Liberal & Conservative Think Tanks Agree on The Net Economic Impact of Illegal Immigration

[usmbguest5318]

I wanted to take a moment and make clear why I above posted the "ROTFL at you" remark....The short of it is that that post overflowed with incoherence.

===============================================================================

One of my biggest problems in Washington (and governments at the state and local) is that lawmakers feel the need to continually make new laws. Laws giving the government more and more power and control.

They are legislators and executors of the law. That's what they were elected and emplaced to do. As lawmakers, the only means they have for effecting continual improvement is to pass laws. They wouldn't be doing their jobs were they not to pass laws.

A government made up of flawed human beings, who like most, have self serving tendencies....]And when more power and control is given to people with self serving tendencies, many problems seem to arise.

It is the electorate's duty to choose people who at the very least have demonstrated more than most the capability and will to rise above their avarice. Electorates disserve themselves when they do otherwise, even when they do otherwise thinking that they are not so doing.

A problem with finding the middle ground is when one party or group continues to move in one direction, and demanding the middle ground of their current position...then moving further and demanding compromise on that position. At which comprise becomes always a bad decision for one side.

What?

There was discussion on what should be done about the immigrants already here, but both sides agreed on securing a boarder...now what has changed?

Point me to it, please. I haven't seen it.

what you have not addressed is that you're argument is based on net gain. Not on wether or not it's right.

What?!?! Just what do you presume is the argument and central theme made in post #54 and that you quoted in your post #57 which one can view by expanding the quote above?

Did you actually read that post? Are you sure you know what I wrote about in post #54? I have to ask because net gain wasn't at all the basis for that post's theme or conclusion.

And again what you have not addressed is that you're argument is based on net gain. Not on wether or not it's right. Not that they actually are hurting our welfare, educational, and hospital systems, which they clearly are...in the billions of dollars.

??? In the context of there being a net economic gain resulting from illegal aliens' presence and activity in the U.S., whatever be the costs we incur, they are yet subordinate to the gains. That is the very definition of net gain. I guess you, like others, have not taken the time to read the reports linked to in the thread rubric and that provide far greater detail about the scope, nature and extent of both the costs and gains.


-----------------------------------------------------------------

OT:
I wish someone would share just what the hell people think be the point of my, or anyone's, in a thread's rubric, linking documents and providing but a very, very broad summary of those documents' content? The point of a summary of a complex topic is to focus the reader's subsequent examination of the details, not to obviate or preempt their need to read the "source" documents to obtain an understanding of the details in advance of discussing the topic. Reading only a summary level rubric is akin, for instance, to reading only a firm's financial statements, but not the notes to them, and then proceeding to engage in discussion about the firm and forming conclusions about it or its financial performance.

Money that the US does not have to spend since we're borrowing a million dollars a minute of money we do not have.

Again and in the context of net gains, more aggressively acting than we do now to remove illegal immigrants would necessarily reduce the sum of money the U.S. has to spend on other things while also reducing GDP in total.

Dear, God! How did you convince yourself that in one paragraph you should (1) ridicule from a moral standpoint that one advocate for policy making based on the net economic impact of illegal immigrants/immigration and then (2) propone your own line of argument based on what you assert -- speciously, but be that as it is, that is yet the nature of the line you articulated -- is the economic downside of illegal immigration? Were you under the influence of a mind altering substance when you wrote those remarks?​

===============================================================================

So hopefully now you see the repeated instances of absurd statements and ideas you coalesced into one post.

 

[danielpalos]

Local taxes pay for schools and infrastructure, not federal income taxes.

How much money does our school district receive from federal, state, and local sources? – Data First

Finance ~ How Do We Fund Our Schools? - Where We Stand

"It’s a little known fact that when it comes to the funding of our schools, the U.S. Government contributes about 10 cents to every dollar spent on K-12 education – less than the majority of countries in the world. And it wasn’t until 1965, when President Lyndon Johnson passed the Elementary and Secondary Education Act as part of his War on Poverty, that the federal government created a lasting program to fund K-12 education."

=========================

On your other point, do not conflate True Conservatives like myself with the corporate wing of the republican party; if it was up to me I'd eject them out of the party in a nanosecond - my hatred of the corporate wing is no less than that of illegals, public union employees, leftists, etc. True Conservatives DESPISE the corporate wing, because they act solely in their best interests - and not those of the country as a whole. I do not support corporate america or large companies in any way, shape or form.

It’s a little known fact that when it comes to the funding of our schools, the U.S. Government contributes about 10 cents to every dollar spent on K-12 education – less than the majority of countries in the world.

Yet, we seem to be able to afford an alleged, War on Drugs.

Only the national socialist right wing has more of a problem with illegal Persons.

 

[danielpalos]

Just how many anchor babies are delivered every year.

Illegal Immigrant Births - At Your Expense

"Eliot is one of an estimated 300,000 children of illegal immigrants born in the United States every year, according to the Pew Hispanic Center. They're given instant citizenship because they are born on U.S. soil, which makes it easier for their parents to become U.S. citizens."

Even worse:

Retreating on illegal immigration

"With lower incomes, illegals rely more on welfare programs. CIS says in Texas, "58 percent of illegal households collect some sort of welfare," with "49 percent using food assistance and 41 percent using Medicaid." In California and Illinois, reports CIS, "55 percent use welfare." California, which has the largest number of illegal aliens, predictably has the greatest burden. In Los Angeles County alone, according to a CBS Los Angeles report, welfare and other benefits by the end of last year cost an estimated $650 million just for the native-born children of illegal immigrant parents. L.A. County Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich told CBS Los Angeles: "When you add the $550 million for public safety and nearly $500 million for health care, the total cost for illegal immigrants to county taxpayers exceeds $1.6 billion a year. Hospital closings in California remain a major concern. As Examiner.com reported recently in a story about the economic burden to taxpayers posed by illegal immigrants, "In 2003, the American Southwest saw 77 hospitals enter bankruptcy due to unpaid medical bills incurred by illegal aliens.""

Most of the illegals I have come to know WORK, and do NOT receive any benefits of any kind.

So you base your conclusions on those that you know personally? Now THAT'S really strong "evidence".....

Many have been here for decades.

Which is worse, because it means they have been collecting more years of my taxes.

We have a case study already and it's called ALABAMA--of the impact of kicking out all undocumented workers.

And there is a case study in Australia where they improved their technology so lots of low wage, illegal labor would not be needed.

========================

Since when did liberals like you start advocating for a permanent underclass of poor immigrants? Liberals used to be for the poor, now you hypocrites propose that the US import an endless supply of brown, impoverished, poorly educated slave labor from central/south america to pick your strawberries at poverty-level wages - wow, that's some real moral position you liberals have there, you should be proud of yourselves for displaying such lofty values.

a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage could solve several problems at once.

Again you're looking at this one sided. If you impose a $15.00 minimum wage on farmers what do you think your groceries, (fruit, vegi's, milk, eggs, chicken, will go up too?) So do you think seniors living on a fixed income would be able to afford to eat?

I don't take the right wing seriously about economics, or the law. The right wing has a problem with three to four percent price inflation. no dollar menu will even double in price.

 

[emilynghiem]

Twice in less than 24 hours I've found myself engaged in discussions about something having to do with the net economic impact of illegal immigration. The same topic also came up about ten days ago. I have thus elevated my post on the matter to the OP of a thread because it seems people here just don't do their own research, in this case, into whether illegal immigration yields a net positive or negative economic impact to the U.S.

According to publications from the conservative Center for Immigration Studies and the liberal Migration Policy Institute, illegal immigration yields a very small but nonetheless positive impact on the U.S. economy. Read the documents you'll find linked in the preceding sentence and you'll find the following:

• Illegal immigrants increased GDP by $395 to $472 billion. This “contribution” to the economy does not measure the net benefit to natives.
• The surplus from illegal immigration, or the net gain to US workers and employers exclusive of any labor income paid to the unauthorized immigrants themselves, is approximately 0.03 percent of US GDP.
• 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.
• Although the net benefits to natives from illegal immigrants are small, there is a sizable redistribution effect. Illegal immigration reduces the wage of native workers by an estimated $99 to $118 billion a year, and generates a gain for businesses and other users of immigrants of $107 to $128 billion.

Now one can kvetch about the fact that the net gain is very small, but what one cannot do is credibly claim that illegal immigration is a net drain on the U.S. economy, and that's in the current environment whereby we spend whatever we spend to impede, apprehend and deport individuals' making efforts to illegally gain entry to or remain in the U.S.

In other words, the only way illegal immigration/immigrants can become a net drain on the U.S. economy is if U.S. federal, state and local governments spend more money interdicting and deporting illegal immigrants. How much more? Well, something between $395 and $472 billion more.

I'm sorry, but laws on the books or not -- we've had stupid laws before, we clearly do still -- it just doesn't make sense to spend any sum of money to solve a so-called problem that produces for our country a net gain if we just leave it alone.

According to this article illegal immigration is a positive 4 trillion dollars to our economy. They buy homes, they buy cars, they buy T.Vs, computers and electronics just like everyone else does. And that's why it's so important to get an immigration reform bill passed through congress to insure that they're paying their fair share in taxes, social security & medicare.

"The U.S. Department of Agriculture states that, “about half of the hired workers employed in U.S. crop agriculture were unauthorized, with the overwhelming majority of these workers coming from Mexico.” The USDA has also warned that, “any potential immigration reform could have significant impacts on the U.S. fruit and vegetable industry.” From the perspective of National Milk Producers Federation in 2009, retail milk prices would increase by 61 percent if its immigrant labor force were to be eliminated.

Echoing the Department of Labor, the USDA, and the National Milk Producers Federation, agricultural labor economist James S. Holt made the following statement to Congress in 2007: “The reality, however, is that if we deported a substantial number of undocumented farm workers, there would be a tremendous labor shortage.”

In terms of overall numbers, The Department of Labor reports that of the 2.5 million farm workers in the U.S., over half (53 percent) are illegal immigrants. Growers and labor unions put this figure at 70 percent.

But what about the immense strain on social services and money spent on welfare for these law breakers? The Congressional Budget Office in 2007 answered this question in the following manner: “Over the past two decades, most efforts to estimate the fiscal impact of immigration in the United States have concluded that, in aggregate and over the long term, tax revenues of all types generated by immigrants—both legal and unauthorized—exceed the cost of the services they use.” According to the New York Times, the chief actuary of the Social Security Administration claims that undocumented workers have contributed close to 10% ($300 billion) of the Social Security Trust Fund."
Illegal immigrants benefit the U.S. economy
Undocumented Immigrants Contribute Billions in Taxes

Alabama had to learn this lesson the hard way: They did kick out all illegal immigrants and in came the consequences.
Alabama law drives out illegal immigrants but also has unexpected consequences

simple oreo
In that case the company/factory can invest in getting their experienced workers renewed work visas and work toward citizenship. If they are hard workers not the criminal gangs and traffickers that law enforcement is trying to crack down on.

If the company wasn't overlooking illegal status, but had a policy to help good workers get the work visas, they would not have this problem with law enforcement .

This is a very good example oreo
Thank you for posting it and I hope we can organize companies, schools ajs worker unions to set up tracks for workers to proceed legally so they aren't run out with criminals who have no such intent to comply with laws.

Even more so, we need all residents to show compliance with laws so we can tell the difference . if everyone complies consistently, the thugs with criminal intent will stand out and can no longer hide behind the masses of workers who would have ways to get registered instead .

Thanks oreo
Maybe if Obama still wants a job serving the public nationally, he can shift the federal exchanges he created to become a mass enrollment program for all immigrants workers and convicts who need support until they can become financially self sustainibg.

 

[emilynghiem]

Twice in less than 24 hours I've found myself engaged in discussions about something having to do with the net economic impact of illegal immigration. The same topic also came up about ten days ago. I have thus elevated my post on the matter to the OP of a thread because it seems people here just don't do their own research, in this case, into whether illegal immigration yields a net positive or negative economic impact to the U.S.

According to publications from the conservative Center for Immigration Studies and the liberal Migration Policy Institute, illegal immigration yields a very small but nonetheless positive impact on the U.S. economy. Read the documents you'll find linked in the preceding sentence and you'll find the following:

• Illegal immigrants increased GDP by $395 to $472 billion. This “contribution” to the economy does not measure the net benefit to natives.
• The surplus from illegal immigration, or the net gain to US workers and employers exclusive of any labor income paid to the unauthorized immigrants themselves, is approximately 0.03 percent of US GDP.
• 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.
• Although the net benefits to natives from illegal immigrants are small, there is a sizable redistribution effect. Illegal immigration reduces the wage of native workers by an estimated $99 to $118 billion a year, and generates a gain for businesses and other users of immigrants of $107 to $128 billion.

Now one can kvetch about the fact that the net gain is very small, but what one cannot do is credibly claim that illegal immigration is a net drain on the U.S. economy, and that's in the current environment whereby we spend whatever we spend to impede, apprehend and deport individuals' making efforts to illegally gain entry to or remain in the U.S.

In other words, the only way illegal immigration/immigrants can become a net drain on the U.S. economy is if U.S. federal, state and local governments spend more money interdicting and deporting illegal immigrants. How much more? Well, something between $395 and $472 billion more.

I'm sorry, but laws on the books or not -- we've had stupid laws before, we clearly do still -- it just doesn't make sense to spend any sum of money to solve a so-called problem that produces for our country a net gain if we just leave it alone.

According to this article illegal immigration is a positive 4 trillion dollars to our economy. They buy homes, they buy cars, they buy T.Vs, computers and electronics just like everyone else does. And that's why it's so important to get an immigration reform bill passed through congress to insure that they're paying their fair share in taxes, social security & medicare.

"The U.S. Department of Agriculture states that, “about half of the hired workers employed in U.S. crop agriculture were unauthorized, with the overwhelming majority of these workers coming from Mexico.” The USDA has also warned that, “any potential immigration reform could have significant impacts on the U.S. fruit and vegetable industry.” From the perspective of National Milk Producers Federation in 2009, retail milk prices would increase by 61 percent if its immigrant labor force were to be eliminated.

Echoing the Department of Labor, the USDA, and the National Milk Producers Federation, agricultural labor economist James S. Holt made the following statement to Congress in 2007: “The reality, however, is that if we deported a substantial number of undocumented farm workers, there would be a tremendous labor shortage.”

In terms of overall numbers, The Department of Labor reports that of the 2.5 million farm workers in the U.S., over half (53 percent) are illegal immigrants. Growers and labor unions put this figure at 70 percent.

But what about the immense strain on social services and money spent on welfare for these law breakers? The Congressional Budget Office in 2007 answered this question in the following manner: “Over the past two decades, most efforts to estimate the fiscal impact of immigration in the United States have concluded that, in aggregate and over the long term, tax revenues of all types generated by immigrants—both legal and unauthorized—exceed the cost of the services they use.” According to the New York Times, the chief actuary of the Social Security Administration claims that undocumented workers have contributed close to 10% ($300 billion) of the Social Security Trust Fund."
Illegal immigrants benefit the U.S. economy
Undocumented Immigrants Contribute Billions in Taxes

Alabama had to learn this lesson the hard way: They did kick out all illegal immigrants and in came the consequences.
Alabama law drives out illegal immigrants but also has unexpected consequences

simple oreo
In that case the company/factory can invest in getting their experienced workers renewed work visas and work toward citizenship. If they are hard workers not the criminal gangs and traffickers that law enforcement is trying to crack down on.

If the company wasn't overlooking illegal status, but had a policy to help good workers get the work visas, they would not have this problem with law enforcement .

This is a very good example oreo
Thank you for posting it and I hope we can organize companies, schools ajs worker unions to set up tracks for workers to proceed legally so they aren't run out with criminals who have no such intent to comply with laws.

Even more so, we need all residents to show compliance with laws so we can tell the difference . if everyone complies consistently, the thugs with criminal intent will stand out and can no longer hide behind the masses of workers who would have ways to get registered instead .

Thanks oreo
Maybe if Obama still wants a job serving the public nationally, he can shift the federal exchanges he created to become a mass enrollment program for all immigrants workers and convicts who need support until they can become financially self sustainibg.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear Clementine the local Greens and socialists
I know push for things like worker owned coops. If the farmers manage distribution themselves, they cut out the middleman and keep more of their own revenue.
That's one way to do it right, wouldn't you agree?

Twice in less than 24 hours I've found myself engaged in discussions about something having to do with the net economic impact of illegal immigration. The same topic also came up about ten days ago. I have thus elevated my post on the matter to the OP of a thread because it seems people here just indon't do their own research, in this case, into whether illegal immigration yields a net positive or negative economic impact to the U.S.

According to publications from the conservative Center for Immigration Studies and the liberal Migration Policy Institute, illegal immigration yields a very small but nonetheless positive impact on the U.S. economy. Read the documents you'll find linked in the preceding sentence and you'll find the following:

• Illegal immigrants increased GDP by $395 to $472 billion. This “contribution” to the economy does not measure the net benefit to natives.
• The surplus from illegal immigration, or the net gain to US workers and employers exclusive of any labor income paid to the unauthorized immigrants themselves, is approximately 0.03 percent of US GDP.
• 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.
• Although the net benefits to natives from illegal immigrants are small, there is a sizable redistribution effect. Illegal immigration reduces the wage of native workers by an estimated $99 to $118 billion a year, and generates a gain for businesses and other users of immigrants of $107 to $128 billion.

Now one can kvetch about the fact that the net gain is very small, but what one cannot do is credibly claim that illegal immigration is a net drain on the U.S. economy, and that's in the current environment whereby we spend whatever we spend to impede, apprehend and deport individuals' making efforts to illegally gain entry to or remain in the U.S.

In other words, the only way illegal immigration/immigrants can become a net drain on the U.S. economy is if U.S. federal, state and local governments spend more money interdicting and deporting illegal immigrants. How much more? Well, something between $395 and $472 billion more.

I'm sorry, but laws on the books or not -- we've had stupid laws before, we clearly do still -- it just doesn't make sense to spend any sum of money to solve a so-called problem that produces for our country a net gain if we just leave it alone.

Was this printed in 1860 concerning the benefits of slavery to the nation? I am quite sure when the slave owners could work the slaves for nothing their profit margin was much higher.

Yes, and while the left wants $15 minimum wage for citizens, they cite the benefit of illegals providing cheap labor for farms. They want their fresh produce to stay reasonable cheap so underpaying illegals is a good thing, as far as they are concerned.

What they don't say is that if all illegals get amnesty or we just open borders so everyone can come in, then everyone will keep demanding higher minimum wages until they make sure that business owners don't make more than the workers.

You always have to look at the endgame when it comes to liberals.

 

[emilynghiem]

....Yet spend that money to stop or curtail illegal immigration is what Trump wants to do and what he's gotten his base all fired up about. What good businessperson spends money to fix a "problem" that's making money for them?

Important point Xelor, why not make wrongdoers pay back the cost as part of the consequences of their infractions?

If Democrats made the arguments for mandates and enrollment into federal exchanges for health care costs,
Why not apply this to people who otherwise cost taxpayers billions in policing, prosecution and incarceration ?

Not just naturalized or immigrant residents who commit violations, but assess restitution and reimbursement from the employers who abuse or violate laws, and the citizens born here who owe taxpayers the costs associated with crime or corruption they commit as well.

If Democrats went after law abiding citizens to take penalties out of their taxes to pay for health care,
Why not go after criminals who actually broke laws and cost taxpayers money that CAN be proven to be THEIR FAULT

 

[whitehall]

"No one can kvetch"? Does the left really think that catching and deporting illegal aliens is a bigger drain on the economy than offering them all the social and educational and medical benefits of "citizenship" for their entire lives? Angry lefties seem to be drifting further off the freaking charts every day.

 

[Freewill]

"No one can kvetch"? Does the left really think that catching and deporting illegal aliens is a bigger drain on the economy than offering them all the social and educational and medical benefits of "citizenship" for their entire lives? Angry lefties seem to be drifting further off the freaking charts every day.

Damn it , they are going to force their views on the sane world whether we like it or not.

 

[usmbguest5318]

If the company wasn't overlooking illegal status, but had a policy to help good workers get the work visas, they would not have this problem with law enforcement .

This is a very good example oreo
Thank you for posting it and I hope we can organize companies, schools ajs worker unions to set up tracks for workers to proceed legally so they aren't run out with criminals who have no such intent to comply with laws.

As a practical matter, companies are not going to sponsor low-wage workers, which is what illegal immigrants most often are, for work visas. It's not a cheap affair.

• Visa application costs, including attorney's fees --> ~$5K to $8K.
• Rooming and boarding costs --> Varies, but one should at least plan for $200/day, using standard grade hotels and meal per diem, for at least a month while the worker arranges for an apartment, furnishings, etc. The housing portion of the cost can sometimes be attenuated by renting a house and having multiple workers live together there. In other instances, the firm may be able to use its own "pull" to expedite the process of getting the worker into a lower cost living situation. Be that as it may, the opportunity to do those sorts of things depends on the circumstances.
• Transportation --> Figure on spending $50/day until, at the earliest, the worker is settled into housing. If they are able to be housed within walking distance or in a locality with excellent public transportation, that cost can be reduced significantly. Put them on a project in non-urban America, however, and that cost will remain for at least a month, maybe longer, depending on the contractual arrangement with the resource agency through which one found the worker.
• Sourcing costs --> this can vary substantially. Sometimes, rarely, one may be contacted independently by a suitable worker and have no such costs. In other instances, one's foreign offices may have a suitable candidate available to transfer to a U.S. work situation (L1 visa rather than H1B), in which case, again, one can avoid the sourcing costs. More often, however, one reaches out to a headhunter or offshore staffing agent to which one will pay a fee that ranges from $10K/person or more. Sometimes the fee is a percentage of the projected salary for the worker; in other cases its a fixed fee per worker.
  • AFAIK, there aren't sourcing agents that deal in low-wage/low-skill workers, not only for obvious reasons, but also because of how the H1B laws are written....Not that any firm would actually willingly sponsor a low-wage worker.
  • Obviously, small businesses aren't going to have foreign branches from which they can undertake the L1 process instead of the H1B one.
• Payroll costs and the worker's gross salary --> The firm must incur the per-worker taxes federal, state and local governments levy. There's also the "on boarding and ramp up" cost associated with hiring a new worker. These costs sometimes be avoided by engaging the worker as an independent contractor rather than as an employee. What one really cannot avoid, at least in my industry where we often use H1B workers, is the six figure salary/contractor fee.

That's a rough overview. The specifics of how all those factors interact in any given situation can be quite involved and varied, thus necessitating that the firm either have on-staff immigration professionals (in the HR or legal department) or an ongoing engagement with a law firm to help one navigate the waters of immigrant hiring.

Note:

Yes, though we use H1B workers when we must, we prefer, for our U.S.-based projects, hiring U.S. workers (citizen or green card holders) over resorting to H1B workers. Despite what the "peanut gallery" may think, on U.S. assignments, it's far more advantageous to us to hire eligible U.S. residents/citizens. It is not only because of the lower overall costs, but also because our work with clients is all about the relationship, and it's simply easier for current residents and U.S. citizens than for freshly sponsored immigrants to develop strong and productive relationships with their client counterparts. Quite often, it's merely a matter of language.

For instance, we have a fair number of Indian and Eastern Asian H1B workers. They all speak flawless English, but they do so with their native accents and speaking pace. Plop those folks onto a project in, say, suburban Birmingham, AL or Pella, IA and your looking at something like a month's worth per H1B worker, over the course of a year to year and a half long project of ineffective/inefficient communication. Now that still only accounts for fractional sum, but when one is billing at $1M+/month, ten percent is still a tidy sum that, though it invariably gets absorbed as increased work effort (longer work days), is a cost that reduces the net productivity on the project and ultimately is a suboptimal use of resources.​

 

[usmbguest5318]

Dear Clementine the local Greens and socialists
I know push for things like worker owned coops. If the farmers manage distribution themselves, they cut out the middleman and keep more of their own revenue.
That's one way to do it right, wouldn't you agree?

Twice in less than 24 hours I've found myself engaged in discussions about something having to do with the net economic impact of illegal immigration. The same topic also came up about ten days ago. I have thus elevated my post on the matter to the OP of a thread because it seems people here just indon't do their own research, in this case, into whether illegal immigration yields a net positive or negative economic impact to the U.S.

According to publications from the conservative Center for Immigration Studies and the liberal Migration Policy Institute, illegal immigration yields a very small but nonetheless positive impact on the U.S. economy. Read the documents you'll find linked in the preceding sentence and you'll find the following:

• Illegal immigrants increased GDP by $395 to $472 billion. This “contribution” to the economy does not measure the net benefit to natives.
• The surplus from illegal immigration, or the net gain to US workers and employers exclusive of any labor income paid to the unauthorized immigrants themselves, is approximately 0.03 percent of US GDP.
• 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.
• Although the net benefits to natives from illegal immigrants are small, there is a sizable redistribution effect. Illegal immigration reduces the wage of native workers by an estimated $99 to $118 billion a year, and generates a gain for businesses and other users of immigrants of $107 to $128 billion.

Now one can kvetch about the fact that the net gain is very small, but what one cannot do is credibly claim that illegal immigration is a net drain on the U.S. economy, and that's in the current environment whereby we spend whatever we spend to impede, apprehend and deport individuals' making efforts to illegally gain entry to or remain in the U.S.

In other words, the only way illegal immigration/immigrants can become a net drain on the U.S. economy is if U.S. federal, state and local governments spend more money interdicting and deporting illegal immigrants. How much more? Well, something between $395 and $472 billion more.

I'm sorry, but laws on the books or not -- we've had stupid laws before, we clearly do still -- it just doesn't make sense to spend any sum of money to solve a so-called problem that produces for our country a net gain if we just leave it alone.

Was this printed in 1860 concerning the benefits of slavery to the nation? I am quite sure when the slave owners could work the slaves for nothing their profit margin was much higher.

Yes, and while the left wants $15 minimum wage for citizens, they cite the benefit of illegals providing cheap labor for farms. They want their fresh produce to stay reasonable cheap so underpaying illegals is a good thing, as far as they are concerned.

What they don't say is that if all illegals get amnesty or we just open borders so everyone can come in, then everyone will keep demanding higher minimum wages until they make sure that business owners don't make more than the workers.

You always have to look at the endgame when it comes to liberals.

If the farmers manage distribution themselves, they cut out the middleman and keep more of their own revenue.

• Who Owns America's Farmland?
• Chicken Industry
  
  
  
  
  
  
• Produce Industry
• Dairy Industry

Frankly, what would make more economic sense for most farmers is to use their profits to obtain STEM training/skills that are in high demand, and then exit the farming industry. Based on what I've heard (I'm not sure if it's typical or not), farmers seem to prefer being struggling farmers instead of thriving "modern" service sector workers in a STEM field. That is their choice to make, so far be it from me to insist that they endeavor to shift to a more lucrative line of work.

 

[usmbguest5318]

....Yet spend that money to stop or curtail illegal immigration is what Trump wants to do and what he's gotten his base all fired up about. What good businessperson spends money to fix a "problem" that's making money for them?

Important point Xelor, why not make wrongdoers pay back the cost as part of the consequences of their infractions?

If Democrats made the arguments for mandates and enrollment into federal exchanges for health care costs,
Why not apply this to people who otherwise cost taxpayers billions in policing, prosecution and incarceration ?

Not just naturalized or immigrant residents who commit violations, but assess restitution and reimbursement from the employers who abuse or violate laws, and the citizens born here who owe taxpayers the costs associated with crime or corruption they commit as well.

If Democrats went after law abiding citizens to take penalties out of their taxes to pay for health care,
Why not go after criminals who actually broke laws and cost taxpayers money that CAN be proven to be THEIR FAULT

Important point Xelor, why not make wrongdoers pay back the cost as part of the consequences of their infractions?

I don't have a problem with that.

 

[usmbguest5318]

[Levy fines of a sort] not just [on] naturalized or immigrant residents who commit violations, but [also] assess restitution and reimbursement from the employers who abuse or violate laws, and the citizens born here who owe taxpayers the costs associated with crime or corruption they commit as well.

1. What? Naturalized residents are called "citizens." They may be relatively recent immigrants who have been naturalized, but once they are, they are citizens. We can't fine our citizens for violating immigrant labor laws because as citizen workers, they aren't violating them.
2. I don't know that anyone thinks of it as restitution and reimbursement, but there already are fines levied against employers who hire illegal immigrants.
   
   I don't know any firms or individuals that I also know hire illegal immigrants, but based only on the kvetching I've seen on USMB, it seems to me there is a reticence among legal-to-work individuals to report individuals/firms that engage ineligible workers. IIRC from a discussion I some time back saw on USMB, people have said it's difficult to prove the illegals are working for a given employer. I find that hard to believe given the prevalence of camera/video phones.
   
   I mean, really. How hard is it, for a person committed to doing so, to take a video of an (the) illegal(s) working, deliver the video to ICE and attest to knowing the workers are illegal immigrants and let ICE do the rest? The only real constraint there is that one actually know what one is talking about when one asserts that a given worker (or group of workers) are illegal. Of course, if one doesn't know, one cannot make that attestation, but then if that is indeed the gap in one's factual knowledge, one probably shouldn't harbor and promulgate attitudes/views based on those individuals being illegal, now should one?

 

[80zephyr]

Logic tells me that our own poor cost us more in goods and services than they produce. And logic tells me that if our own poor cost us money, other countries poor will to.

Mark

 

[emilynghiem]

Would you people just look at and listen to yourselves. Would you just think for a moment. Where is your discursive, intellectual, political or even human probity?

It's no wonder that "grass roots" citizens find themselves bereft of a voice in addressing the gravamen of our nation's political discontents. Assuming you are they, the "grass roots," you treat our national ideas as though they are but a superficial mantle manifested at opportune moments in order to commercially and unctuously justify whatever noxious rhetorical experiment you engage at the moment. To wit, elsewhere on the forum, likely in spite of but certainly after my having pointed out the the exact same set of facts, citing the very same original research and reports as found in this thread's OP, one member unequivocally averred a procrustean preference to jettison the benefits we currently enjoy, selfishly seeking to sate his animus over the illicitousness of some immigrants' arrival within our borders.

Unless someone whom I have on ignore has done so, each of you has shown little but your consumption with your own (your party's) articulated positions that not one of you has noticed and expounded upon the fact that in the thread title is found not allusion to, but rather the explicit attestation of the fact that there is, on the topic of illegal immigration, agreement between political polar opposites, thus there is opportunity for arriving at a bipartisan resolution.

And you people appear here on this forum presumably to discuss politics. You people don't want to discuss politics. You are just so overcome with competing in and winning a rhetorical tug-of-war, ostensibly on behalf of your party's righteousness, that you overlooked that two major organizations,seemingly opposed ideologically, actually agree on something. Nary one of you noticed that and in turn exploited that concurrence as the basis for fomenting/discussing the matter so as to advance a win-win outcome.

And you purport to care about politics? You do not. Politics is about eclipsing that which divides us, not about demonstrating one's trenchant intransigence. That's also what leadership is about. Yet neither you nor most of the people whom Americans have elected to lead them seems to be aware of it. Well, I can say only that about the only thing that may be worse than having to suffer Donald Trump as our leader is having one of you in his place...Though admittedly it's not uncertain that there's actually any material difference. For shame....

Your premise on politics is totally biased. It implies a need for continual progress of government, expansion of its role, and that it's place is to find the middle ground of whatever popular demand is at the time. That may be your idea of what politics should be, but it certainly is not what the founders intended. One of my biggest problems in Washington (and governments at the state and local) is that lawmakers feel the need to continually make new laws. Laws giving the government more and more power and control. A government made up of flawed human beings, who like most, have self serving tendencies. And when more power and control is given to people with self serving tendencies, many problems seem to arise. To fight this our government was designed to be very limited, and very much not centralized. So that those in power with self serving tendencies, would have little effect on the citizens, and little means and incentive to fulfill the self serving tendencies.

A problem with finding the middle ground is when one party or group continues to move in one direction, and demanding the middle ground of their current position...then moving further and demanding compromise on that position. At which comprise becomes always a bad decision for one side. A mere 10 years ago both left and right agreed there needs to be a secure boarder. There was discussion on what should be done about the immigrants already here, but both sides agreed on securing a boarder...now what has changed? Now one side dare not utter the phrase illegal, and that all who cross are merely dreamers, without any wrong doing.

And again what you have not addressed is that you're argument is based on net gain. Not on wether or not it's right. Not that they actually are hurting our welfare, educational, and hospital systems, which they clearly are...in the billions of dollars. Money that the US does not have to spend since we're borrowing a million dollars a minute of money we do not have. Placing that burden on our children's shoulders. We all would be pissed at our parents if they racked up a ridiculous amount of debt and left it for us when they died, it's completely irresponsible, and in Obamas words morally wrong.

Your premise on politics is totally biased. It implies a need for continual progress of government, expansion of its role, and that it's place is to find the middle ground of whatever popular demand is at the time.

ROTFL at you!!!

Not to add to a secondary topic you brought up here Xelor ,
But ppl's BELIEFS about the role of govt has Everything to do with how involved we get in the process itself, or how removed and superficial we get like armchair quarterbacks yelling at refs on the TV.

Xelor you lecture or laugh at these antics, but this IS a serious issue as to why both major parties Blame the other and get zero accomplished that way.

1. Members of the liberal leaning parties believe that if we are going to be under one govt, this govt should actively serve the public interest and they include social programs as part of promoting the general welfare. Especially for citizens who dont rely on church or charity programs, their way of ensuring equal access and protection s is through GOVT.

2. However, this approach of treating govt as a centralized uniform system of providing social services is AGAINST the political BELIEFS of conservatives who believe in LIMITED govt in order to maximize civil liberty and rights of ppl and REDUCE dependence on govt that becomes an oppressive abusive control monopoly.

The conservatives believe federal govt should focus on issues of national security and defense. And leave the social programs to free choice of church or nonprofits or even businesses that operate for not for profit service. Otherwise if we bog down federal govt with relative issues best resolved and managed locally, then govt cannot focus effectively on security and other national issues that can't be done locally.

That's why the emphasis on fixing immigration issues is focused on policing violations. And that's why the executive orders are trying to focus on shifting social responsibility for social progrms off federal govt and back to ppl and states to handle that locally.

So as for the ability to AFFORD the costs of immigration enforcement, and to hold wrongdoers responsible for the costs THEY incurred instead of charging more and more to taxpayers, that's why we need federal govt focused THERE.

Trump has brought up the need to seek restitition paid back from immigration crimes in order to pay the costs. If we all agree the wrongdoers should pay, let's focus there, unite both parties, and demand all the reforms you and others brought up on this thread.

Standing together, we have a greater chance of pushing that through govt.

 

[danielpalos]

"No one can kvetch"? Does the left really think that catching and deporting illegal aliens is a bigger drain on the economy than offering them all the social and educational and medical benefits of "citizenship" for their entire lives? Angry lefties seem to be drifting further off the freaking charts every day.

what is the difference between a natural born citizen and a naturalized citizen?

 

[danielpalos]

We have a federal government and we have, federal borders. Our illegal problem should be dealt with at those federal borders through the use of government via capitalism. A market friendly visa will make that happen.

 

[sakinago]

None of you are considering Social Security/Medicare: We are an aging population. Back in the 50's average family size was 4 kids. Over the last several decades kid size per family has been reduced to 2 or less.

Today baby-boomers are entering these funds at 10K per day and this rate will continue for the next 10 years adding an additional 84 TRILLION in unfunded liabilities. So your choices are, to let these funds go bankrupt, cut benefits to the bone, raise the age requirement to 90 years old, or bring in younger workers to support these funds. This is why we are always having to raising the debt ceiling. Right now 1 working person, is supporting 3 retirees on borrowed money.

What you refer to as undoctumented workers aka illegals have contributed 300 BILLION dollars to these funds over the last 2 decades, and they are not eligible for any benefits.

This is why we need immigration REFORM NOW, to insure that those that are working in this country are paying their share into these funds to support them.

Spoken like a true Ponzi scheme con man. Social security is nothing more than a Ponzi scheme ran by the government. Social security was and is always going to fail. Because like any Ponzi scheme, you always need a bigger batch of new investors to cover the old, and eventually you run out of those investors. Or in the USGs case continually promise more and more to investors.

So in order to continue an unstable Ponzi scheme we have to continue to add to the problem?

Then convince those millions of baby boomers that have paid into these funds all of their lives that it's just a ponzi scheme that they can do without now--so they won't be getting their checks. See how far you get with anyone that is receiving Social Securiy, and Medicare is paying for their medical bills that they're both ponzi schemes.--LOL

Hahaha this is exactly the mentality of someone desperately trying to keep a Ponzi scheme afloat. "We can't stop now! Look at how many pissed off people there will be! We need to add more investors to pay the old ones off." And the amount of pissed off investors just grows and grows and grows. A never ending appeal to consequence that is always going to fail in the end, and the longer you keep it going, the larger the problem becomes.

What happens when the immigrants we put on social security are ready to finally collect those benefits? Should we import the rest of the population of Mexico to pay for it? And when they're ready to collect, should we import South America to pay for them?

This is what the left is so good at, they create a problem, and then when that fails they say they need more money to fix it, and more government to fix it. Then it fails again, they again need more money and more government to fix. Look at Obamacare, always set up to fail in the end. The war on poverty, 22 trillion dollars later and the poor just keep getting poorer, and more and more people become dependent on the govt. and the never ending demand for money keeps growing and growing. And if you bring up any sort of reform, the left holds their voters hostage, and says you can't take away money from these people.

Funny thing is, we've seen this play out in history time after time after time, and the left never seems to learn their lesson. Everything the left is talking about today is nothing new, same recycled crap every 40 years, for the past couple centuries. And surprise surprise 40 years later communism is popular again, despite being responsible for 100 million deaths of political dissidents in the past century, and plunging much of the world into irreparable poverty. Capitalism has become the bad guy again, despite bringing 2 billion of the worlds population out of poverty...it's a funny thing, when you incentivize service of humanity, and turn control to the people, a lot of good things tend to happen. But that's somehow become the boogie man again.

 

[sakinago]

I wanted to take a moment and make clear why I above posted the "ROTFL at you" remark....The short of it is that that post overflowed with incoherence.

===============================================================================

One of my biggest problems in Washington (and governments at the state and local) is that lawmakers feel the need to continually make new laws. Laws giving the government more and more power and control.

They are legislators and executors of the law. That's what they were elected and emplaced to do. As lawmakers, the only means they have for effecting continual improvement is to pass laws. They wouldn't be doing their jobs were they not to pass laws.

This is a straw man. I've never stated, they are not to make laws. But that they are stuck in a frenzy to continually make more and more laws. More laws to control/regulate/tax/etc. placed on the people very simply = more government control. Our legislators were never intended to be only legislators, they were intended to be legislators on the side, with their own business, practices, farms, etc. to manage so that they are not insulated from the laws they make. The laws that should be made are those to further restrict governments control, starting with the fed allowing more to be left up to the states, then the states allowing more to be left to localities, and the people to have total control of their localities. Instead lawmakers believe that they are to be the constant solution to any problems (with the best of intentions).

A government made up of flawed human beings, who like most, have self serving tendencies....]And when more power and control is given to people with self serving tendencies, many problems seem to arise.

It is the electorate's duty to choose people who at the very least have demonstrated more than most the capability and will to rise above their avarice. Electorates disserve themselves when they do otherwise, even when they do otherwise thinking that they are not so doing.

Sure it's their duty to do so. History proves time and time again that humans are flawed, and generally self serving. Even though 90% of us believe we're in the top 50% tile of good/nice people...there's obviously a big problem with that math. Which is why our government is set up so that flawed humans do not have the power or ability to become self serving, like so many of us really are despite what we think. Even more so, it was set up so one political ideology is not lording over another.

A problem with finding the middle ground is when one party or group continues to move in one direction, and demanding the middle ground of their current position...then moving further and demanding compromise on that position. At which comprise becomes always a bad decision for one side.

What?

What's not to understand? This concept is simple. Really not hard to understand at all, you must not be trying. It's called the Overton window.
Overton window - Wikipedia

There was discussion on what should be done about the immigrants already here, but both sides agreed on securing a boarder...now what has changed?

Point me to it, please. I haven't seen it.
In 2011
63% Say Border Control Is Top Immigration Priority - Rasmussen Reports[emoji769]

In 2010
Senate Democrats: Tighten border security

And in 2008 .see democratic platform.
ILW.COM - immigration news: Republican And Democratic Immigration Platforms And Policies: A Timely Look Before The Upcoming Election

As you can see that Overton window has moved pretty far for the left in a short period of time.

what you have not addressed is that you're argument is based on net gain. Not on wether or not it's right.

What?!?! Just what do you presume is the argument and central theme made in post #54 and that you quoted in your post #57 which one can view by expanding the quote above?

Did you actually read that post? Are you sure you know what I wrote about in post #54? I have to ask because net gain wasn't at all the basis for that post's theme or conclusion.

And your conclusion is that the cost of deporting would outweigh the gain, and be a net loss in the end. Which is also a faulty premise, since the drain on the system is constant vs the one time cost of deporting. Active deporting is also not the only option, as enforcing laws actually on the book causes self deportation.

And again what you have not addressed is that you're argument is based on net gain. Not on wether or not it's right. Not that they actually are hurting our welfare, educational, and hospital systems, which they clearly are...in the billions of dollars.

??? In the context of there being a net economic gain resulting from illegal aliens' presence and activity in the U.S., whatever be the costs we incur, they are yet subordinate to the gains. That is the very definition of net gain. I guess you, like others, have not taken the time to read the reports linked to in the thread rubric and that provide far greater detail about the scope, nature and extent of both the costs and gains.

Again you are equating addition to the GDP with overall gain from migrants. Just like equating health insurance with healthcare, they are not the same. THE ARTICLES OPERATE ON FAULTY PREMISES.


-----------------------------------------------------------------

OT:
I wish someone would share just what the hell people think be the point of my, or anyone's, in a thread's rubric, linking documents and providing but a very, very broad summary of those documents' content? The point of a summary of a complex topic is to focus the reader's subsequent examination of the details, not to obviate or preempt their need to read the "source" documents to obtain an understanding of the details in advance of discussing the topic. Reading only a summary level rubric is akin, for instance, to reading only a firm's financial statements, but not the notes to them, and then proceeding to engage in discussion about the firm and forming conclusions about it or its financial performance.

Money that the US does not have to spend since we're borrowing a million dollars a minute of money we do not have.

Again and in the context of net gains, more aggressively acting than we do now to remove illegal immigrants would necessarily reduce the sum of money the U.S. has to spend on other things while also reducing GDP in total.

Again I've been summarizing your point just fine, immigrants legal or otherwise, add to the GDP. The cost of deporting is more expensive than that gain and we loose that net gain as well.

Dear, God! How did you convince yourself that in one paragraph you should (1) ridicule from a moral standpoint that one advocate for policy making based on the net economic impact of illegal immigrants/immigration and then (2) propone your own line of argument based on what you assert -- speciously, but be that as it is, that is yet the nature of the line you articulated -- is the economic downside of illegal immigration? Were you under the influence of a mind altering substance when you wrote those remarks?​

Your argument was void of the moral argument, and is an end justifies means mentality, don't be upset I pointed that out. And then I moved on to how you're original argument is wrong to begin with, built on a bunch of a priori arguments, and non sequiturs.
===============================================================================

So hopefully now you see the repeated instances of absurd statements and ideas you coalesced into one post.

Ok that post didn't quote right. This app is kind of a pain in the ass. My responses are in inside the quotations, after yours.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Ok that post didn't quote right. This app is kind of a pain in the ass. My responses are in inside the quotations, after yours.

TY for letting me know. I appreciate your courtesy in doing that.