Here's Why To Not Let Your State Go Blue

[protectionist]

But Borjas cautions, "This contribution to the aggregate economy, however, does not measure the net benefit to the native-born population." This is because 97.8 percent of the increase in GDP goes to the immigrants themselves in the form of wages and benefits.

Agreed (bold text). Why wouldn't I agree to that? It was in the paper I cited. Borjas in that paper quantified illegal immigrants'/immigration's net benefit to the native born population as follows:

• "The immigration surplus or benefit to natives created by illegal immigrants is estimated at around $9 billion a year or 0.06 percent of GDP — six one-hundredths of 1 percent."
  
  What effect does that have?
  • It means natives gain rather than loose, even though the gain is small. Because net gain rather than net cost accrue to natives, one must add that gain to the "net benefit to natives" sum to the earlier cited $395B - $472B range, thus making it $404B to $472B.
  • As go the "back of the napkin" analysis I presented, it increases the net contribution per illegal immigrant. I'll leave it to you to "flow" that through those calculations, but I can tell you now, it's not going to materially strengthen your argument and it doesn't at all weaken mine. One need only review the "parabola" discussion section of my post to see why/how that's so.
    
    A key reason for my including that discussion was so that readers who are vexed by the mere sight of numbers would have a visual way to understand what's empirically at the heart of the illegal immigration/immigration issue without having to pay too close attention to the actual calculations I included in that post. By not including the $9B the net contribution impact illegals have was merely my being slightly more empirically conservative in my presentation, thus allowing me "room" to present an even "rosier" picture if necessary. It was also something I omitted to see if someone would mention the $9B thinking it might weaken my case.
    
    FWIW, it never escapes me that on USMB, part of the rhetorical situation is that of being in a debate. If I can at all avoid doing so, I won't ever open with the most empirically liberal position available to me. That's just poor debating strategy on several levels.

What you're posting here I ALREADY REFUTED and I don't appreciate you brushing that aside. READ THIS >>

This contribution to the aggregate economy, however, does not measure the net benefit to the native-born population." This is because 97.8 percent of the increase in GDP goes to the immigrants themselves in the form of wages and benefits

Borjas further estimates that the net gain to natives equals just 0.2 percent of the total GDP in the United States — from both legal and illegal immigration.

So, generally, the invaders gain in jobs, income, welfare, and remittance $$ (international burglary) while the Americans suffer the >>

Harms of Immigration

1. Americans lose jobs. (especially Whites due to affirmative action).

2. Wage reduction.

3. Tax $ lost (due to off books work + lower wages paid).

4. Remittance $$$ lost. ($133 Billion/year).

5. Tax $$ lost to immigrants on welfare.

6. Increased crime.

7. Increased traffic congestion.

8. Increased pollution.

9. Overcrowding in hospital ERs.

10. Overcrowding in recreational facilities.

11. Overcrowding in government offices.

12. Overcrowding in schools.

13. Decrease in funds available for entitlements.

14. Cultural erosion.

15. Overuse of scarce resources (oil, gasoline, fresh water, jobs, electricity, food, etc)

16. Introduction of foreign diseases

17. Influx of terrorists.

 

[francoHFW]

Only the Iron Curtain workEd. They'll just take a plane as always. Half just overstay their visas LOL. ID cards in every other country. It is not a communist plot.

Planes cost >>>

Do these guys look like they've got it ?

As for visas, they're not so easy to get.
If they were, illegals wouldn't be doing this >>

View attachment 183976

Walls work fine in 65 countries. Liberals like to play make believe.

What walls are you talking about Kama dupe? Half of illegals get visas. And overstay.

 

[protectionist]

What walls are you talking about Kama dupe? Half of illegals get visas. And overstay.

Walls in 65 countries. Can you read ?

See post 174.

 

[usmbguest5318]

By all means, point me to one of those posts that discusses his calculations of the economic net impact (gains minus costs) of illegal immigration.

Post # 217.

Responded to at: Here's Why To Not Let Your State Go Blue

I've been posting Borjas' calculations for decades.

By all means, point me to one of those posts that discusses his calculations of the economic net impact (gains minus costs) of illegal immigration.

Post # 217.

Wow. You and that other dude -- I don't recall his name -- are cut from the same cloth. Like him, you attested to having "been posting Borjas' calculations for decades," yet the post to which you point me was created yesterday at 7:22 p.m....

The Fiscal and Economic Impact of Immigration on the United States

I'm not certain why you included that testimony, but since you did, I'll avail myself of it to illustrate the points I made (by implication) about the bias of the CIS in discussing the economic net impact of illegal immigrants.

• "In a study I authored for the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), we found that if illegal immigrants were legalized and began to pay taxes and use services like households headed by legal immigrants with the same education levels, the annual net fiscal deficit would increase to $29 billion, or $7,700 per household at the federal level." (That remark is from Camerota, not Borjas.)
  • The net fiscal deficit is the excess of government consumption (spending) over government revenue collected. You'll recall that I wrote that Borjas almost never presents the full picture as go illegal immigrants' impact on the economy, that is, on GDP.
    
    What is GDP? It is the sum of several things:
    + Private consumption
    + Gross investment
    + Government investment
    + Government spending
    + Net exports (i.e., exports – imports).
    Gross Domestic Product (GDP)
    
    Consequently, what Borjas' remark indicates is that for the scenario (hypothetical situation) he describes re: legalizing illegal immigrants, those newly legalized immigrants would account for government's spending that increases GDP would be $29B.
    
    Now I might be willing to agree that we don't want to impose additional spending requirements on the federal government by way of legalizing the nation's 10.5M illegal immigrants. Were I to agree to that, it'd be relevant for an argument re: "to legalize or legalize extant illegal immigrants, and if so, how many if any." That's probably germane for some quantity of the ~700K DACA registrants (namely, the ones who don't have "good enough" jobs), but it's certainly not applicable to remaining ~9.8 million illegal immigrants present in the U.S.
    
    As goes the point I've making, however, that $29B has no impact because the figures I've been citing don't count illegal immigrants as legal citizens, immigrants or residents; thus that spending isn't happening and the illegal immigrants are nonetheless contribute an economic net increase to GDP. Accordingly, some folks, though I don't/won't, may go so far as to argue that we should keep the illegals in the country in their illegal status because they increase GDP and don't (in excess of the sums already included in the net impact figures I've been citing) cost as much as they would were we to legalize them. Put another way, such folks would favor keeping illegal immigrants in the U.S. as "second class" people from whose labors we can "have our cake and eat it too."
    
  • The above scenario is the only one in which Camerota who is another of the CIS' economists, remarks upon any piece of net impact of illegal immigrants, and that one was a hypothetical one, not an actual one, and it isn't applicable to extant illegal immigrants. In every instance, he speaks only of (1) immigrants (legal and illegal) in total or (2) only the cost side of the picture pertaining to illegal immigrants.

 

[usmbguest5318]

What you're posting here I ALREADY REFUTED and I don't appreciate you brushing that aside

All I bushed aside is your assertion that the wall is free because Mexico is going to pay for it.

But Borjas cautions, "This contribution to the aggregate economy, however, does not measure the net benefit to the native-born population." This is because 97.8 percent of the increase in GDP goes to the immigrants themselves in the form of wages and benefits.

Agreed (bold text). Why wouldn't I agree to that? It was in the paper I cited. Borjas in that paper quantified illegal immigrants'/immigration's net benefit to the native born population as follows:

• "The immigration surplus or benefit to natives created by illegal immigrants is estimated at around $9 billion a year or 0.06 percent of GDP — six one-hundredths of 1 percent."
  
  What effect does that have?
  • It means natives gain rather than loose, even though the gain is small. Because net gain rather than net cost accrue to natives, one must add that gain to the "net benefit to natives" sum to the earlier cited $395B - $472B range, thus making it $404B to $472B.
  • As go the "back of the napkin" analysis I presented, it increases the net contribution per illegal immigrant. I'll leave it to you to "flow" that through those calculations, but I can tell you now, it's not going to materially strengthen your argument and it doesn't at all weaken mine. One need only review the "parabola" discussion section of my post to see why/how that's so.
    
    A key reason for my including that discussion was so that readers who are vexed by the mere sight of numbers would have a visual way to understand what's empirically at the heart of the illegal immigration/immigration issue without having to pay too close attention to the actual calculations I included in that post. By not including the $9B the net contribution impact illegals have was merely my being slightly more empirically conservative in my presentation, thus allowing me "room" to present an even "rosier" picture if necessary. It was also something I omitted to see if someone would mention the $9B thinking it might weaken my case.
    
    FWIW, it never escapes me that on USMB, part of the rhetorical situation is that of being in a debate. If I can at all avoid doing so, I won't ever open with the most empirically liberal position available to me. That's just poor debating strategy on several levels.

What you're posting here I ALREADY REFUTED and I don't appreciate you brushing that aside. READ THIS >>

This contribution to the aggregate economy, however, does not measure the net benefit to the native-born population." This is because 97.8 percent of the increase in GDP goes to the immigrants themselves in the form of wages and benefits

Borjas further estimates that the net gain to natives equals just 0.2 percent of the total GDP in the United States — from both legal and illegal immigration.

So, generally, the invaders gain in jobs, income, welfare, and remittance $$ (international burglary) while the Americans suffer the >>

Harms of Immigration

1. Americans lose jobs. (especially Whites due to affirmative action).

2. Wage reduction.

3. Tax $ lost (due to off books work + lower wages paid).

4. Remittance $$$ lost. ($133 Billion/year).

5. Tax $$ lost to immigrants on welfare.

6. Increased crime.

7. Increased traffic congestion.

8. Increased pollution.

9. Overcrowding in hospital ERs.

10. Overcrowding in recreational facilities.

11. Overcrowding in government offices.

12. Overcrowding in schools.

13. Decrease in funds available for entitlements.

14. Cultural erosion.

15. Overuse of scarce resources (oil, gasoline, fresh water, jobs, electricity, food, etc)

16. Introduction of foreign diseases

17. Influx of terrorists.

Borjas further estimates that the net gain to natives equals just 0.2 percent of the total GDP in the United States — from both legal and illegal immigration.

Are we not discussing illegal immigration? Insofar as we are talking about the economic net impact of illegal immigration, why are you presenting any figures pertaining both legal and illegal immigration? When I presented Borjas figures for the net gain that pertains to illegal immigrants, I didn't conflate the two immigrant groups.

 

[usmbguest5318]

But Borjas cautions, "This contribution to the aggregate economy, however, does not measure the net benefit to the native-born population." This is because 97.8 percent of the increase in GDP goes to the immigrants themselves in the form of wages and benefits.

Agreed (bold text). Why wouldn't I agree to that? It was in the paper I cited. Borjas in that paper quantified illegal immigrants'/immigration's net benefit to the native born population as follows:

• "The immigration surplus or benefit to natives created by illegal immigrants is estimated at around $9 billion a year or 0.06 percent of GDP — six one-hundredths of 1 percent."
  
  What effect does that have?
  • It means natives gain rather than loose, even though the gain is small. Because net gain rather than net cost accrue to natives, one must add that gain to the "net benefit to natives" sum to the earlier cited $395B - $472B range, thus making it $404B to $472B.
  • As go the "back of the napkin" analysis I presented, it increases the net contribution per illegal immigrant. I'll leave it to you to "flow" that through those calculations, but I can tell you now, it's not going to materially strengthen your argument and it doesn't at all weaken mine. One need only review the "parabola" discussion section of my post to see why/how that's so.
    
    A key reason for my including that discussion was so that readers who are vexed by the mere sight of numbers would have a visual way to understand what's empirically at the heart of the illegal immigration/immigration issue without having to pay too close attention to the actual calculations I included in that post. By not including the $9B the net contribution impact illegals have was merely my being slightly more empirically conservative in my presentation, thus allowing me "room" to present an even "rosier" picture if necessary. It was also something I omitted to see if someone would mention the $9B thinking it might weaken my case.
    
    FWIW, it never escapes me that on USMB, part of the rhetorical situation is that of being in a debate. If I can at all avoid doing so, I won't ever open with the most empirically liberal position available to me. That's just poor debating strategy on several levels.

What you're posting here I ALREADY REFUTED and I don't appreciate you brushing that aside. READ THIS >>

This contribution to the aggregate economy, however, does not measure the net benefit to the native-born population." This is because 97.8 percent of the increase in GDP goes to the immigrants themselves in the form of wages and benefits

Borjas further estimates that the net gain to natives equals just 0.2 percent of the total GDP in the United States — from both legal and illegal immigration.

So, generally, the invaders gain in jobs, income, welfare, and remittance $$ (international burglary) while the Americans suffer the >>

Harms of Immigration

1. Americans lose jobs. (especially Whites due to affirmative action).

2. Wage reduction.

3. Tax $ lost (due to off books work + lower wages paid).

4. Remittance $$$ lost. ($133 Billion/year).

5. Tax $$ lost to immigrants on welfare.

6. Increased crime.

7. Increased traffic congestion.

8. Increased pollution.

9. Overcrowding in hospital ERs.

10. Overcrowding in recreational facilities.

11. Overcrowding in government offices.

12. Overcrowding in schools.

13. Decrease in funds available for entitlements.

14. Cultural erosion.

15. Overuse of scarce resources (oil, gasoline, fresh water, jobs, electricity, food, etc)

16. Introduction of foreign diseases

17. Influx of terrorists.

What you're posting here I ALREADY REFUTED and I don't appreciate you brushing that aside.

You offered a rebuttal and I empirically showed what made it an unsuccessful one. Re-read, carefully, my remarks about the $9B that you pointed out. The chicken-egg pictured pertained only to the Mexico bit.

 

[protectionist]

I'm not certain why you included that testimony, but since you did, I'll avail myself of it to illustrate the points I made (by implication) about the bias of the CIS in discussing the economic net impact of illegal immigrants.

• "In a study I authored for the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), we found that if illegal immigrants were legalized and began to pay taxes and use services like households headed by legal immigrants with the same education levels, the annual net fiscal deficit would increase to $29 billion, or $7,700 per household at the federal level." (That remark is from Camerota, not Borjas.)
  • The net fiscal deficit is the excess of government consumption (spending) over government revenue collected. You'll recall that I wrote that Borjas almost never presents the full picture as go illegal immigrants' impact on the economy, that is, on GDP.
    
    What is GDP? It is the sum of several things:
    + Private consumption
    + Gross investment
    + Government investment
    + Government spending
    + Net exports (i.e., exports – imports).
    Gross Domestic Product (GDP)
    
    Consequently, what Borjas' remark indicates is that for the scenario (hypothetical situation) he describes re: legalizing illegal immigrants, those newly legalized immigrants would account for government's spending that increases GDP would be $29B.
    
    Now I might be willing to agree that we don't want to impose additional spending requirements on the federal government by way of legalizing the nation's 10.5M illegal immigrants. Were I to agree to that, it'd be relevant for an argument re: "to legalize or legalize extant illegal immigrants, and if so, how many if any." That's probably germane for some quantity of the ~700K DACA registrants (namely, the ones who don't have "good enough" jobs), but it's certainly not applicable to remaining ~9.8 million illegal immigrants present in the U.S.
    
    As goes the point I've making, however, that $29B has no impact because the figures I've been citing don't count illegal immigrants as legal citizens, immigrants or residents; thus that spending isn't happening and the illegal immigrants are nonetheless contribute an economic net increase to GDP. Accordingly, some folks, though I don't/won't, may go so far as to argue that we should keep the illegals in the country in their illegal status because they increase GDP and don't (in excess of the sums already included in the net impact figures I've been citing) cost as much as they would were we to legalize them. Put another way, such folks would favor keeping illegal immigrants in the U.S. as "second class" people from whose labors we can "have our cake and eat it too."
    
  • The above scenario is the only one in which Camerota who is another of the CIS' economists, remarks upon any piece of net impact of illegal immigrants, and that one was a hypothetical one, not an actual one, and it isn't applicable to extant illegal immigrants. In every instance, he speaks only of (1) immigrants (legal and illegal) in total or (2) only the cost side of the picture pertaining to illegal immigrants.

$29 Billion huh ? That's nice. Here what's NOT nice. A LOSS of almost 5 times that much to remittances ($138 Billion/year), and that still doesn't add in the tens of Billions$$ more revenue lost to welfare via the anchor baby racket.

Then, on top of both of those , is the 17 item list of Harms of immigration. I hate to be overly impetuous, but you're not even in his debate, period. And I'm not going to be in it any longer, because everything I've said in this post, was for the 2nd (or was it 3rd) time, with links in past posts. Enough already.

 

[protectionist]

Are we not discussing illegal immigration? Insofar as we are talking about the economic net impact of illegal immigration, why are you presenting any figures pertaining both legal and illegal immigration? When I presented Borjas figures for the net gain that pertains to illegal immigrants, I didn't conflate the two immigrant groups.

I'm opposed to both legal and illegal immigration, with rare exceptions on the legal side. Now I'm going to other threads. Good night.

 

[usmbguest5318]

I'm not certain why you included that testimony, but since you did, I'll avail myself of it to illustrate the points I made (by implication) about the bias of the CIS in discussing the economic net impact of illegal immigrants.

• "In a study I authored for the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), we found that if illegal immigrants were legalized and began to pay taxes and use services like households headed by legal immigrants with the same education levels, the annual net fiscal deficit would increase to $29 billion, or $7,700 per household at the federal level." (That remark is from Camerota, not Borjas.)
  • The net fiscal deficit is the excess of government consumption (spending) over government revenue collected. You'll recall that I wrote that Borjas almost never presents the full picture as go illegal immigrants' impact on the economy, that is, on GDP.
    
    What is GDP? It is the sum of several things:
    + Private consumption
    + Gross investment
    + Government investment
    + Government spending
    + Net exports (i.e., exports – imports).
    Gross Domestic Product (GDP)
    
    Consequently, what Borjas' remark indicates is that for the scenario (hypothetical situation) he describes re: legalizing illegal immigrants, those newly legalized immigrants would account for government's spending that increases GDP would be $29B.
    
    Now I might be willing to agree that we don't want to impose additional spending requirements on the federal government by way of legalizing the nation's 10.5M illegal immigrants. Were I to agree to that, it'd be relevant for an argument re: "to legalize or legalize extant illegal immigrants, and if so, how many if any." That's probably germane for some quantity of the ~700K DACA registrants (namely, the ones who don't have "good enough" jobs), but it's certainly not applicable to remaining ~9.8 million illegal immigrants present in the U.S.
    
    As goes the point I've making, however, that $29B has no impact because the figures I've been citing don't count illegal immigrants as legal citizens, immigrants or residents; thus that spending isn't happening and the illegal immigrants are nonetheless contribute an economic net increase to GDP. Accordingly, some folks, though I don't/won't, may go so far as to argue that we should keep the illegals in the country in their illegal status because they increase GDP and don't (in excess of the sums already included in the net impact figures I've been citing) cost as much as they would were we to legalize them. Put another way, such folks would favor keeping illegal immigrants in the U.S. as "second class" people from whose labors we can "have our cake and eat it too."
    
  • The above scenario is the only one in which Camerota who is another of the CIS' economists, remarks upon any piece of net impact of illegal immigrants, and that one was a hypothetical one, not an actual one, and it isn't applicable to extant illegal immigrants. In every instance, he speaks only of (1) immigrants (legal and illegal) in total or (2) only the cost side of the picture pertaining to illegal immigrants.

$29 Billion huh ? That's nice. Here what's NOT nice. A LOSS of almost 5 times that much to remittances ($138 Billion/year), and that still doesn't add in the tens of Billions$$ more revenue lost to welfare via the anchor baby racket.

Then, on top of both of those , is the 17 item list of Harms of immigration. I hate to be overly impetuous, but you're not even in his debate, period. And I'm not going to be in it any longer, because everything I've said in this post, was for the 2nd (or was it 3rd) time, with links in past posts. Enough already.

You will not sway me (or any other person who forms their conclusion based on complete pictures of a matter) by presenting only the cost side of this matter. Are going to keep responding to me by citing individual cost elements (no matter how many of them you cite) all of which are figured into the cost side of the net impact equation (gains minus costs)? If your answer is "no," I guess I have to stop responding to your posts that do so in order for you to stop doing so. Economic analysis is not about just economic costs; it's about costs and gains, and they must be netted to show the total impact of a given economic matter under consideration.

Maybe you didn't read all of post 208? Maybe you didn't understand what you read? Maybe you don't know what "net" means? Maybe you don't know how comprehensive are the econometric equations Borjas used to calculate the economic net impact of illegal immigration and immigration as a whole? I really don't know, and, frankly, I don't care or care to know. What I do know is you just keep talking about the cost side of the matter and trying to present the economic net impact of illegal immigration as though it is not a net gain. (See the second section of this post: Here's Why To Not Let Your State Go Blue)

I don't know how else to express that economic net impact is what drives my decision answer to the question you posed to me. That question was:

But why oppose [the wall]?

I told you why: because it's uneconomic to build it and I provided you with my empirical analysis of how I determined that it is uneconomic. Answering that one question is the only purpose for post 208. My analysis used the economic net impact of illegal immigration for obvious reasons: no analysis that even approximates soundness can consider only costs or only gains.

Accordingly, do you have an analysis to present that is comparable in detail (I'm not asking for more detail that I presented, but I won't accept less) to mine and that uses the economic net impact of illegal immigration and that results in constructing the wall being economic? If so, present it.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Are we not discussing illegal immigration? Insofar as we are talking about the economic net impact of illegal immigration, why are you presenting any figures pertaining both legal and illegal immigration? When I presented Borjas figures for the net gain that pertains to illegal immigrants, I didn't conflate the two immigrant groups.

I'm opposed to both legal and illegal immigration, with rare exceptions on the legal side. Now I'm going to other threads. Good night.

I'm opposed to both legal and illegal immigration, with rare exceptions on the legal side

Okay. I believe you are.

You will recall that this line of discussion commenced because I responded to your question, "Why oppose [the wall]?" The wall isn't going to stop any legal immigrants. Accordingly, my remarks have only to do with illegal immigration. I wouldn't have answered your question had I known you were going eventually to conflate legal and illegal immigration.

 

[RealDave]

The Republicans are the ones having a fit about illegals & then want them here. Just like GW Bush did.

That's why Republicans all vote against sanctuary cities, and Dems vote for them, right ? Maybe political forums isn't your thing.

You are having a fit while your party wants therm here. That is you being duped.

 

[RealDave]

Wow, not creating hardened criminals by not calling police when kids do something wrong at high school. Get into a fight at school - get a police record. Brilliant thinking from yet another dumbass Trumpette.

Try having some idea of what you're talking about before posting. It'll help ya. Pheeew!

Clue: Nikolas Cruz, ya dum dum.

17 kids dead, and you're worried about high school criminals getting a police record.

"Wow" This is >> why to not let your state go blue.

You were going to give Cruz a criminal record for what?

The idea you use that as an excuse to pass out assault type weapons is ridiculous.

 

[RealDave]

Adam's apple Ann Coulter is a good conservative writer? That's funny.

Den war on wimmen

Trashing a lie spewing Coulter is a war on one woman.

 

[RealDave]

The Republicans are the ones having a fit about illegals & then want them here. Just like GW Bush did.

That's why Republicans all vote against sanctuary cities, and Dems vote for them, right ? Maybe political forums isn't your thing.

Did you figure out what a sanctuary city is yet?

 

[RealDave]

I'm not certain why you included that testimony, but since you did, I'll avail myself of it to illustrate the points I made (by implication) about the bias of the CIS in discussing the economic net impact of illegal immigrants.

• "In a study I authored for the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), we found that if illegal immigrants were legalized and began to pay taxes and use services like households headed by legal immigrants with the same education levels, the annual net fiscal deficit would increase to $29 billion, or $7,700 per household at the federal level." (That remark is from Camerota, not Borjas.)
  • The net fiscal deficit is the excess of government consumption (spending) over government revenue collected. You'll recall that I wrote that Borjas almost never presents the full picture as go illegal immigrants' impact on the economy, that is, on GDP.
    
    What is GDP? It is the sum of several things:
    + Private consumption
    + Gross investment
    + Government investment
    + Government spending
    + Net exports (i.e., exports – imports).
    Gross Domestic Product (GDP)
    
    Consequently, what Borjas' remark indicates is that for the scenario (hypothetical situation) he describes re: legalizing illegal immigrants, those newly legalized immigrants would account for government's spending that increases GDP would be $29B.
    
    Now I might be willing to agree that we don't want to impose additional spending requirements on the federal government by way of legalizing the nation's 10.5M illegal immigrants. Were I to agree to that, it'd be relevant for an argument re: "to legalize or legalize extant illegal immigrants, and if so, how many if any." That's probably germane for some quantity of the ~700K DACA registrants (namely, the ones who don't have "good enough" jobs), but it's certainly not applicable to remaining ~9.8 million illegal immigrants present in the U.S.
    
    As goes the point I've making, however, that $29B has no impact because the figures I've been citing don't count illegal immigrants as legal citizens, immigrants or residents; thus that spending isn't happening and the illegal immigrants are nonetheless contribute an economic net increase to GDP. Accordingly, some folks, though I don't/won't, may go so far as to argue that we should keep the illegals in the country in their illegal status because they increase GDP and don't (in excess of the sums already included in the net impact figures I've been citing) cost as much as they would were we to legalize them. Put another way, such folks would favor keeping illegal immigrants in the U.S. as "second class" people from whose labors we can "have our cake and eat it too."
    
  • The above scenario is the only one in which Camerota who is another of the CIS' economists, remarks upon any piece of net impact of illegal immigrants, and that one was a hypothetical one, not an actual one, and it isn't applicable to extant illegal immigrants. In every instance, he speaks only of (1) immigrants (legal and illegal) in total or (2) only the cost side of the picture pertaining to illegal immigrants.

$29 Billion huh ? That's nice. Here what's NOT nice. A LOSS of almost 5 times that much to remittances ($138 Billion/year), and that still doesn't add in the tens of Billions$$ more revenue lost to welfare via the anchor baby racket.

Then, on top of both of those , is the 17 item list of Harms of immigration. I hate to be overly impetuous, but you're not even in his debate, period. And I'm not going to be in it any longer, because everything I've said in this post, was for the 2nd (or was it 3rd) time, with links in past posts. Enough already.

And the value added?

I like the way you people think. OMG OMG the illegals are costing us money & ignoring the wasteful spending of 25 billion for a wall that will do little and ignoring the benefits we get from illegal aliens.

 

[BluesLegend]

Crap, dupe

Irrelevant irrelevant irrelevant irrelevant irrelevant irrelevant irrelevant. Pass the goddamn bill!!!!!!!!;!!!!!!!!!

And greedy GOP billionaires win again. They love the cheap labor, brainwashed functional moron. So idiots like you keep this going forever.

Just GOP billionaires not DEM billionaires? Only Republicans love cheap labor not Democrats?

The Republicans are the ones having a fit about illegals & then want them here. Just like GW Bush did.

You destroyed yourself saving me the trouble.

 

[BluesLegend]

I have posted the facts from the DOJ, FBI, Homeland Security many times, the facts say illegals commit far more crimes than American citizens or legal immigrants. Its not my fault you believe the liberal media propaganda. Franco pull your head out of your ass okay.

There is fox and rush and Heritage Etc and then there is the rest of the media in the whole world. In the end it's irrelevant. Pass the goddamn immigration Bill and end it forever. Jesus f****** Christ

We'll deport the illegals, and send uppity liberal collaborators to a gulag.

Never going to happen racist bigot dupe. Pass the God damn bill with SS i d card that can't be faked. God damn idiots....

Franco you are losing it buddy.

So how many more decades do we have to do this until we get an identity card that can't be faked, dupe? A wall will do very little, dupe.

Or we can build the wall, secure the border, deport them and keep them from coming back.

 

[protectionist]

You are having a fit while your party wants therm here. That is you being duped.

If Republicans "all" wanted them here, why have they voted against sanctuary cities ?

 

[protectionist]

You were going to give Cruz a criminal record for what?

The idea you use that as an excuse to pass out assault type weapons is ridiculous.

1. A criminal record for the record of CRIMES he committed, and didn't get arrested for. Why do you ask such dumb questions ?

2. This has nothing to do with why I support 2nd amendment rights on assault (fully automatic) weapons.

 

[protectionist]

Did you figure out what a sanctuary city is yet?

You're pretending that I didn't know ? You look silly. Try reading the thread before posting.

From Post # 163 >>

HR 3009 - The Enforce the Law for Sanctuary Cities Act (H.R. 3009) would have ended funding from the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program to state or local governments, that inhibit the enforcement of federal immigration laws, or prohibit officials from gathering information on the citizenship of any individual. The bill was designed to penalize “sanctuary cities,” which provide shelter for illegal immigrants, for refusing to cooperate with the federal government on immigration policy. The bill passed the House by a partisan vote of 241–179 with Republicans voting in favor and Democrats voting against.

And since you're begging me to teach you what a sanctuary city is,here is your instruction. Make sure you comply with the law >>

8 U.S. Code § 1324 - Bringing in and harboring certain aliens