center estimated that in 2005 there were 11.1 million illegal immigrants total, living in the United States. The center also estimated that about 500,000 illegal immigrants a year came to the U.S. from 2005 to 2008.
12. "The National Policy Institute, ‘estimated that the total cost of mass deportation would be between $206 and $230 billion or an average cost of between $41 and $46 billion annually over a five year period.’ "
No, it didn’t. The National Policy Institute, a group that says it promotes the rights of "white Americans," ironically was citing figures from the liberal Center for American Progress in a report that argued against mass deportation of undocumented workers. CAP said such deportation would cost more per year than the entire Department of Homeland Security budget, illustrating "the false allure of deportation as a response to our broken immigration system."
13. "In 2006 illegal aliens sent home $45 BILLION in remittances back to their countries of origin."
This is another bogus figure. The email’s link leads to the original Frosty Wooldridge article, which in turn cites as its source for this figure a link to a Contra-Costa Times article, which is no longer working. Nevertheless, we were able to find a news release from the Inter-American Development Bank stating Latin American immigrants sent $45 billion in remittances in 2006. But that figure applies to all immigrants, including legal residents.
14. "The Dark Side of Illegal Immigration: Nearly One Million Sex Crimes Committed by Illegal Immigrants In The United States."
Once again, the "verify" link is dead. But a little Internet research found the article cited. An independently published, non-peer-reviewed study did estimate that nearly a million sex crimes have been committed by illegal immigrants over a seven-year period, but it employs some highly creative math and interesting assumptions to get there. The "study" is actually a pretty good case study in bad research.
The author assumes that 2 percent of illegal immigrants are sex offenders after "examining ICE reports and public records," but does not say how that figure was calculated. A bibliography cites miscellaneous Immigration and Customs Enforcement press releases and media accounts of instances of apprehending illegal immigrants who were sex offenders (seemingly manufacturing a "rate" based on anecdotal evidence). The author then makes no distinction between male and female illegal immigrants when estimating the number that are "sex offenders."
As we’ve said before, anonymous chain e-mails making dramatic claims are quite likely to be false. And that goes even for those that may seem to cite legitimate sources. This one is yet another good candidate for the "delete" key.
– Justin Bank
Sources
Steven A. Camarota, “Back Where We Started: An Examination of Trends in Immigrant Welfare Use Since Welfare Reform,” Center for Immigration Studies, March 2003.
Camarota, Steven A., "The High Cost of Cheap Labor: Illegal Immigration and the Federal Budget," Center for Immigration Studies, August 2004.
Immigration and Welfare," Federation for American Immigration Reform, Oct 2002.
A Line in the Sand: Confronting the Threat at the Southwest Border," prepared by the Majority Staff of House Committee on Homeland Security, Subcommittee on Investigations, Nov 2006.
Goyle, Rajeev, "Deporting the Undocumented: A Cost Assessment," Center for American Progress. 26 July 2005.
Sending Money Home: Leveraging the Development Impact of Remittances," Inter-American Development Bank. 18 Oct 2006.
Schurman-Kauflin, Dr. Deborah, "The Dark Side of Illegal Immigration: Nearly One Million Sex Crimes Committed by Illegal Immigrants in the United States," Violent Crimes Institute, 2006.
Martin, Jack, "Breaking the Piggy Bank: How Illegal Immigration is Sending Schools Into the Red," Federation for American Immigration Reform. June 2005.
Fix, Michael and Passel, Jeffrey, "U.S. Immigration—Trends and Implications for Schools," Immigration Studies Program, The Urban Institute, 2003.
"Estimates of the Unauthorized Immigrant Population Residing in the United States: 1990-2000," Office of Policy Planning, U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, January 2003.
"Table 169, Current Expenditure Per Pupil in Fall Enrollment in Public Elementary and Secondary Schools, by State: 1969-70 to 1999-00," Digest of Education Statistics 2002, National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education.
Thank you for posting this unedited 96 inch long column from 9 years ago, and thanks especially for not formatting it. I read the entire thing word for word and found it wonderfully persuasive. However the article below tends to rebut it. As it is only 76 inches long and similarly unformatted please read it word for word and let me know whether it changes your mind.
Gender equality is the notion that all men and women should receive equal treatment in all aspects and that one should not be discriminated based on their gender. Gender equality is a human right and this is recognised by the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).[1] The right to be free of discrimination on the grounds of sex is found pursuant to Article 2 of the declaration.
Gender equality is increasingly framed as being central to the realisation of both modernisation and economic efficiency, and its achievement presented as a key to good governance.[2] As a result, the New Zealand government has implemented institutional mechanisms to promote the advancement of women and gender equality. In 2016, New Zealand was ranked 9th out of a total of 144 countries in the Global Gender Gap Report which ranks countries in terms of women's gender equality in the population under four heads: economic participation, health, education and political empowerment.[3]
Albeit, New Zealand has committed to support the work of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) and other key United Nations organisations in agreeing to uphold the UDHR. It has participated in human rights deliberations at the United Nations General Assembly and in the annual session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights (CHR) and proposes to support the rights of women, children and indigenous people.[4]
Further, New Zealand ratified the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) on 10 January 1985, and its optional protocol on 7 September 2000. The Ministry of Women’s Affairs is responsible for administrating the CEDAW and its Optional Protocol. The committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women makes recommendations on any issues affecting women that the state should address. As of April 2015 the committee has made 29 general recommendations on issues affecting women that states should devote more attention to.[5]
Contents [hide]
1 Overview
2 History
3 Legislation for gender equity
3.1 Discriminatory laws
4 Developments and present status
4.1 Political and public representation
4.2 Employment and the workplace
4.3 Education
4.3.1 Primary School
4.3.2 Secondary School
4.3.3 Tertiary Education
4.3.4 Not in Education, Employment, or Training
4.4 Family Assets and Resources
4.5 Health
4.5.1 Suicide
4.5.2 Life Expectancy
4.6 Domestic violence
5 See also
6 References
7 External links
Overview[edit]
In the World Economic Forum’s annual report on the global gender gap, New Zealand was ranked in 9th place in 2016. The Global Gender Gap Index ranks countries on how far women are behind men in regards to health, education and economic and political indicators. Instances where women are rated ahead of men are not counted as inequality.
New Zealand is party to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). In the OECD’s final report on Gender Equality in Education, Employment and Entrepreneurship it was found that women in New Zealand do more unpaid work than paid work, gain more tertiary qualifications than men and women-owned new enterprises outperform men-owned enterprises.[6]
Nonetheless, despite the gap between wage equality slowly closing in, the report found that the government funding allocated to reduce gender inequality in New Zealand is on the low side in comparison to other countries in the OECD.[6]
History[edit]
Throughout history, gender inequality has generally affected women more so than men. As a result, there has been a lot of controversy in respect of the matter and activism since the 19th century.
New Zealand has had a long history of promoting women’s equality. It was the first country in the world to give women the right to vote in the 19th century. Previously, women were unable to vote until 1893 and were not able to stand for parliament until 1919. The first woman to win an election was Elizabeth McCombs in 1933. Iriaka Ratana was the first Maori woman MP in 1949 and Dame Jenny Shipley was the first woman to be prime minister in New Zealand from 1997 to 1999.
Historical inequalities for men include prohibition of homosexuality for men until the homosexual law reform bill in 1986 and military conscription.
Legislation for gender equity[edit]
The legal framework in New Zealand provides comprehensive protection against all forms of discrimination covered by the CEDAW.
In 1973 The Domestic Purpose Benefit (now the sole parent or jobseeker support)[7] was introduced for all parents caring for dependent children without the support of a partner (mainly women). The Accident Compensation Amendment Act 2010[8] also extended compensation to non-earners, benefiting women who do full-time unpaid work in the domestic home.
New Zealand has also enacted a number of legislative means to provide for equal pay for women, outlawing sexual discrimination and sexual harassment in the workplace and proposes to set out rights in regards to equal employment for career progression in the workplace.
Legislation in respect of gender equality in the workplace include the Equal Pay Act 1972,[9] the State Sector Act 1988[10] and the Human Rights Act 1993. [11][12]
The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990[13] also promotes the rights and freedoms of all New Zealand citizens regardless of gender.
Discriminatory laws[edit]
New Zealand still has some old laws which have not been repealed or replaced.
Section 194 of the Crimes Act ‘Assault on a child, or by a male on a female’ sets the maximum penalty for a male assaulting a female at two years. The equivalent charge of common assault has a maximum one year penalty.
The Law Commission reviewed the Crimes Act in 2009 and recommended a repeal of this law and suggested that the maximum penalty for common assault be increased so that the more serious cases can still be dealt with appropriately.[14]
A woman can be charged with the lesser crime of infanticide if she kills her child and "the balance of her mind was disturbed". The is no equivalent for men.
"Otago University law professor Kevin Dawkins ... said he would like to see infanticide replaced with another partial defence of diminished responsibility, to apply to female and male offenders."[15]
Developments and present status[edit]
In the past century the gender gap in New Zealand has been slowly closing in and there has been an increase in women’s rights and feminism. The government is making steady progress and it is evident that the fundamentals for equal rights are all in place: democracy, the rule of law and an independent judiciary. The government has also implemented effective structures of governance, specialized human rights and other accountability mechanisms, and has recognised the vulnerability of particular groups and individuals.
Although New Zealand consistently ranks in the top half dozen of countries in the world when it comes to equality between men and women, it is not complacent in terms of gender equality. New Zealand women still do not experience the full equality guaranteed by the law. Across the economy women’s skills are under-used in leadership and women continue to earn less than men – even if they have the same qualifications, and similar job descriptions. Family violence also continues to be a cause of considerable disquiet.
However, many of the remaining gender gaps in New Zealand do not appear to be a conscious disregard to the law (as there is comprehensive legislation in place), rather it is largely based on subconscious prejudice and factors like occupational segregation.[16]
Political and public representation[edit]
New Zealand has had a high level of participation by women in public life and this is evident from the modest female representation in politics and the judiciary. However, women continue to be under represented in parliament. Currently, there is a 31% female representation in parliament.[17]
At present there are no adopted quotas and targets to increase the number of women to ensure the equal representation of women in all publicly appointed bodies by the New Zealand Government. Rather, the government has developed a policy of ‘soft targets’ to promote equal representation. This was criticized by the Human Rights Commission as being insufficient as there is no dedicated machinery to guide it.[18]
Employment and the workplace[edit]
The government’s current goals and priorities in terms of employment equality for New Zealand women are linked to its broader goal of improving New Zealand’s prosperity in the economy. This is to allow women to have more choices and opportunities to utilise their strengths to maximize social and economical success.
The New Zealand workforce shows a pattern of occupational segregation. For example, women tend to work in lower paying jobs, which contributes, in part, to the wage gap. Dangerous jobs are tend to be mainly male occupations, leading to significantly more workplace injuries and deaths among men.[19]
With regard to pay equity, the domestic gender pay gap in New Zealand when comparing full-time workers is rather low in comparison to other countries. The gender pay gap in New Zealand was calculated to be 9.9% in 2014, which was the lowest in the Asia Pacific Region.[20]
In terms of New Zealand labour force participation, the female unemployment rate is statistically higher than that of men (with the unemployment rate being the highest for Māori and Pacific women). Women generally have higher rates of participation in all categories of unpaid work – within and outside of the household.
Section 21 of the Human Rights Act 1993 prohibits discrimination in the workplace on the grounds of sex (including pregnancy and child birth), marital status and family status.[11]
Education[edit]
Generally, in education, women tend to outperform men and women tend to fare better in participation.
Primary School[edit]
In years 1-8 fewer boys than girls are meeting national standards according to 2015 figures.
For reading, 73.9% of boys and 82.4% of girls are meeting national standards. 8.5 percentage points difference[21]
For writing, 63.9% of boys and 79.4% of girls are meeting standards. 15.5 percentage points difference[22]
For maths, 74.8 percent of boys and 76.2% of girls are meeting standards. 1.4 percentage points difference[23]
Secondary School[edit]
Fewer boys stay in school until 17, 81.4% compared to 86.5% (5.1 percentage points difference)
Boys are behind girls at NCEA level 1 attainment by 2.7 percentage points (89.8% vs 87.1%)[24]
At NCEA level 2 boys lag 4.8 percentage points (85.8% vs 81.0%)[25]
At level 3 girls are 14.2 percentage points ahead (60.0% vs 45.8%)[25]
Tertiary Education[edit]
Women are 60% of those who gain tertiary certificates and diplomas. Women also earn 60% of Bachelor degrees and above. 54.1% of STEM graduates are women, however women only make up 22.9% of engineering graduates, 27.9% of IT graduates, and only 11.1% of apprenticeships.[26]
Not in Education, Employment, or Training[edit]
Women outnumber men for 15 to 24-year-olds who are not in employment, education or training (NEET). In 2016 12.9% of women were NEET, compared to 10.1% of men.[26]
Family Assets and Resources[edit]
Section 77 of the Administration Act 1976[27] provides for equal inheritance rights for sons and daughters and there is no evidence of discrimination in practice, or under any informal customary systems.
New Zealand women have the right to non-discrimination in the ownership and access to land. The Maori Land Act 1993[28] provides for gender equality in the control and use of land and resources. In terms of non-land assets, there are no restrictions on their equal rights to property, regardless of marital status.
Further, women also have the equal right to financial services pursuant to the Human Rights 1993.[11]
Health[edit]
Health Services offered in New Zealand are gender-blind and women can access the same comprehensive range of services as men, as well as having a range of services in place specifically designed for women’s health needs – such as maternity services and population screening programmes.[16]
On average, women have better health outcomes than men and women generally have a higher life expectancy. However, there are areas in which New Zealand does not fare so well in terms of health. New Zealand has one of the highest teen pregnancy rates in the OECD with the Maori teen pregnancy rate being rather high.
Suicide[edit]
Female suicides increased by 34 from 2014/15 to 2015/16, while male suicides dropped by 19. The ratio of female to male suicides is 1 : 2.41, which is the closest since records began in 2007/08. Traditionally the ratio is about 1:3 female to male.[29]
Life Expectancy[edit]
The New Zealand life expectancy at birth for babies born between 2012 and 2014 was 79.5 years for males and 83.2 years for females, which is a difference of 3.7 years.
A male New Zealander born in 2013 can expect to live for an average of 65.2 years independently, and another 14.3 years with some level of disability requiring support.
Females can expect to live for an average of 66.5 years independently and another 16.7 years with functional limitations that require support.
At birth, therefore, females can expect to live independently for 1.3 years longer than males. They can also expect to live 2.4 years longer with disability requiring assistance than males[30]
Domestic violence[edit]
Further information: Violence against women in New Zealand
The Domestic Violence Act 1995[31] addresses domestic and family violence against women and pursuant to the act domestic violence can be charged as a criminal offence.
In New Zealand the government has implemented specialist family violence courts and means-tested legal aid services which provide referral and advocacy as well as applicant support and outreach for victims of domestic violence. The New Zealand government has made steady progress in implementing fundamental criminal justice reforms that strengthen victim’s rights and aims to provide greater protection for those at threat of family violence – most of whom are women.[16]
The social attitudes in New Zealand currently remain an impediment to combatting domestic violence and as such, is one of the major barriers in achieving gender equity in New Zealand. In essence the relatively strong legal framework is not always effectively implemented and domestic violence continues to be a challenge for New Zealand society. It is estimated that only 18% of family violence cases are reported to the police and 84% of those arrested for domestic violence are men.
However the attitudes towards family violence in New Zealand are in the midst of change as a result of a sustained national campaign - The Campaign for Action on Violence within Families, which aims at changing social attitudes towards family violence. The government has also implemented similar programmes designed specifically for Maori, Pacific and migrant women which are endorsed by their communities.[16]
Rates of partner and sexual violence against women had a statistically significant redcution from 2005 to 2013. "The annual rate of partner violence offences against women decreased from 8.6 percent in 2005 to 5.7 percent in 2013. The annual rate of sexual violence offences against women decreased from 5.2 percent in 2005 to 2.9 percent in 2013."[32]
The latest New Zeland Crime and Safety Survey found that 4.4% of males and 5.7% of females reported one or more incidents of partner violence in the 12 months preceding the survey.[33]
See also[edit]
Gender pay gap in New Zealand
Feminism in New Zealand
References[edit]
Jump up ^ [1], United Nations Declaration of Human Rights.
Jump up ^ Squires, Judith (2007). The New Politics of Gender Equality. Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 9780230007697.
Jump up ^ "The Global Gender Gap Report 2016". World Economic Forum. Retrieved 2016-12-07.
Jump up ^ [2], NZ and the UDHR
Jump up ^ [3], Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women - General recommendations
^ Jump up to: a b Gender inequality in New Zealand, OECD report 22/04/2012
Jump up ^ [4], Work and Income NZ, Domestic Purpose Benefit
Jump up ^ Accident Compensation Amendment Act 2010
Jump up ^ [5], Equal Pay Act 1972
Jump up ^ State Sector Act 1988
^ Jump up to: a b c Human Rights Act 1993
Jump up ^ Legislation for gender equity, National Equal Opportunities Network
Jump up ^ New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990
Jump up ^ Review Of Part 8 Of The Crimes Act 1961: Crimes Against The Person
Jump up ^ "When mothers kill, but don't go to jail". Stuff. Retrieved 2016-12-12.
^ Jump up to: a b c d The status of women in New Zealand, CEDAW report 2010
Jump up ^ The 2014 New Zealand General Election: Final Results and Voting Statistics
Jump up ^ [], Human Rights Commission (2011), p.14
Jump up ^ "Grim statistics show men more likely to be injured at work than women". Stuff. Retrieved 2016-12-12.
Jump up ^ New Zealand women
Jump up ^ Counts, Education. "Ministry of Education - Education Counts". www.educationcounts.govt.nz. Retrieved 2016-12-07.
Jump up ^ Counts, Education. "Ministry of Education - Education Counts". www.educationcounts.govt.nz. Retrieved 2016-12-07.
Jump up ^ Counts, Education. "Ministry of Education - Education Counts". www.educationcounts.govt.nz. Retrieved 2016-12-07.
Jump up ^ Counts, Education. "Ministry of Education - Education Counts". www.educationcounts.govt.nz. Retrieved 2016-12-07.
^ Jump up to: a b Counts, Education. "Ministry of Education - Education Counts". www.educationcounts.govt.nz. Retrieved 2016-12-07.
^ Jump up to: a b "Ministry for Women Annual Report 2016 | Ministry for Women". women.govt.nz. Retrieved 2016-12-07.
Jump up ^ Administration Act 1976
Jump up ^ Maori Land Act 1993
Jump up ^ "Annual suicide statistics since 2011 | Coronial Services of New Zealand". coronialservices.justice.govt.nz. Retrieved 2016-12-08.
Jump up ^ "Independent Life Expectancy in New Zealand 2013". Ministry of Health NZ. Retrieved 2016-12-08.
Jump up ^ Domestic Violence Act 1995
Jump up ^ "CEDAW - Eighth Periodic Report by the Government of New Zealand (2016) | Ministry for Women". women.govt.nz. Retrieved 2016-12-08.
Jump up ^ "New Zealand Crime & Safety Survey (NZCASS) | New Zealand Ministry of Justice". www.justice.govt.nz. Retrieved 2016-12-07.
External links[edit]
http://women.govt.nz/sites/public_files/cedaw-2010.pdf
http://women.govt.nz/documents/status-women-new-zealand-cedaw-report-2006
http://women.govt.nz/sites/public_files/CEDAW concluding observations 2012.pdf
http://women.govt.nz/sites/public_files/CEDAW report follow-up 2014_0.pdf
http://reports.weforum.org/global-gender-gap-report-2014/economies/#economy=NZL
Categories: Gender in New ZealandGender equality by countryWomen's rights in New Zealand
Navigation menu
Not logged inTalkContributionsCreate accountLog inArticleTalkReadEditView historySearch
Search Wikipedia
Go
Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store
Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page
Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page
Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version
Languages
Add links
This page was last edited on 28 June 2017, at 20:43.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit orgn.
