CDZ This is why the US needs a wall on it's southern border

[task0778]

invasion

noun

1. the act of invading with armed forces
2. any encroachment or intrusion an invasion of rats
3. the onset or advent of something harmful, esp of a disease
4. pathol the spread of cancer from its point of origin into surrounding tissues
5. the movement of plants to a new area or to an area to which they are not native

I'd say we are dealing with an encroachment or intrusion here, in some cases harmful and expensive. And if a movement of plants to a new area is an invasion then so should the movement of people. But maybe somebody has a better word for it. Whether the current rate is declining has nothing to do with the continuing problem, which still exists and will exist until we do something about it.


" It's common for people to cite some estimates of costs (i.e. cost of schooling or other benefits received by US citizen children of illegal immigrants) but make no effort to measure various benefits of immigration (immigrants pay taxes and themselves cannot receive most benefits; economic growth, etc.) "


It's not that hard to reasonably estimate the costs of illegal immigration in terms of tax dollars spent through various social programs, but it is somewhat harder to estimate the benefits of the illegals. Most studies do not separate legals from illegals when they compute immigration benefits, there's no doubt that the benefits of legal immigration are substantial, but it's not the case when you separate out the illegals and look for benefits to our society from that group. My link in post #8 to the Costs of Illegal Immigration by the FAIR organizations talk about the costs of illegals at approx $135 bil and says the taxes they pay is approx $19 bil, for a net cost of about $116 bil. No doubt some may find studies that differ from those numbers, Trump says it's closer to $200 mil and some Lefties claim it's near zero.

 

[danielpalos]

a refugee problem is what we have. why not be better Capitalists.

 

[well named]

Whether the current rate is declining has nothing to do with the continuing problem, which still exists and will exist until we do something about it.

The point is that you've failed to demonstrate an actual problem. You said that it creates a financial burden, but the available evidence says the benefits to immigration outweigh the costs. You call it an invasion but net migration flows are lower than in the recent past. You also called for a wall when available research suggests your goals could be better reached by other means, e.g. through trade policy reform.

My link in post #8 to the Costs of Illegal Immigration by the FAIR organizations talk about the costs of illegals at approx $135 bil and says the taxes they pay is approx $19 bil, for a net cost of about $116 bil. No doubt some may find studies that differ from those numbers, Trump says it's closer to $200 mil and some Lefties claim it's near zero.

And my link to the politifact article explains why those numbers are misleading, and I provided you citations to other, more academic, research. FAIR is not a reliable source for unbiased research on immigration. The politifact piece responds to a different report but the criticisms noted are generally applicable to this kind of argument. See also this rebuttal to FAIR by Cato. They point out the same issues I've already noted:

"FAIR counts the benefits consumed by the U.S. born American citizen children of illegal immigrants. This means that FAIR also doesn’t count the taxes paid by these U.S. born citizens when they start working. Counting the benefits consumed but ignoring the tax revenue they pay (or will do so in the future) is one way FAIR gets such a negative result for this report. If FAIR counts the welfare consumed by the U.S. born children of illegal immigrants then it must also count the taxes that that cohort pays, but it does not."
​

For another, older, critique of FAIR's methods: see here. They seem to recycle the same arguments each year, so many of the complaints raised by CATO about the 2017 report appear here as well.

​

 

[well named]

Most studies do not separate legals from illegals when they compute immigration benefits

The main article I cited about the 2006 Secure Fencing Act separates legal from illegal immigrants more or less naturally: it's evaluating the impact of new border fencing. That fencing has no impact on legal immigration, for obvious reasons.

Here is an older (2007) CBO analysis that also focuses entirely on assessing previous research on illegal immigration on state and local budgets specifically. Note that they focus on state and local because basically all analyses of the economic impacts of illegal immigration on federal budgets have found that tax revenues exceed associated costs:

"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. Generally, such estimates include revenues and spending at the federal, state, and local levels. However, many estimates also show that the cost of providing public services to unauthorized immigrants at the state and local levels exceeds what that population pays in state and local taxes."
​

It makes sense that costs are higher and not as well offset at the state/local level, particularly because of the requirement to provide services like education. The report goes into more detail, but they analyzed a large number of independent studies:

"In preparing its analysis, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) reviewed 29 reports published over the past 15 years that attempted to evaluate the impact of unauthorized immigrants on the budgets of state and local governments."
​

So the claim that "most" studies do not separate legal from illegal immigrants seems dubious. Or at the very least, plenty of studies do. Here's their overall conclusion:

"The estimates that CBO reviewed measured costs associated with providing services to unauthorized immigrants that ranged from a few million dollars in states with small unauthorized populations to tens of billions of dollars in California (currently the state with the largest population of unauthorized immigrants). Costs were concentrated in programs that make up a large percentage of total state spending—specifically, those associated with education, health care, and law enforcement. In most of the estimates that CBO examined, however, spending for unauthorized immigrants accounted for less than 5 percent of total state and local spending for those services. Spending for unauthorized immigrants in certain jurisdictions in California was higher but still represented less than 10 percent of total spending for those services....

Most of the estimates found that even though unauthorized immigrants pay taxes and other fees to state and local jurisdictions, the resulting revenues off- set only a portion of the costs incurred by those jurisdictions for providing services related to education, health care, and law enforcement. Although it is difficult to obtain precise estimates of the net impact of the unauthorized population on state and local budgets (see Box 1), that impact is most likely modest"
​

Additionally, they note that not all analyses they looked at accounted for federal funding which offsets some of the above costs.

Beyond that, the reason I cited the study I did is that these analyses also suffer from the fact that they aren't looking at the bigger picture: the long-run contribution of immigration to GDP growth. There is a pretty broad consensus among economists that this contribution is positive. That is: studies are adding up costs of providing services to immigrants and their children and estimating taxes contributed over the short-term in association with those same immigrants. But children who consume resources like education while they are young grow up to be contributors to the economy, not just in terms of tax revenue but in terms of growth. Hence the finding in the article I cited that immigration was contributing to GDP growth. The data provided by politifact had similar findings.

​

​

 

[DandyDonovan]

The point is that you've failed to demonstrate an actual problem. You said that it creates a financial burden, but the available evidence says the benefits to immigration outweigh the costs. You call it an invasion but net migration flows are lower than in the recent past. You also called for a wall when available research suggests your goals could be better reached by other means, e.g. through trade policy reform.

This is, of course, a total and absolute lie , EVERY real study shows that illegal immigration costs this country billions every year, No study shows that they help jack shit, and common sense tells us that if poor people made an economy stronger, these people would be making their own countries stronger.

Why do you people lie? I mean this is supposed to be the "clean forum" does that just mean "no cursing" I thought it meant a more intellectual level of conversation as well.

 

[well named]

I've cited my sources. I can try to find others if you would like. You are also free to cite whatever "real" studies you like, and I'll be happy to read them, although I may also try to rebut them, if I think they are flawed in the same way I think the FAIR studies are flawed (and I cited actual experts of that opinion).

I'm not sure why you think I'm lying. I'm happy to stipulate that my views can always be wrong, but they are quite sincere, and I've even gone to some length to provide support for them and to explain them. I've also tried to point to the complexities (e.g. differences between state and federal costs) in the articles I've linked, although for space reasons I haven't quoted the entirety of anything.

In any case, part of the reason I do this is because it allows others who disagree to challenge me. If you think I'm wrong, you can try to show me how and where. I find this to be a useful way to refine my own views on complicated subjects.

 

[DandyDonovan]

I've cited my sources. I can try to find others if you would like. You are also free to cite whatever "real" studies you like, and I'll be happy to read them, although I may also try to rebut them, if I think they are flawed in the same way I think the FAIR studies are flawed (and I cited actual experts of that opinion).

I'm not sure why you think I'm lying. I'm happy to stipulate that my views can always be wrong, but they are quite sincere, and I've even gone to some length to provide support for them and to explain them. I've also tried to point to the complexities (e.g. differences between state and federal costs) in the articles I've linked, although for space reasons I haven't quoted the entirety of anything.

In any case, part of the reason I do this is because it allows others who disagree to challenge me. If you think I'm wrong, you can try to show me how and where. I find this to be a useful way to refine my own views on complicated subjects.

Here you go, the preeminent study on the subject

Analysis: Illegal immigrants cost taxpayers $116 billion annually

 

[well named]

That article is about the FAIR report, to which I've already responded (and cited multiple critics) in detail (cf post #23). It's not clear why you think FAIR produces the "preeminent" study on immigration.

 

[DandyDonovan]

That article is about the FAIR report, to which I've already responded (and cited multiple critics) in detail (cf post #23). It's not clear why you think FAIR produces the "preeminent" study on immigration.

LOL attack the source , that is always so weak.

How about the GAO? Are they an acceptable source, because they have also studied the issue and determined that yes illegal immigrants are indeed a net DRAIN on this country.

Illegal Aliens: National Net Cost Estimates Vary Widely

And I will repeat. No one who is intellectually honest would argue that millions of people who mostly are high school graduates at BEST are not going to add to an economy. It's silly to argue otherwise.

Illegal Aliens: National Net Cost Estimates Vary Widely

It may have sounded mean when Trump said it, but he was 100% correct, these countries aren't sending us their best. Instead they are sending us their worst, the ones who are drains on THEIR economies so hey let's turn a blind eye to them sneaking into the US and when caught and the US attempts to deport them, let's tell them no.

 

[well named]

Here's the thing: I could dump some more links on the thread, pointing to large numbers of economists who agree with the arguments I've made in this thread. I'm simply using their arguments. But I think it's kind of clear that you haven't read what I've already posted, and there's also the risk of reducing the question to a gish gallop, where whoever posts the highest number of links wins. But that's also not quite useful. It's more useful to actually look into the details of specific studies. I've done that with FAIR, and my very first post in this thread outlined the general issue with these kinds of citations:

It's common for people to cite some estimates of costs (i.e. cost of schooling or other benefits received by US citizen children of illegal immigrants) but make no effort to measure various benefits of immigration (immigrants pay taxes and themselves cannot receive most benefits; economic growth, etc.)

Post #23 elaborated on the flaws with FAIR specifically. The only thing that's actually happened since my first post is that people keep citing studies that fail in precisely the above way, and I keep pointing them towards explanations of that fact. Yes, immigration has costs. It also has benefits. Most economists believe the latter outweigh the former (even Borjas, who is actually the "pre-eminent" economic scholar who is skeptical of immigration). There is plenty of room left after recognizing that to talk about how best to regulate immigration, which policies make sense and which don't, to argue about why a wall may or may not be a good way of accomplishing certain goals, or whatever else. Some of what I've posted here is on that subject, e.g. the research that suggests that a wall is suboptimal even if your goal is to reduce immigration.

 

[well named]

LOL attack the source , that is always so weak.

This is wrong. I'm not attacking the source, I'm attacking their methodology, as I've already explained. Again, we could debate it, but first you would have to read the criticisms being offered.

 

[task0778]

Here's the thing: I could dump some more links on the thread, pointing to large numbers of economists who agree with the arguments I've made in this thread. I'm simply using their arguments. But I think it's kind of clear that you haven't read what I've already posted, and there's also the risk of reducing the question to a gish gallop, where whoever posts the highest number of links wins. But that's also not quite useful. It's more useful to actually look into the details of specific studies. I've done that with FAIR, and my very first post in this thread outlined the general issue with these kinds of citations:

It's common for people to cite some estimates of costs (i.e. cost of schooling or other benefits received by US citizen children of illegal immigrants) but make no effort to measure various benefits of immigration (immigrants pay taxes and themselves cannot receive most benefits; economic growth, etc.)

Post #23 elaborated on the flaws with FAIR specifically. The only thing that's actually happened since my first post is that people keep citing studies that fail in precisely the above way, and I keep pointing them towards explanations of that fact. Yes, immigration has costs. It also has benefits. Most economists believe the latter outweigh the former (even Borjas, who is actually the "pre-eminent" economic scholar who is skeptical of immigration). There is plenty of room left after recognizing that to talk about how best to regulate immigration, which policies make sense and which don't, to argue about why a wall may or may not be a good way of accomplishing certain goals, or whatever else. Some of what I've posted here is on that subject, e.g. the research that suggests that a wall is suboptimal even if your goal is to reduce immigration.

" Yes, immigration has costs. It also has benefits. Most economists believe the latter outweigh the former (even Borjas, who is actually the "pre-eminent" economic scholar who is skeptical of immigration). "

This is probably true, although the part about 'most economists' is questionable, the same as it is about AGW. That is because the reports and studies you cite talk about immigration as a whole, and do not distinguish or separate legal from illegal immigration. They talk about immigration as a whole, where highly trained and educated immigrants are lumped together with illegals, the vast majority of which are NOT highly trained ore educated and are a much bigger drain on our resources. To argue otherwise is flat out foolish. Your own post #24 says:

"However, many estimates also show that the cost of providing public services to unauthorized immigrants at the state and local levels exceeds what that population pays in state and local taxes."
And I am quite certain that the vast majority of Illegals do not pay much of anything in the way of federal income taxes either, yet drain away quite a bit of our federal tax dollars in the various social services programs and public education.

You can dispute the findings and reports from FAIR and others, fair enough. But some might also dispute findings to the contrary, that very well could be politically biased, as we see in just about every other issue. So, to me after I read what FAIR and the CIS reports say and then I read your opposing links, I am left with conflicting opinions and data that forces me to look at the issue as much as possible through unbiased eyes. Which tells me that yes, we have millions of illegals in this country and some of them are not the kind of people you want to have entering the US. Most are good people, I don't doubt that but should we not try to weed out the undesirables? How many good immigrants can we accept with the attendant fiscal and social costs at a time when our cities and states are already in financial difficulties due to pensions and other obligations?

I'm just not buying the reports and studies that say illegal immigration isn't a problem, common sense tells me otherwise. It's a hard sell when I read about the American citizens who were raped or murdered by illegals who were deported before and came back more than once. It's a hard sell when I read about the drugs and gang members coming across that southern border, and somebody wants to convince me we don't have a problem. And I read that many if these illegals send a lot of their earnings back to their home country instead of spending it here, did all those studies and reports that say the costs and benefits of illegals balance out happen to mention that? Hard sell there too.

And then there's this: when I read that many of the people who are telling us today that the wall is immoral, ineffective, or a waste of money are the same people who 12 years ago were telling us the opposite and indeed VOTED FOR a 700 mile wall for a lot more money, that's REALLY a hard sell. Will a wall solve the problem by itself? NO. But with a number of other complementary measures, such as cameras, drones, helicopters, ATVs, and more agents on the ground, that wall would be a deterrent. To argue otherwise flies in the face of logic. How many fewer people will even attempt the long and dangerous journey from Central America, knowing how much harder it is or will be to make it? How many fewer of them will die in that attempt before they even make it to our border? How many fewer Americans here will be raped or murdered in the future if we have fewer illegals coming in?

See, right now this isn't really an issue about national security, like it should be. This is a political fight over future Democratic VOTERS. That's why the Democrats who once supported the building of a wall are fighting against it now. Yes, some of it is due to TDS, Trump wants it so we're against it. But would it matter if any other Repub was asking for the wall? I don't think so, this is about putting the interests of the Democratic Party over that of the nation as a whole. Simple as that.

 

[DandyDonovan]

Here's the thing: I could dump some more links on the thread, pointing to large numbers of economists who agree with the arguments I've made in this thread. I'm simply using their arguments. But I think it's kind of clear that you haven't read what I've already posted, and there's also the risk of reducing the question to a gish gallop, where whoever posts the highest number of links wins. But that's also not quite useful. It's more useful to actually look into the details of specific studies. I've done that with FAIR, and my very first post in this thread outlined the general issue with these kinds of citations:

It's common for people to cite some estimates of costs (i.e. cost of schooling or other benefits received by US citizen children of illegal immigrants) but make no effort to measure various benefits of immigration (immigrants pay taxes and themselves cannot receive most benefits; economic growth, etc.)

Post #23 elaborated on the flaws with FAIR specifically. The only thing that's actually happened since my first post is that people keep citing studies that fail in precisely the above way, and I keep pointing them towards explanations of that fact. Yes, immigration has costs. It also has benefits. Most economists believe the latter outweigh the former (even Borjas, who is actually the "pre-eminent" economic scholar who is skeptical of immigration). There is plenty of room left after recognizing that to talk about how best to regulate immigration, which policies make sense and which don't, to argue about why a wall may or may not be a good way of accomplishing certain goals, or whatever else. Some of what I've posted here is on that subject, e.g. the research that suggests that a wall is suboptimal even if your goal is to reduce immigration.

" Yes, immigration has costs. It also has benefits. Most economists believe the latter outweigh the former (even Borjas, who is actually the "pre-eminent" economic scholar who is skeptical of immigration). "

This is probably true, although the part about 'most economists' is questionable, the same as it is about AGW. That is because the reports and studies you cite talk about immigration as a whole, and do not distinguish or separate legal from illegal immigration. They talk about immigration as a whole, where highly trained and educated immigrants are lumped together with illegals, the vast majority of which are NOT highly trained ore educated and are a much bigger drain on our resources. To argue otherwise is flat out foolish. Your own post #24 says:

"However, many estimates also show that the cost of providing public services to unauthorized immigrants at the state and local levels exceeds what that population pays in state and local taxes."
And I am quite certain that the vast majority of Illegals do not pay much of anything in the way of federal income taxes either, yet drain away quite a bit of our federal tax dollars in the various social services programs and public education.

You can dispute the findings and reports from FAIR and others, fair enough. But some might also dispute findings to the contrary, that very well could be politically biased, as we see in just about every other issue. So, to me after I read what FAIR and the CIS reports say and then I read your opposing links, I am left with conflicting opinions and data that forces me to look at the issue as much as possible through unbiased eyes. Which tells me that yes, we have millions of illegals in this country and some of them are not the kind of people you want to have entering the US. Most are good people, I don't doubt that but should we not try to weed out the undesirables? How many good immigrants can we accept with the attendant fiscal and social costs at a time when our cities and states are already in financial difficulties due to pensions and other obligations?

I'm just not buying the reports and studies that say illegal immigration isn't a problem, common sense tells me otherwise. It's a hard sell when I read about the American citizens who were raped or murdered by illegals who were deported before and came back more than once. It's a hard sell when I read about the drugs and gang members coming across that southern border, and somebody wants to convince me we don't have a problem. And I read that many if these illegals send a lot of their earnings back to their home country instead of spending it here, did all those studies and reports that say the costs and benefits of illegals balance out? Hard sell there too.

And then there's this: when I read that many of the people who are telling us today that the wall is immoral, ineffective, or a waste of money are the same people who 12 years ago were telling us the opposite and indeed VOTED FOR a 700 mile wall for a lot more money, that's REALLY a hard sell. Will a wall solve the problem by itself? NO. But with a number of other complementary measures, such as cameras, drones, helicopters, ATVs, and more agents on the ground, that wall would be a deterrent. How many fewer people will even attempt the long and dangerous journey from Central America, knowing how much harder it is or will be to make it? How many fewer of them will die in that attempt before they even make it to our border? How many fewer Americans will be raped or murdered in the future if we have fewer illegals coming in?

See, right now this isn't really an issue about national security, like it should be. This is a political fight over future Democratic VOTERS. That's why the Democrats who once supported the building of a wall are fighting against it now. Yes, some of it is due to TDS, Trump wants it so we're against it. But would it matter if any other Repub was asking for the wall? I don't think so, this is about putting the interests of the Democratic Party over that of the nation as a whole. Simple as that.

You have to completely ignore common sense to believe that millions of people with high school education at best adds to an economy.

63% of Non-Citizen Households Access Welfare Programs

^ That is the kind of nonsense that should NEVER happen.

 

[well named]

How about the GAO? Are they an acceptable source, because they have also studied the issue and determined that yes illegal immigrants are indeed a net DRAIN on this country.

Illegal Aliens: National Net Cost Estimates Vary Widely

1) It's from 1995. I cited a CBO report from 2007, which is going to be closer to being relevant in 2018. In any case, there's nothing in this CBO analysis which contradicts what I've said.

2) Your usage of the CBO report is again falling into the same fallacy I have pointed out multiple times: emphasizing costs, ignoring overall economic benefits.

You have to completely ignore common sense to believe that millions of people with high school education at best adds to an economy.

63% of Non-Citizen Households Access Welfare Programs

I have discussed this CIS report previously, here: 63% of non citizens on welfare

As far as common sense, my view is that empirical evidence and academic research have more epistemic value than your "common sense" (and you ought to consider the likely possibility that your common sense suffers from a variety of cognitive biases and prejudices), but that would be a more philosophical conversation.

 

[DandyDonovan]

How about the GAO? Are they an acceptable source, because they have also studied the issue and determined that yes illegal immigrants are indeed a net DRAIN on this country.

Illegal Aliens: National Net Cost Estimates Vary Widely

1) It's from 1995. I cited a CBO report from 2007, which is going to be closer to being relevant in 2018. In any case, there's nothing in this CBO analysis which contradicts what I've said.

2) Your usage of the CBO report is again falling into the same fallacy I have pointed out multiple times: emphasizing costs, ignoring overall economic benefits.

You have to completely ignore common sense to believe that millions of people with high school education at best adds to an economy.

63% of Non-Citizen Households Access Welfare Programs

I have discussed this CIS report previously, here: 63% of non citizens on welfare

As far as common sense, my view is that empirical evidence and academic research have more epistemic value than your "common sense" (and you ought to consider the likely possibility that your common sense suffers from a variety of cognitive biases and prejudices), but that would be a more philosophical conversation.

So then, if Millions of poor illegals are good for the economy, why don't we bring BILLIONS of them here and really have a great economy?

 

[danielpalos]

How about the GAO? Are they an acceptable source, because they have also studied the issue and determined that yes illegal immigrants are indeed a net DRAIN on this country.

Illegal Aliens: National Net Cost Estimates Vary Widely

1) It's from 1995. I cited a CBO report from 2007, which is going to be closer to being relevant in 2018. In any case, there's nothing in this CBO analysis which contradicts what I've said.

2) Your usage of the CBO report is again falling into the same fallacy I have pointed out multiple times: emphasizing costs, ignoring overall economic benefits.

You have to completely ignore common sense to believe that millions of people with high school education at best adds to an economy.

63% of Non-Citizen Households Access Welfare Programs

I have discussed this CIS report previously, here: 63% of non citizens on welfare

As far as common sense, my view is that empirical evidence and academic research have more epistemic value than your "common sense" (and you ought to consider the likely possibility that your common sense suffers from a variety of cognitive biases and prejudices), but that would be a more philosophical conversation.

So then, if Millions of poor illegals are good for the economy, why don't we bring BILLIONS of them here and really have a great economy?

only lousy capitalists lose money on border policy. why does the right allege to subscribe to Capitalism when socialism on a national basis is all they know.

 

[DandyDonovan]

How about the GAO? Are they an acceptable source, because they have also studied the issue and determined that yes illegal immigrants are indeed a net DRAIN on this country.

Illegal Aliens: National Net Cost Estimates Vary Widely

1) It's from 1995. I cited a CBO report from 2007, which is going to be closer to being relevant in 2018. In any case, there's nothing in this CBO analysis which contradicts what I've said.

2) Your usage of the CBO report is again falling into the same fallacy I have pointed out multiple times: emphasizing costs, ignoring overall economic benefits.

You have to completely ignore common sense to believe that millions of people with high school education at best adds to an economy.

63% of Non-Citizen Households Access Welfare Programs

I have discussed this CIS report previously, here: 63% of non citizens on welfare

As far as common sense, my view is that empirical evidence and academic research have more epistemic value than your "common sense" (and you ought to consider the likely possibility that your common sense suffers from a variety of cognitive biases and prejudices), but that would be a more philosophical conversation.

So then, if Millions of poor illegals are good for the economy, why don't we bring BILLIONS of them here and really have a great economy?

only lousy capitalists lose money on border policy. why does the right allege to subscribe to Capitalism when socialism on a national basis is all they know.

I don't know why you bother asking me a question clown.

 

[danielpalos]

How about the GAO? Are they an acceptable source, because they have also studied the issue and determined that yes illegal immigrants are indeed a net DRAIN on this country.

Illegal Aliens: National Net Cost Estimates Vary Widely

1) It's from 1995. I cited a CBO report from 2007, which is going to be closer to being relevant in 2018. In any case, there's nothing in this CBO analysis which contradicts what I've said.

2) Your usage of the CBO report is again falling into the same fallacy I have pointed out multiple times: emphasizing costs, ignoring overall economic benefits.

You have to completely ignore common sense to believe that millions of people with high school education at best adds to an economy.

63% of Non-Citizen Households Access Welfare Programs

I have discussed this CIS report previously, here: 63% of non citizens on welfare

As far as common sense, my view is that empirical evidence and academic research have more epistemic value than your "common sense" (and you ought to consider the likely possibility that your common sense suffers from a variety of cognitive biases and prejudices), but that would be a more philosophical conversation.

So then, if Millions of poor illegals are good for the economy, why don't we bring BILLIONS of them here and really have a great economy?

only lousy capitalists lose money on border policy. why does the right allege to subscribe to Capitalism when socialism on a national basis is all they know.

I don't know why you bother asking me a question clown.

i have an argument and it was a rhetorical question so you can practice your rhetoric.

 

[well named]

So then, if Millions of poor illegals are good for the economy, why don't we bring BILLIONS of them here and really have a great economy?

This is a poor argument. It is not my contention that immigration is necessarily a net benefit under any and all circumstances. It is my contention that immigration has had a generally positive impact on the US economy over the last ~30 years, with some caveats and some open questions. I believe I previously mentioned the concept of worker complementarity between native-born and immigrant workers, especially poorer immigrants, which helps explain why this is the case (cf. Peri 2007). But it's also clearly true that the conclusion doesn't generalize to literally any amount of migration, and certainly not to "billions" of migrants. When I cited Allen et al (2018) one of the more important points I think they make is that other trade policies would reduce illegal immigration more than a wall. Implicit to my interest in that argument is the idea that there are some benefits to preventing migration levels from getting too high, but then I also provided data that suggests that migration rates have trended down over the last decade.

I would also argue that we would have been better off overall over that time period if we had implemented other immigration policies, for example expanded work visa and migrant worker programs rather than the 1986 IRCA, in which case we would likely have had a smaller population of long-term illegal alien residents (for a brief history, see here).

 

[DandyDonovan]

So then, if Millions of poor illegals are good for the economy, why don't we bring BILLIONS of them here and really have a great economy?

This is a poor argument. It is not my contention that immigration is necessarily a net benefit under any and all circumstances. It is my contention that immigration has had a generally positive impact on the US economy over the last ~30 years, with some caveats and some open questions. I believe I previously mentioned the concept of worker complementarity between native-born and immigrant workers, especially poorer immigrants, which helps explain why this is the case (cf. Peri 2007). But it's also clearly true that the conclusion doesn't generalize to literally any amount of migration, and certainly not to "billions" of migrants. When I cited Allen et al (2018) one of the more important points I think they make is that other trade policies would reduce illegal immigration more than a wall. Implicit to my interest in that argument is the idea that there are some benefits to preventing migration levels from getting too high, but then I also provided data that suggests that migration rates have trended down over the last decade.

I would also argue that we would have been better off overall over that time period if we had implemented other immigration policies, for example expanded work visa and migrant worker programs rather than the 1986 IRCA, in which case we would likely have had a smaller population of long-term illegal alien residents (for a brief history, see here).

Because you are PURPOSELY conflating legal and illegal immigration just as Democrats have been doing since Trump first took office because you know that illegal immigration alone can not ever be defended.

It's pretty pathetic.