Trumps deportation plan would cost $100-$200 BILLION

[bripat9643]

The problem Boss is just like others. You have this attitudes I want, I want, I want just like Paddy mentioned. Then you you and others keep saying I don't care, I don't care. When the fuck of the matter is you YOU don't have any specific how to handle this problem. You don't even understand the logistics. And yet you keep insisting the bullshit from this bullshiter.
Everyone wants to solve this problem. Now if you can tell us the specific how to solve this problem will be glad to shut.
For now, since you don't have any clue what you are talking about. Shut the fuck up.

Well if you go back and read the thread, you'll find that my assertion of what "I want" is presented in response to someone implying I wanted "to kick out brown people." Since that was NOT what I want, I felt strongly compelled to set the record straight. I'm sorry if my setting the record straight offended you in some way. As for now, we live in a free and open society and you do not have the authority to tell me to shut up.

Now... You want specifics...

We're going to build a wall across our southern border.
All logistics have been considered and it can be done.
This solves the problem of illegals crossing our southern border.
The wall will be paid for by Mexico who depend on US trade.

That's about as specific as we can be.

"We're going to build a wall across our southern border.
All logistics have been considered and it can be done.
This solves the problem of illegals crossing our southern border.
The wall will be paid for by Mexico who depend on US trade."

Nothing there is specific. What will it cost? How will it benefit us? No logistics have been considered. You just make shit up and post it. It will not solve the problem of illegals since close to 40% entered legally and stayed. And Mexico will not pay for it. We depend on their trade as much as they depend on ours and we currently have a treaty that cannot be abridged. The rest of this hemisphere would not stand for us trying to bully Mexico. Your posts reveal more and more stupidity on your part.

We don't need trade from Mexico. Anything we build in Mexico can be built here, just cost a bit more. We don't sell much shit over there so fuck it, screw em, and charge em. And your 40% entered legally is a bullshit outdated number that doesn't take into consideration how it's happening in the current situation. And if true gives us reason to stop letting them in legally too.

Our trade with Mexico amounts to over 300 billion, 117 billion in shit we sell over there, and you think we do not need that trade. How fucking stupid do you have to be to make that comment.

The other $200 billion is shit they sell to us. There's nothing Mexico produces that we can't purchase elsewhere. ON the other hand, a $200 billion hit to their exports would devastate their economy. They need us far more than we need them. Any claims to the contrary are worse than stupid.

 

[bripat9643]

The problem Boss is just like others. You have this attitudes I want, I want, I want just like Paddy mentioned. Then you you and others keep saying I don't care, I don't care. When the fuck of the matter is you YOU don't have any specific how to handle this problem. You don't even understand the logistics. And yet you keep insisting the bullshit from this bullshiter.
Everyone wants to solve this problem. Now if you can tell us the specific how to solve this problem will be glad to shut.
For now, since you don't have any clue what you are talking about. Shut the fuck up.

Well if you go back and read the thread, you'll find that my assertion of what "I want" is presented in response to someone implying I wanted "to kick out brown people." Since that was NOT what I want, I felt strongly compelled to set the record straight. I'm sorry if my setting the record straight offended you in some way. As for now, we live in a free and open society and you do not have the authority to tell me to shut up.

Now... You want specifics...

We're going to build a wall across our southern border.
All logistics have been considered and it can be done.
This solves the problem of illegals crossing our southern border.
The wall will be paid for by Mexico who depend on US trade.

That's about as specific as we can be.

"We're going to build a wall across our southern border.
All logistics have been considered and it can be done.
This solves the problem of illegals crossing our southern border.
The wall will be paid for by Mexico who depend on US trade."

Nothing there is specific. What will it cost? How will it benefit us? No logistics have been considered. You just make shit up and post it. It will not solve the problem of illegals since close to 40% entered legally and stayed. And Mexico will not pay for it. We depend on their trade as much as they depend on ours and we currently have a treaty that cannot be abridged. The rest of this hemisphere would not stand for us trying to bully Mexico. Your posts reveal more and more stupidity on your part.

Puhleeze. The details aren't that important. it will solve 60% of the problem with illegals. That makes it more than worth doing. No one has claimed that the wall will solve the entire problem. That's purely an diversion by open borders/amnesty assholes who want to destroy this country.

And, no, we don't depend on trade with them as much as they depend on trade with us. Only a fool would make such a claim. America is the biggest market in the world, and cutting yourself off from that market is economic suicide.

Any treaty can be abridged. All we have to do is quit respecting the treaty. What is the rest of the hemisphere going to do about it, have a big temper tantrum? What leverage do the hold over us?

Almost everything you post is so stupid an 8-year-old child could see through it.

Good god. Cutting them off from this market would harm US too. We have exported 117 billion to Mexico so far this year. They have exported 145 billion to us. And you think ending that trade will not effect us?

It would annoy us. It would devastate them.

Who do you think you're kidding?

 

[bripat9643]

Utter horseshit. No one believes you want to solve this problem. When anyone proposes a solution you claim that either it won't work or that it's cruel an unjust. You have one excuse after another for doing nothing.

Okay brifart. Give me specific how are you going to solve this problem? Logistics? Don't even worry about the cost and their contributions to the economy.
Give me something to believe you. But Don't give me this I don't care bullshit. I'm waiting.

I've already explained that many times. Simply enforce our immigration laws. Rescind Obama's Executive Orders re immigration. Deport all illegal aliens whenever they are discovered. Insect employers to ensure they are compliant with our immigration laws. Build a wall on the border and hire sufficient personnel to staff it.

Sure you know what specific means. Those are not specific. How do you know which ones are illegals? Are you going to issue ID for membership? How do you round them up? Are you just deport illegal parents and leave the kids on the streets? Are you going to raid houses, schools, malls, groceries etc.? Logistics?
So try again.

Yes, those are pretty damned specific. They are certainly specific enough to judge a candidate by.

What is your SPECIFIC solution to the problem, other than doing nothing.

For stupid fucks like you, sure that is all YOU need. Normal people need to know things like how much money will it cost; how much will it damage our economy; who will take the millions of jobs that will suddenly not be filled; what will it do to our relations with the rest of the world.

Really? The didn't need to know that when Obama was selling his healthcare scheme to them. The wall will prevent illegals from taking jobs from Americans. That's why you object to it. You want to take a great big shit on American workers.

 

[paddymurphy]

You disgust me because you are too fucking stupid to be a citizen. We were talking about your idiotic claims about the constitution. It is possible to pass a law to remove all aliens. It will simply cost too much. And it will not only cost money, it will reduces taxes they pay and economic activity they create. All to remove people who do no harm.

My only claim was that the Constitution says nothing about soil or you having any rights by being on it. That claim will stand until it is disproved. If you want to switch subjects or call me names, that is fine too... it doesn't disprove my claim in the least.

I've never said "pass a law to remove all aliens" and I'm not sure that would be possible anyway. We passed a law back in the 1830s to "remove all Indians" but we never removed them all... some remained. We removed a lot of them, it's known today as "the trail of tears" and oh by the way... The SCOTUS ruled it unconstitutional and President Jackson did it anyway.

But here, that's "extremist rhetoric" from either side... we're not going to pass any such law today. We ARE going to build a wall and secure the border. The cost is not an issue because Mexico will pay for it. At the same time, while we are constructing this wall, we are going to deport captured illegals who have broken other laws. We will keep doing this even after the wall is built. Once we have a wall and have stopped virtually all illegal border crossings, we can have a reasonable conversation about what we can do with the remaining law-abiding illegals who are here. That conversation is not going to happen until the wall is finished.

We are not going to build a wall. Will never happen because it would be a profound waste of money. And the notion that Mexico will pay anything is incredibly stupid. Why would they?

What do you think is preventing people from sneaking into countries like Iran and North Korea? Does the Mexican government treat illegals the same as we do in this country? Why are other nation's willing to enforce their borders and immigration laws but the United States can't? Are we serious about providing Americans and "legal" immigrants with an opportunity to achieve economic prosperity and opportunity? .... or do we want to continue wasting taxpayer dollars coming up with excuses as to why we must freely give to those illegal immigrants who don't respect our system of government, the way other immigrants who ALSO desire to become citizens do?

What do I think is preventing people from sneaking into North Korea? The fact that it is a totalitarian shit hole where people are starving to death might be a start. The mines and fences along the DMZ is to prevent people from LEAVING. Other nations enforce their immigration laws in much the same way we do. They do not call children fleeing violence and poverty "invaders". And, it is the biggest lie that illegals are a drain on our economy. They are a net benefit and removing them, in addition to costing hundreds of billions and turning us into more of a police state, would COST US lost taxes and lost economic activity. If every illegal in Texas or Arizona disappeared tomorrow, those states would suffer economically.

You are full of shit. Every comment you made is total, unsupportable garbage.

"When analyzed from the vantage point of information derived from reputable, nonpartisan sources (the Pew Research Center, USDA, United States Department of Labor, and leading economists and researchers) then one can obtain a clearer view of this muddled discussion. The truth of the matter is that illegal immigrants are important to the U.S. economy, as well as vital to certain industries like agriculture.

According to the Pew Research Hispanic Trends Project, there were 8.4 million unauthorized immigrants employed in the U.S.; representing 5.2 percent of the U.S. labor force (an increase from 3.8 percent in 2000). Their importance was highlighted in a report by Texas Comptroller Susan Combs that stated, “Without the undocumented population, Texas’ work force would decrease by 6.3 percent” and Texas’ gross state product would decrease by 2.1 percent. Furthermore, certain segments of the U.S. economy, like agriculture, are entirely dependent upon illegal immigrants.

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.

Finally, the aggregate economic impact of illegal immigration is debatable, but any claim that they’ve ruined the country doesn’t correlate to the views of any notable economist. An open letter to President George W. Bush in 2006, signed by around five hundred economists (including five Nobel laureates) stated the following: “While a small percentage of native-born Americans may be harmed by immigration, vastly more Americans benefit from the contributions that immigrants make to our economy, including lower consumer prices.”

Although Harvard economist Jorge Borjas has stated that illegal immigrants from 1980-2000 have reduced the wages of high school dropouts in the U.S, he also states that the average American’s wealth has increased by 1 percent because of illegal immigration. In an op-ed published in the Los Angeles Times, UC Davis economist Giovanni Peri stated that new laws are needed to meet demands within industries like construction, agriculture, and hospitality: “In recent decades, the high demand for these services and the pressure for keeping their cost low and prices competitive have generated incentives to hire undocumented workers.”

Some people claim that illegal immigrants represent an assault on our sovereignty. If this is true, then it might be the first time in world history that a country has employed its invaders. When illegal immigrants cross the border, there’s a citizen waiting to hire them and benefit in some manner from their labor. The sooner our country realizes that immigration reform should be based upon the views of economists and nonpartisan academic researchers, rather than think tanks and radio show hosts, then Congress will finally be able to help solve this national dilemma. "

Illegal immigrants benefit the U.S. economy

From the President's Council on Economic Advisers:

In 2006, foreign-born workers accounted for 15% of the U.S. labor force, and over the last decade they have accounted for about half of the growth in the labor force. That immigration has fueled U.S. macroeconomic growth is both uncontroversial and unsurprising – more total workers yield more total output. That immigrant workers benefit from working in the United States is also uncontroversial and unsurprising – few would come here otherwise.1

Assessing how immigration affects the well-being of U.S. natives is more complicated. This is because immigration’s economic impact is complex and may play out over generations, and because not all natives are alike in terms of their economic characteristics. Even in retrospect it is not easy to distinguish the influence of immigration from that of other economic forces at work at the same time. Nor is it easy to project costs and benefits far into the future. Nonetheless, economists and demographers have made headway on many of the measurement problems. This white paper assesses immigration’s economic impact based on the professional literature and concludes that immigration has a positive effect on the American economy as a whole and on the income of native-born American workers.

Key Findings

1. On average, US natives benefit from immigration. Immigrants tend to complement (not substitute for) natives, raising natives’ productivity and income.
2. Careful studies of the long-run fiscal effects of immigration conclude that it is likely to have a modest, positive influence.
3. Skilled immigrants are likely to be especially beneficial to natives. In addition to contributions to innovation, they have a significant positive fiscal impact.

General Points

• Immigrants are a critical part of the U.S. workforce and contribute to productivity growth and technological advancement. They make up 15% of all workers and even larger shares of certain occupations such as construction, food services and health care. Approximately 40% of Ph.D. scientists working in the United States were born abroad. (Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics; American Community Survey)
• Many immigrants are entrepreneurs. The Kauffman Foundation’s index of entrepreneurial activity is nearly 40% higher for immigrants than for natives. (Source: Kauffman Foundation)
• Immigrants and their children assimilate into U.S. culture. For example, although 72% of first-generation Latino immigrants use Spanish as their predominant language, only 7% of the second generation are Spanish-dominant. (Source: Pew Hispanic Center/Kaiser Family Foundation)
• Immigrants have lower crime rates than natives. Among men aged 18 to 40, immigrants are much less likely to be incarcerated than natives. (Source: Butcher and Piehl)
• Immigrants slightly improve the solvency of pay-as-you-go entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare. The 2007 OASDI Trustees Report indicates that an additional 100,000 net immigrants per year would increase the long-range actuarial balance by about 0.07% of taxable payroll. (Source: Social Security Administration)
• The long-run impact of immigration on public budgets is likely to be positive. Projections of future taxes and government spending are subject to uncertainty, but a careful study published by the National Research Council estimated that immigrants and their descendants would contribute about $80,000 more in taxes (in 1996 dollars) than they would receive in public services. (Source: Smith and Edmonston)

 

[danielpalos]

You do understand, moron, that it is the act of finding, arresting, detaining, processing and then deporting (i.e sending them back to their homeland) that costs the 100 billion you claim? And that trying to do that for all 11 million would be several hundred billion more and would result in the loss of the billions in taxes that illegals pay and the billions in economic activity they spur?

The government benefits they consume is what costs us $130 billion a year. The cost of deporting them would be about $200 billion, if we have to go through the full legal process to deport every one of them. However, once they realize they can't get a job or escape the deportation schedule, most of them will self-deport.

It will cost much more than 200 billion. And it will mean billions in lost taxes and economic activity. All to assuage assholes like you who cannot offer up a rational basis why we should hunt down and remove 11 million folks who are harming no one and do more to benefit us that pricks like you do.

So what if it costs 200 million. Illegals cost this country $100 million EVERY YEAR. It would be paid for in just a matter of a few years. Employing more ICE people, construction workers for the wall, and tax paying citizens taking the jobs the illegals left will enhance our economic situation.

200 billion and, no, they do not cost 100 million a year. They bring in billions in taxes and economic activity. They are net positive to our economy.

FAIR estimates the cost at $113 billion/year, only a small part of which is offset by the taxes they pay.

Why are we losing that money from potential Commerce at our borders?

 

[bripat9643]

I live about 35 miles from the border, and cross it regularly. I find it more than a little amusing that anyone would think that a fence would stop someone who has already made up his mind to walk for at least 3 days across a desert full of cactus and rattlesnakes, with little or no water and food, in scorching heat, with no shade, guide, or even a pair of boots. In AZ, we find about 200 bodies per year of those that fail to make it. It is beyond absurd. Besides that, few actually walk from the border to Phoenix. They are usually driven through the border in a truck or van and dropped off on the other side, to fend for themselves against the elements. Then, of course there is the other half of them who come over on visa's and simply don't go back. Down in Nogales, a bus fell through the pavement of a street, because it caused a tunnel under the border to collapse. The fact that China built the world's largest wall, which failed, over 1,000 years ago does not discourage Trump or his fans either.

The whole thing is just a continuation of the movement to keep the (Irish), (blacks), (Italians), (Chinese), (Jews), (Muslims), (Latinos) out.

Is there any other nation that provides taxpayer benefits to those immigrants who have extended their stay or violated their immigration laws? Yet, how many are able to do so without building a fence? We are living in a time where terrorists are looking for a way to infiltrate and hide within the United States with the predetermined notion of killing its citizens, however enforcement is not an option to many. The United States government is not a world charity organization for all who desire to sneak across our borders, we are a nation that lives and is governed by laws... it's time we start acting like one.

Well, that settles it, then. It is against the law to profile Latinos and pull them over and demand proof of citizenship, without probable cause that they committed a crime. If you don't believe me, ask Sheriff Joe. That being the case, Trump obviously has no plan on how to deport any of them that are not engaged in criminal activity.

If illegals are suspected to work at a specific sight or through an employer, government agents have every right under their authority of upholding "the law", to go in and investigate the same as officers that enforce our drug laws. We don't offer them asylum like sanctuary cities and give excuses to ignore the law

The open borders assholes think that's acting like the Gestapo.

Can you believe these morons? Perhaps we shouldn't arrest drug dealers and throw them in prison because that would separate them from their children!

 

[koshergrl]

My only claim was that the Constitution says nothing about soil or you having any rights by being on it. That claim will stand until it is disproved. If you want to switch subjects or call me names, that is fine too... it doesn't disprove my claim in the least.

I've never said "pass a law to remove all aliens" and I'm not sure that would be possible anyway. We passed a law back in the 1830s to "remove all Indians" but we never removed them all... some remained. We removed a lot of them, it's known today as "the trail of tears" and oh by the way... The SCOTUS ruled it unconstitutional and President Jackson did it anyway.

But here, that's "extremist rhetoric" from either side... we're not going to pass any such law today. We ARE going to build a wall and secure the border. The cost is not an issue because Mexico will pay for it. At the same time, while we are constructing this wall, we are going to deport captured illegals who have broken other laws. We will keep doing this even after the wall is built. Once we have a wall and have stopped virtually all illegal border crossings, we can have a reasonable conversation about what we can do with the remaining law-abiding illegals who are here. That conversation is not going to happen until the wall is finished.

We are not going to build a wall. Will never happen because it would be a profound waste of money. And the notion that Mexico will pay anything is incredibly stupid. Why would they?

What do you think is preventing people from sneaking into countries like Iran and North Korea? Does the Mexican government treat illegals the same as we do in this country? Why are other nation's willing to enforce their borders and immigration laws but the United States can't? Are we serious about providing Americans and "legal" immigrants with an opportunity to achieve economic prosperity and opportunity? .... or do we want to continue wasting taxpayer dollars coming up with excuses as to why we must freely give to those illegal immigrants who don't respect our system of government, the way other immigrants who ALSO desire to become citizens do?

What do I think is preventing people from sneaking into North Korea? The fact that it is a totalitarian shit hole where people are starving to death might be a start. The mines and fences along the DMZ is to prevent people from LEAVING. Other nations enforce their immigration laws in much the same way we do. They do not call children fleeing violence and poverty "invaders". And, it is the biggest lie that illegals are a drain on our economy. They are a net benefit and removing them, in addition to costing hundreds of billions and turning us into more of a police state, would COST US lost taxes and lost economic activity. If every illegal in Texas or Arizona disappeared tomorrow, those states would suffer economically.

You are full of shit. Every comment you made is total, unsupportable garbage.

"When analyzed from the vantage point of information derived from reputable, nonpartisan sources (the Pew Research Center, USDA, United States Department of Labor, and leading economists and researchers) then one can obtain a clearer view of this muddled discussion. The truth of the matter is that illegal immigrants are important to the U.S. economy, as well as vital to certain industries like agriculture.

According to the Pew Research Hispanic Trends Project, there were 8.4 million unauthorized immigrants employed in the U.S.; representing 5.2 percent of the U.S. labor force (an increase from 3.8 percent in 2000). Their importance was highlighted in a report by Texas Comptroller Susan Combs that stated, “Without the undocumented population, Texas’ work force would decrease by 6.3 percent” and Texas’ gross state product would decrease by 2.1 percent. Furthermore, certain segments of the U.S. economy, like agriculture, are entirely dependent upon illegal immigrants.

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.

Finally, the aggregate economic impact of illegal immigration is debatable, but any claim that they’ve ruined the country doesn’t correlate to the views of any notable economist. An open letter to President George W. Bush in 2006, signed by around five hundred economists (including five Nobel laureates) stated the following: “While a small percentage of native-born Americans may be harmed by immigration, vastly more Americans benefit from the contributions that immigrants make to our economy, including lower consumer prices.”

Although Harvard economist Jorge Borjas has stated that illegal immigrants from 1980-2000 have reduced the wages of high school dropouts in the U.S, he also states that the average American’s wealth has increased by 1 percent because of illegal immigration. In an op-ed published in the Los Angeles Times, UC Davis economist Giovanni Peri stated that new laws are needed to meet demands within industries like construction, agriculture, and hospitality: “In recent decades, the high demand for these services and the pressure for keeping their cost low and prices competitive have generated incentives to hire undocumented workers.”

Some people claim that illegal immigrants represent an assault on our sovereignty. If this is true, then it might be the first time in world history that a country has employed its invaders. When illegal immigrants cross the border, there’s a citizen waiting to hire them and benefit in some manner from their labor. The sooner our country realizes that immigration reform should be based upon the views of economists and nonpartisan academic researchers, rather than think tanks and radio show hosts, then Congress will finally be able to help solve this national dilemma. "

Illegal immigrants benefit the U.S. economy

From the President's Council on Economic Advisers:

In 2006, foreign-born workers accounted for 15% of the U.S. labor force, and over the last decade they have accounted for about half of the growth in the labor force. That immigration has fueled U.S. macroeconomic growth is both uncontroversial and unsurprising – more total workers yield more total output. That immigrant workers benefit from working in the United States is also uncontroversial and unsurprising – few would come here otherwise.1

Assessing how immigration affects the well-being of U.S. natives is more complicated. This is because immigration’s economic impact is complex and may play out over generations, and because not all natives are alike in terms of their economic characteristics. Even in retrospect it is not easy to distinguish the influence of immigration from that of other economic forces at work at the same time. Nor is it easy to project costs and benefits far into the future. Nonetheless, economists and demographers have made headway on many of the measurement problems. This white paper assesses immigration’s economic impact based on the professional literature and concludes that immigration has a positive effect on the American economy as a whole and on the income of native-born American workers.

Key Findings

1. On average, US natives benefit from immigration. Immigrants tend to complement (not substitute for) natives, raising natives’ productivity and income.
2. Careful studies of the long-run fiscal effects of immigration conclude that it is likely to have a modest, positive influence.
3. Skilled immigrants are likely to be especially beneficial to natives. In addition to contributions to innovation, they have a significant positive fiscal impact.

General Points

• Immigrants are a critical part of the U.S. workforce and contribute to productivity growth and technological advancement. They make up 15% of all workers and even larger shares of certain occupations such as construction, food services and health care. Approximately 40% of Ph.D. scientists working in the United States were born abroad. (Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics; American Community Survey)
• Many immigrants are entrepreneurs. The Kauffman Foundation’s index of entrepreneurial activity is nearly 40% higher for immigrants than for natives. (Source: Kauffman Foundation)
• Immigrants and their children assimilate into U.S. culture. For example, although 72% of first-generation Latino immigrants use Spanish as their predominant language, only 7% of the second generation are Spanish-dominant. (Source: Pew Hispanic Center/Kaiser Family Foundation)
• Immigrants have lower crime rates than natives. Among men aged 18 to 40, immigrants are much less likely to be incarcerated than natives. (Source: Butcher and Piehl)
• Immigrants slightly improve the solvency of pay-as-you-go entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare. The 2007 OASDI Trustees Report indicates that an additional 100,000 net immigrants per year would increase the long-range actuarial balance by about 0.07% of taxable payroll. (Source: Social Security Administration)
• The long-run impact of immigration on public budgets is likely to be positive. Projections of future taxes and government spending are subject to uncertainty, but a careful study published by the National Research Council estimated that immigrants and their descendants would contribute about $80,000 more in taxes (in 1996 dollars) than they would receive in public services. (Source: Smith and Edmonston)

Oh, I didn't mean to imply that I was interested in polls. Or anything else you have to say.

 

[Taz]

Trillions were spent attacking the Middle East for no reason, so $200 billion is chump change.

 

[bripat9643]

My only claim was that the Constitution says nothing about soil or you having any rights by being on it. That claim will stand until it is disproved. If you want to switch subjects or call me names, that is fine too... it doesn't disprove my claim in the least.

I've never said "pass a law to remove all aliens" and I'm not sure that would be possible anyway. We passed a law back in the 1830s to "remove all Indians" but we never removed them all... some remained. We removed a lot of them, it's known today as "the trail of tears" and oh by the way... The SCOTUS ruled it unconstitutional and President Jackson did it anyway.

But here, that's "extremist rhetoric" from either side... we're not going to pass any such law today. We ARE going to build a wall and secure the border. The cost is not an issue because Mexico will pay for it. At the same time, while we are constructing this wall, we are going to deport captured illegals who have broken other laws. We will keep doing this even after the wall is built. Once we have a wall and have stopped virtually all illegal border crossings, we can have a reasonable conversation about what we can do with the remaining law-abiding illegals who are here. That conversation is not going to happen until the wall is finished.

We are not going to build a wall. Will never happen because it would be a profound waste of money. And the notion that Mexico will pay anything is incredibly stupid. Why would they?

What do you think is preventing people from sneaking into countries like Iran and North Korea? Does the Mexican government treat illegals the same as we do in this country? Why are other nation's willing to enforce their borders and immigration laws but the United States can't? Are we serious about providing Americans and "legal" immigrants with an opportunity to achieve economic prosperity and opportunity? .... or do we want to continue wasting taxpayer dollars coming up with excuses as to why we must freely give to those illegal immigrants who don't respect our system of government, the way other immigrants who ALSO desire to become citizens do?

What do I think is preventing people from sneaking into North Korea? The fact that it is a totalitarian shit hole where people are starving to death might be a start. The mines and fences along the DMZ is to prevent people from LEAVING. Other nations enforce their immigration laws in much the same way we do. They do not call children fleeing violence and poverty "invaders". And, it is the biggest lie that illegals are a drain on our economy. They are a net benefit and removing them, in addition to costing hundreds of billions and turning us into more of a police state, would COST US lost taxes and lost economic activity. If every illegal in Texas or Arizona disappeared tomorrow, those states would suffer economically.

You are full of shit. Every comment you made is total, unsupportable garbage.

"When analyzed from the vantage point of information derived from reputable, nonpartisan sources (the Pew Research Center, USDA, United States Department of Labor, and leading economists and researchers) then one can obtain a clearer view of this muddled discussion. The truth of the matter is that illegal immigrants are important to the U.S. economy, as well as vital to certain industries like agriculture.

According to the Pew Research Hispanic Trends Project, there were 8.4 million unauthorized immigrants employed in the U.S.; representing 5.2 percent of the U.S. labor force (an increase from 3.8 percent in 2000). Their importance was highlighted in a report by Texas Comptroller Susan Combs that stated, “Without the undocumented population, Texas’ work force would decrease by 6.3 percent” and Texas’ gross state product would decrease by 2.1 percent. Furthermore, certain segments of the U.S. economy, like agriculture, are entirely dependent upon illegal immigrants.

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.

Finally, the aggregate economic impact of illegal immigration is debatable, but any claim that they’ve ruined the country doesn’t correlate to the views of any notable economist. An open letter to President George W. Bush in 2006, signed by around five hundred economists (including five Nobel laureates) stated the following: “While a small percentage of native-born Americans may be harmed by immigration, vastly more Americans benefit from the contributions that immigrants make to our economy, including lower consumer prices.”

Although Harvard economist Jorge Borjas has stated that illegal immigrants from 1980-2000 have reduced the wages of high school dropouts in the U.S, he also states that the average American’s wealth has increased by 1 percent because of illegal immigration. In an op-ed published in the Los Angeles Times, UC Davis economist Giovanni Peri stated that new laws are needed to meet demands within industries like construction, agriculture, and hospitality: “In recent decades, the high demand for these services and the pressure for keeping their cost low and prices competitive have generated incentives to hire undocumented workers.”

Some people claim that illegal immigrants represent an assault on our sovereignty. If this is true, then it might be the first time in world history that a country has employed its invaders. When illegal immigrants cross the border, there’s a citizen waiting to hire them and benefit in some manner from their labor. The sooner our country realizes that immigration reform should be based upon the views of economists and nonpartisan academic researchers, rather than think tanks and radio show hosts, then Congress will finally be able to help solve this national dilemma. "

Illegal immigrants benefit the U.S. economy

From the President's Council on Economic Advisers:

In 2006, foreign-born workers accounted for 15% of the U.S. labor force, and over the last decade they have accounted for about half of the growth in the labor force. That immigration has fueled U.S. macroeconomic growth is both uncontroversial and unsurprising – more total workers yield more total output. That immigrant workers benefit from working in the United States is also uncontroversial and unsurprising – few would come here otherwise.1

Assessing how immigration affects the well-being of U.S. natives is more complicated. This is because immigration’s economic impact is complex and may play out over generations, and because not all natives are alike in terms of their economic characteristics. Even in retrospect it is not easy to distinguish the influence of immigration from that of other economic forces at work at the same time. Nor is it easy to project costs and benefits far into the future. Nonetheless, economists and demographers have made headway on many of the measurement problems. This white paper assesses immigration’s economic impact based on the professional literature and concludes that immigration has a positive effect on the American economy as a whole and on the income of native-born American workers.

Key Findings

1. On average, US natives benefit from immigration. Immigrants tend to complement (not substitute for) natives, raising natives’ productivity and income.
2. Careful studies of the long-run fiscal effects of immigration conclude that it is likely to have a modest, positive influence.
3. Skilled immigrants are likely to be especially beneficial to natives. In addition to contributions to innovation, they have a significant positive fiscal impact.

General Points

• Immigrants are a critical part of the U.S. workforce and contribute to productivity growth and technological advancement. They make up 15% of all workers and even larger shares of certain occupations such as construction, food services and health care. Approximately 40% of Ph.D. scientists working in the United States were born abroad. (Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics; American Community Survey)
• Many immigrants are entrepreneurs. The Kauffman Foundation’s index of entrepreneurial activity is nearly 40% higher for immigrants than for natives. (Source: Kauffman Foundation)
• Immigrants and their children assimilate into U.S. culture. For example, although 72% of first-generation Latino immigrants use Spanish as their predominant language, only 7% of the second generation are Spanish-dominant. (Source: Pew Hispanic Center/Kaiser Family Foundation)
• Immigrants have lower crime rates than natives. Among men aged 18 to 40, immigrants are much less likely to be incarcerated than natives. (Source: Butcher and Piehl)
• Immigrants slightly improve the solvency of pay-as-you-go entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare. The 2007 OASDI Trustees Report indicates that an additional 100,000 net immigrants per year would increase the long-range actuarial balance by about 0.07% of taxable payroll. (Source: Social Security Administration)
• The long-run impact of immigration on public budgets is likely to be positive. Projections of future taxes and government spending are subject to uncertainty, but a careful study published by the National Research Council estimated that immigrants and their descendants would contribute about $80,000 more in taxes (in 1996 dollars) than they would receive in public services. (Source: Smith and Edmonston)

The Department of Labor and the USDA are not non-partisan sources. For one thing, they are run by Obama appointees. The phrase "important to the economy" sure as hell doesn't mean that it benefits American workers. Every illegal takes an American job.

The claim that they have lower crime rates is also a farce. Illegals are the perpetrators of a large percentage of all the crimes committed in states like Texas and Arizona.

The term "labor shortage" simply means employers would rather employ labor at a price below the market rate. If they upped their wages, the so-called "shortage" would evaporate. "Labor Shortage" is a propaganda term intended to deceive rather than enlighten.

What you posted is Obama open borders propaganda.

 

[paddymurphy]

"As far back as 1896, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that:

“The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution is not confined to the protection of citizens. It says: ’Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law.’ These provisions are universal in their application to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race, of color, or nationality; and the equal protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws.” 2

All persons in the U.S., therefore, have constitutional rights. Among these are the right to equal protection of the law and the right to due process.

Also, undocumented persons have a constitutional right under the Fourth Amendment to deny any officer from entering their residence without consent, absent a search warrant.

Further, the Supreme Court has held that all children, regardless of their immigration status, are entitled to free public education, as required under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. 3

Additionally, under federal law publicly funded hospitals must provide emergency medical services to all patients, regardless of their immigration status. 4 Immigrants are also protected from workplace discrimination under state and federal laws.

Moreover, under federal law, a person may recover money damages for loss of property, personal injury or death where damages occurred as a result of the “negligent or wrongful act or omission of any employee of the Government while acting within the scope of his office or employment, under circumstances where the United States, if a private person, would be liable to the claimant in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission occurred.” 5

These are just a few of the rights that our Constitution and federal laws grant to all persons living in the U.S. These rights are intended to protect all U.S. residents from discrimination and arbitrary government action. These rights are especially critical in times where hatred based on race, color, and national origin is on the rise. "

MALDEF: Undocumented Immigrants DO Have Legal Rights - VIDEO

And those rights cost us $100 billion a year. Time for them to go back to their homeland.

You do understand, moron, that it is the act of finding, arresting, detaining, processing and then deporting (i.e sending them back to their homeland) that costs the 100 billion you claim? And that trying to do that for all 11 million would be several hundred billion more and would result in the loss of the billions in taxes that illegals pay and the billions in economic activity they spur?

The government benefits they consume is what costs us $130 billion a year. The cost of deporting them would be about $200 billion, if we have to go through the full legal process to deport every one of them. However, once they realize they can't get a job or escape the deportation schedule, most of them will self-deport.

It will cost much more than 200 billion. And it will mean billions in lost taxes and economic activity. All to assuage assholes like you who cannot offer up a rational basis why we should hunt down and remove 11 million folks who are harming no one and do more to benefit us that pricks like you do.

I doubt it. Based on the cost of the Israeli wall around the West bank it will be cheap. The cost of that wall is estimated at 3.67 million per mile. For an 1800 million wall, that only comes to less than $8 billion. Open Borders assholes grossly overestimate the cost of any proposed solution because they don't want a solution.

What "lost taxes and economic activity?" Unless you're counting smuggling drugs and illegal aliens, it won't stop an iota of economic activity, and it will vastly reduce the burden on taxpayers of paying for all these new mouths to feed, cloth, house and educate.

The excuses for not building the wall are so pathetic and weak that it's hard to believe anyone is shameless enough to utter them in a public forum.

These taxes, moron:
"The 50-state analysis by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy released on Thursday found that roughly 8.1 million of 11.4 million undocumented immigrants who work paid more than $11.8 billion in state and local taxes in 2012, even while they were living illegally in the country.

Related: Clinton’s Fuzzy Position on Immigration Worries Activists

The group’s analysis estimated that illegal immigrants’ combined nationwide state and local tax contributions would increase by $845 million under full implementation of Obama’s 2012 and 2014 executive actions and by $2.2 billion under comprehensive immigration reform.

Tax contributions from illegal immigrants ranged from less than $3.2 million in Montana with an estimated undocumented population of 6,000 to more than $3.2 billion in California with more than 3.1 million illegal immigrants, according to the study.

“The numbers alone make a compelling case for reform,” said Matthew Gardner, executive director of ITEP. “This analysis shows that undocumented immigrants already are paying billions in taxes to state and local governments, and if they are allowed to work in the country legally, their state and local tax contributions would considerably increase.”

 

[paddymurphy]

We are not going to build a wall. Will never happen because it would be a profound waste of money. And the notion that Mexico will pay anything is incredibly stupid. Why would they?

What do you think is preventing people from sneaking into countries like Iran and North Korea? Does the Mexican government treat illegals the same as we do in this country? Why are other nation's willing to enforce their borders and immigration laws but the United States can't? Are we serious about providing Americans and "legal" immigrants with an opportunity to achieve economic prosperity and opportunity? .... or do we want to continue wasting taxpayer dollars coming up with excuses as to why we must freely give to those illegal immigrants who don't respect our system of government, the way other immigrants who ALSO desire to become citizens do?

What do I think is preventing people from sneaking into North Korea? The fact that it is a totalitarian shit hole where people are starving to death might be a start. The mines and fences along the DMZ is to prevent people from LEAVING. Other nations enforce their immigration laws in much the same way we do. They do not call children fleeing violence and poverty "invaders". And, it is the biggest lie that illegals are a drain on our economy. They are a net benefit and removing them, in addition to costing hundreds of billions and turning us into more of a police state, would COST US lost taxes and lost economic activity. If every illegal in Texas or Arizona disappeared tomorrow, those states would suffer economically.

You are full of shit. Every comment you made is total, unsupportable garbage.

"When analyzed from the vantage point of information derived from reputable, nonpartisan sources (the Pew Research Center, USDA, United States Department of Labor, and leading economists and researchers) then one can obtain a clearer view of this muddled discussion. The truth of the matter is that illegal immigrants are important to the U.S. economy, as well as vital to certain industries like agriculture.

According to the Pew Research Hispanic Trends Project, there were 8.4 million unauthorized immigrants employed in the U.S.; representing 5.2 percent of the U.S. labor force (an increase from 3.8 percent in 2000). Their importance was highlighted in a report by Texas Comptroller Susan Combs that stated, “Without the undocumented population, Texas’ work force would decrease by 6.3 percent” and Texas’ gross state product would decrease by 2.1 percent. Furthermore, certain segments of the U.S. economy, like agriculture, are entirely dependent upon illegal immigrants.

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.

Finally, the aggregate economic impact of illegal immigration is debatable, but any claim that they’ve ruined the country doesn’t correlate to the views of any notable economist. An open letter to President George W. Bush in 2006, signed by around five hundred economists (including five Nobel laureates) stated the following: “While a small percentage of native-born Americans may be harmed by immigration, vastly more Americans benefit from the contributions that immigrants make to our economy, including lower consumer prices.”

Although Harvard economist Jorge Borjas has stated that illegal immigrants from 1980-2000 have reduced the wages of high school dropouts in the U.S, he also states that the average American’s wealth has increased by 1 percent because of illegal immigration. In an op-ed published in the Los Angeles Times, UC Davis economist Giovanni Peri stated that new laws are needed to meet demands within industries like construction, agriculture, and hospitality: “In recent decades, the high demand for these services and the pressure for keeping their cost low and prices competitive have generated incentives to hire undocumented workers.”

Some people claim that illegal immigrants represent an assault on our sovereignty. If this is true, then it might be the first time in world history that a country has employed its invaders. When illegal immigrants cross the border, there’s a citizen waiting to hire them and benefit in some manner from their labor. The sooner our country realizes that immigration reform should be based upon the views of economists and nonpartisan academic researchers, rather than think tanks and radio show hosts, then Congress will finally be able to help solve this national dilemma. "

Illegal immigrants benefit the U.S. economy

From the President's Council on Economic Advisers:

In 2006, foreign-born workers accounted for 15% of the U.S. labor force, and over the last decade they have accounted for about half of the growth in the labor force. That immigration has fueled U.S. macroeconomic growth is both uncontroversial and unsurprising – more total workers yield more total output. That immigrant workers benefit from working in the United States is also uncontroversial and unsurprising – few would come here otherwise.1

Assessing how immigration affects the well-being of U.S. natives is more complicated. This is because immigration’s economic impact is complex and may play out over generations, and because not all natives are alike in terms of their economic characteristics. Even in retrospect it is not easy to distinguish the influence of immigration from that of other economic forces at work at the same time. Nor is it easy to project costs and benefits far into the future. Nonetheless, economists and demographers have made headway on many of the measurement problems. This white paper assesses immigration’s economic impact based on the professional literature and concludes that immigration has a positive effect on the American economy as a whole and on the income of native-born American workers.

Key Findings

1. On average, US natives benefit from immigration. Immigrants tend to complement (not substitute for) natives, raising natives’ productivity and income.
2. Careful studies of the long-run fiscal effects of immigration conclude that it is likely to have a modest, positive influence.
3. Skilled immigrants are likely to be especially beneficial to natives. In addition to contributions to innovation, they have a significant positive fiscal impact.

General Points

• Immigrants are a critical part of the U.S. workforce and contribute to productivity growth and technological advancement. They make up 15% of all workers and even larger shares of certain occupations such as construction, food services and health care. Approximately 40% of Ph.D. scientists working in the United States were born abroad. (Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics; American Community Survey)
• Many immigrants are entrepreneurs. The Kauffman Foundation’s index of entrepreneurial activity is nearly 40% higher for immigrants than for natives. (Source: Kauffman Foundation)
• Immigrants and their children assimilate into U.S. culture. For example, although 72% of first-generation Latino immigrants use Spanish as their predominant language, only 7% of the second generation are Spanish-dominant. (Source: Pew Hispanic Center/Kaiser Family Foundation)
• Immigrants have lower crime rates than natives. Among men aged 18 to 40, immigrants are much less likely to be incarcerated than natives. (Source: Butcher and Piehl)
• Immigrants slightly improve the solvency of pay-as-you-go entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare. The 2007 OASDI Trustees Report indicates that an additional 100,000 net immigrants per year would increase the long-range actuarial balance by about 0.07% of taxable payroll. (Source: Social Security Administration)
• The long-run impact of immigration on public budgets is likely to be positive. Projections of future taxes and government spending are subject to uncertainty, but a careful study published by the National Research Council estimated that immigrants and their descendants would contribute about $80,000 more in taxes (in 1996 dollars) than they would receive in public services. (Source: Smith and Edmonston)

The Department of Labor and the USDA are not non-partisan sources. For one thing, they are run by Obama appointees. The phrase "important to the economy" sure as hell doesn't mean that it benefits American workers. Every illegal takes an American job.

The claim that they have lower crime rates is also a farce. Illegals are the perpetrators of a large percentage of all the crimes committed in states like Texas and Arizona.

The term "labor shortage" simply means employers would rather employ labor at a price below the market rate. If they upped their wages, the so-called "shortage" would evaporate. "Labor Shortage" is a propaganda term intended to deceive rather than enlighten.

What you posted is Obama open borders propaganda.

That was from the Bush Council of Economic Advisers in 2007. Did I forget to point that out?

 

[paddymurphy]

We are not going to build a wall. Will never happen because it would be a profound waste of money. And the notion that Mexico will pay anything is incredibly stupid. Why would they?

What do you think is preventing people from sneaking into countries like Iran and North Korea? Does the Mexican government treat illegals the same as we do in this country? Why are other nation's willing to enforce their borders and immigration laws but the United States can't? Are we serious about providing Americans and "legal" immigrants with an opportunity to achieve economic prosperity and opportunity? .... or do we want to continue wasting taxpayer dollars coming up with excuses as to why we must freely give to those illegal immigrants who don't respect our system of government, the way other immigrants who ALSO desire to become citizens do?

What do I think is preventing people from sneaking into North Korea? The fact that it is a totalitarian shit hole where people are starving to death might be a start. The mines and fences along the DMZ is to prevent people from LEAVING. Other nations enforce their immigration laws in much the same way we do. They do not call children fleeing violence and poverty "invaders". And, it is the biggest lie that illegals are a drain on our economy. They are a net benefit and removing them, in addition to costing hundreds of billions and turning us into more of a police state, would COST US lost taxes and lost economic activity. If every illegal in Texas or Arizona disappeared tomorrow, those states would suffer economically.

You are full of shit. Every comment you made is total, unsupportable garbage.

"When analyzed from the vantage point of information derived from reputable, nonpartisan sources (the Pew Research Center, USDA, United States Department of Labor, and leading economists and researchers) then one can obtain a clearer view of this muddled discussion. The truth of the matter is that illegal immigrants are important to the U.S. economy, as well as vital to certain industries like agriculture.

According to the Pew Research Hispanic Trends Project, there were 8.4 million unauthorized immigrants employed in the U.S.; representing 5.2 percent of the U.S. labor force (an increase from 3.8 percent in 2000). Their importance was highlighted in a report by Texas Comptroller Susan Combs that stated, “Without the undocumented population, Texas’ work force would decrease by 6.3 percent” and Texas’ gross state product would decrease by 2.1 percent. Furthermore, certain segments of the U.S. economy, like agriculture, are entirely dependent upon illegal immigrants.

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.

Finally, the aggregate economic impact of illegal immigration is debatable, but any claim that they’ve ruined the country doesn’t correlate to the views of any notable economist. An open letter to President George W. Bush in 2006, signed by around five hundred economists (including five Nobel laureates) stated the following: “While a small percentage of native-born Americans may be harmed by immigration, vastly more Americans benefit from the contributions that immigrants make to our economy, including lower consumer prices.”

Although Harvard economist Jorge Borjas has stated that illegal immigrants from 1980-2000 have reduced the wages of high school dropouts in the U.S, he also states that the average American’s wealth has increased by 1 percent because of illegal immigration. In an op-ed published in the Los Angeles Times, UC Davis economist Giovanni Peri stated that new laws are needed to meet demands within industries like construction, agriculture, and hospitality: “In recent decades, the high demand for these services and the pressure for keeping their cost low and prices competitive have generated incentives to hire undocumented workers.”

Some people claim that illegal immigrants represent an assault on our sovereignty. If this is true, then it might be the first time in world history that a country has employed its invaders. When illegal immigrants cross the border, there’s a citizen waiting to hire them and benefit in some manner from their labor. The sooner our country realizes that immigration reform should be based upon the views of economists and nonpartisan academic researchers, rather than think tanks and radio show hosts, then Congress will finally be able to help solve this national dilemma. "

Illegal immigrants benefit the U.S. economy

From the President's Council on Economic Advisers:

In 2006, foreign-born workers accounted for 15% of the U.S. labor force, and over the last decade they have accounted for about half of the growth in the labor force. That immigration has fueled U.S. macroeconomic growth is both uncontroversial and unsurprising – more total workers yield more total output. That immigrant workers benefit from working in the United States is also uncontroversial and unsurprising – few would come here otherwise.1

Assessing how immigration affects the well-being of U.S. natives is more complicated. This is because immigration’s economic impact is complex and may play out over generations, and because not all natives are alike in terms of their economic characteristics. Even in retrospect it is not easy to distinguish the influence of immigration from that of other economic forces at work at the same time. Nor is it easy to project costs and benefits far into the future. Nonetheless, economists and demographers have made headway on many of the measurement problems. This white paper assesses immigration’s economic impact based on the professional literature and concludes that immigration has a positive effect on the American economy as a whole and on the income of native-born American workers.

Key Findings

1. On average, US natives benefit from immigration. Immigrants tend to complement (not substitute for) natives, raising natives’ productivity and income.
2. Careful studies of the long-run fiscal effects of immigration conclude that it is likely to have a modest, positive influence.
3. Skilled immigrants are likely to be especially beneficial to natives. In addition to contributions to innovation, they have a significant positive fiscal impact.

General Points

• Immigrants are a critical part of the U.S. workforce and contribute to productivity growth and technological advancement. They make up 15% of all workers and even larger shares of certain occupations such as construction, food services and health care. Approximately 40% of Ph.D. scientists working in the United States were born abroad. (Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics; American Community Survey)
• Many immigrants are entrepreneurs. The Kauffman Foundation’s index of entrepreneurial activity is nearly 40% higher for immigrants than for natives. (Source: Kauffman Foundation)
• Immigrants and their children assimilate into U.S. culture. For example, although 72% of first-generation Latino immigrants use Spanish as their predominant language, only 7% of the second generation are Spanish-dominant. (Source: Pew Hispanic Center/Kaiser Family Foundation)
• Immigrants have lower crime rates than natives. Among men aged 18 to 40, immigrants are much less likely to be incarcerated than natives. (Source: Butcher and Piehl)
• Immigrants slightly improve the solvency of pay-as-you-go entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare. The 2007 OASDI Trustees Report indicates that an additional 100,000 net immigrants per year would increase the long-range actuarial balance by about 0.07% of taxable payroll. (Source: Social Security Administration)
• The long-run impact of immigration on public budgets is likely to be positive. Projections of future taxes and government spending are subject to uncertainty, but a careful study published by the National Research Council estimated that immigrants and their descendants would contribute about $80,000 more in taxes (in 1996 dollars) than they would receive in public services. (Source: Smith and Edmonston)

Oh, I didn't mean to imply that I was interested in polls. Or anything else you have to say.

Then shut the fuck up and go away. YOu have proven you lack any interest at all in facts or truth. They get in the way of your fucked up opinions.

 

[paddymurphy]

You do understand, moron, that it is the act of finding, arresting, detaining, processing and then deporting (i.e sending them back to their homeland) that costs the 100 billion you claim? And that trying to do that for all 11 million would be several hundred billion more and would result in the loss of the billions in taxes that illegals pay and the billions in economic activity they spur?

The government benefits they consume is what costs us $130 billion a year. The cost of deporting them would be about $200 billion, if we have to go through the full legal process to deport every one of them. However, once they realize they can't get a job or escape the deportation schedule, most of them will self-deport.

It will cost much more than 200 billion. And it will mean billions in lost taxes and economic activity. All to assuage assholes like you who cannot offer up a rational basis why we should hunt down and remove 11 million folks who are harming no one and do more to benefit us that pricks like you do.

So what if it costs 200 million. Illegals cost this country $100 million EVERY YEAR. It would be paid for in just a matter of a few years. Employing more ICE people, construction workers for the wall, and tax paying citizens taking the jobs the illegals left will enhance our economic situation.

200 billion and, no, they do not cost 100 million a year. They bring in billions in taxes and economic activity. They are net positive to our economy.

Expensive Aliens: How Much Do Illegal Immigrants Really Cost?

Policy makers and pundits who want tougher policies against illegal immigrants argue that they cost American taxpayers billions of dollars. Those on the other side of the debate counter that illegal immigrants create demand and jobs that promote economic growth.

So which one is it?

Jack Martin, director of special projects for FAIR, says the group is still working on its estimate, but believes undocumented workers leave taxpayers with a fat bill, considering that the government spends money on the workers, and they almost never pay income taxes.

"The study of the fiscal effects of illegal immigration clearly demonstrates that it is a burden on the American taxpayer," says Martin. More forceful implementation of immigration laws could save each U.S. household "in the neighborhood of a couple of thousand dollars a year."

Cost estimates usually only measure the fiscal cost, which weighs government spending (such as on public schools, medical care, incarceration and unemployment benefits) against government income (from income, property and sales taxes.)

States usually bear the brunt of the burden.

Arizona state treasurer Dean Martin says his state loses between $1.3 billion and $2.5 billion each year on illegal immigrants.

Expensive Aliens: How Much Do Illegal Immigrants Really Cost?

You forgot to quote this from the same article:

Analysts on the other side of the debate, however, disagree with the math behind those numbers.

Wendy Sefsaf, a spokeswoman for the Immigration Policy Center which favors a lenient immigration policy, says that conservative analysts overestimate the costs because undocumented workers don't even qualify for unemployment or medical benefits.

At the same time, those whose jobs are paid legally – at least fifty percent, by some estimates – end up paying social security and other payroll taxes without ever collecting benefits. Since illegal immigrants are believed to constitute up to 5 percent of the U.S. economy, their tax contributions will mean a revenue windfall for legal residents.
"Illegal immigrants are good for our economy," says IPC's Sefsaf. "They make our labor force and our economy bigger. Sure, you could kick them all out, but then you would have to shrink the economy."

Sefsaf also doesn't buy the traditional argument that illegal immigrants are stealing U.S. jobs: most legal residents work in middle-rung jobs and would not want to take low-paying jobs as fruit pickers or nannies.

After weighing the financial pros against the cons, she says the U.S. economy comes out slightly ahead due to the presence of illegal aliens.

 

[paddymurphy]

Okay brifart. Give me specific how are you going to solve this problem? Logistics? Don't even worry about the cost and their contributions to the economy.
Give me something to believe you. But Don't give me this I don't care bullshit. I'm waiting.

I've already explained that many times. Simply enforce our immigration laws. Rescind Obama's Executive Orders re immigration. Deport all illegal aliens whenever they are discovered. Insect employers to ensure they are compliant with our immigration laws. Build a wall on the border and hire sufficient personnel to staff it.

Sure you know what specific means. Those are not specific. How do you know which ones are illegals? Are you going to issue ID for membership? How do you round them up? Are you just deport illegal parents and leave the kids on the streets? Are you going to raid houses, schools, malls, groceries etc.? Logistics?
So try again.

Yes, those are pretty damned specific. They are certainly specific enough to judge a candidate by.

What is your SPECIFIC solution to the problem, other than doing nothing.

For stupid fucks like you, sure that is all YOU need. Normal people need to know things like how much money will it cost; how much will it damage our economy; who will take the millions of jobs that will suddenly not be filled; what will it do to our relations with the rest of the world.

Really? The didn't need to know that when Obama was selling his healthcare scheme to them. The wall will prevent illegals from taking jobs from Americans. That's why you object to it. You want to take a great big shit on American workers.

We knew precisely what it would cost and the actual cost has been lower and the deficit reducing effect even greater. Of course, you have proven to be not bright enough to understand things this complicated.

 

[koshergrl]

What do you think is preventing people from sneaking into countries like Iran and North Korea? Does the Mexican government treat illegals the same as we do in this country? Why are other nation's willing to enforce their borders and immigration laws but the United States can't? Are we serious about providing Americans and "legal" immigrants with an opportunity to achieve economic prosperity and opportunity? .... or do we want to continue wasting taxpayer dollars coming up with excuses as to why we must freely give to those illegal immigrants who don't respect our system of government, the way other immigrants who ALSO desire to become citizens do?

What do I think is preventing people from sneaking into North Korea? The fact that it is a totalitarian shit hole where people are starving to death might be a start. The mines and fences along the DMZ is to prevent people from LEAVING. Other nations enforce their immigration laws in much the same way we do. They do not call children fleeing violence and poverty "invaders". And, it is the biggest lie that illegals are a drain on our economy. They are a net benefit and removing them, in addition to costing hundreds of billions and turning us into more of a police state, would COST US lost taxes and lost economic activity. If every illegal in Texas or Arizona disappeared tomorrow, those states would suffer economically.

You are full of shit. Every comment you made is total, unsupportable garbage.

"When analyzed from the vantage point of information derived from reputable, nonpartisan sources (the Pew Research Center, USDA, United States Department of Labor, and leading economists and researchers) then one can obtain a clearer view of this muddled discussion. The truth of the matter is that illegal immigrants are important to the U.S. economy, as well as vital to certain industries like agriculture.

According to the Pew Research Hispanic Trends Project, there were 8.4 million unauthorized immigrants employed in the U.S.; representing 5.2 percent of the U.S. labor force (an increase from 3.8 percent in 2000). Their importance was highlighted in a report by Texas Comptroller Susan Combs that stated, “Without the undocumented population, Texas’ work force would decrease by 6.3 percent” and Texas’ gross state product would decrease by 2.1 percent. Furthermore, certain segments of the U.S. economy, like agriculture, are entirely dependent upon illegal immigrants.

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.

Finally, the aggregate economic impact of illegal immigration is debatable, but any claim that they’ve ruined the country doesn’t correlate to the views of any notable economist. An open letter to President George W. Bush in 2006, signed by around five hundred economists (including five Nobel laureates) stated the following: “While a small percentage of native-born Americans may be harmed by immigration, vastly more Americans benefit from the contributions that immigrants make to our economy, including lower consumer prices.”

Although Harvard economist Jorge Borjas has stated that illegal immigrants from 1980-2000 have reduced the wages of high school dropouts in the U.S, he also states that the average American’s wealth has increased by 1 percent because of illegal immigration. In an op-ed published in the Los Angeles Times, UC Davis economist Giovanni Peri stated that new laws are needed to meet demands within industries like construction, agriculture, and hospitality: “In recent decades, the high demand for these services and the pressure for keeping their cost low and prices competitive have generated incentives to hire undocumented workers.”

Some people claim that illegal immigrants represent an assault on our sovereignty. If this is true, then it might be the first time in world history that a country has employed its invaders. When illegal immigrants cross the border, there’s a citizen waiting to hire them and benefit in some manner from their labor. The sooner our country realizes that immigration reform should be based upon the views of economists and nonpartisan academic researchers, rather than think tanks and radio show hosts, then Congress will finally be able to help solve this national dilemma. "

Illegal immigrants benefit the U.S. economy

From the President's Council on Economic Advisers:

In 2006, foreign-born workers accounted for 15% of the U.S. labor force, and over the last decade they have accounted for about half of the growth in the labor force. That immigration has fueled U.S. macroeconomic growth is both uncontroversial and unsurprising – more total workers yield more total output. That immigrant workers benefit from working in the United States is also uncontroversial and unsurprising – few would come here otherwise.1

Assessing how immigration affects the well-being of U.S. natives is more complicated. This is because immigration’s economic impact is complex and may play out over generations, and because not all natives are alike in terms of their economic characteristics. Even in retrospect it is not easy to distinguish the influence of immigration from that of other economic forces at work at the same time. Nor is it easy to project costs and benefits far into the future. Nonetheless, economists and demographers have made headway on many of the measurement problems. This white paper assesses immigration’s economic impact based on the professional literature and concludes that immigration has a positive effect on the American economy as a whole and on the income of native-born American workers.

Key Findings

1. On average, US natives benefit from immigration. Immigrants tend to complement (not substitute for) natives, raising natives’ productivity and income.
2. Careful studies of the long-run fiscal effects of immigration conclude that it is likely to have a modest, positive influence.
3. Skilled immigrants are likely to be especially beneficial to natives. In addition to contributions to innovation, they have a significant positive fiscal impact.

General Points

• Immigrants are a critical part of the U.S. workforce and contribute to productivity growth and technological advancement. They make up 15% of all workers and even larger shares of certain occupations such as construction, food services and health care. Approximately 40% of Ph.D. scientists working in the United States were born abroad. (Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics; American Community Survey)
• Many immigrants are entrepreneurs. The Kauffman Foundation’s index of entrepreneurial activity is nearly 40% higher for immigrants than for natives. (Source: Kauffman Foundation)
• Immigrants and their children assimilate into U.S. culture. For example, although 72% of first-generation Latino immigrants use Spanish as their predominant language, only 7% of the second generation are Spanish-dominant. (Source: Pew Hispanic Center/Kaiser Family Foundation)
• Immigrants have lower crime rates than natives. Among men aged 18 to 40, immigrants are much less likely to be incarcerated than natives. (Source: Butcher and Piehl)
• Immigrants slightly improve the solvency of pay-as-you-go entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare. The 2007 OASDI Trustees Report indicates that an additional 100,000 net immigrants per year would increase the long-range actuarial balance by about 0.07% of taxable payroll. (Source: Social Security Administration)
• The long-run impact of immigration on public budgets is likely to be positive. Projections of future taxes and government spending are subject to uncertainty, but a careful study published by the National Research Council estimated that immigrants and their descendants would contribute about $80,000 more in taxes (in 1996 dollars) than they would receive in public services. (Source: Smith and Edmonston)

Oh, I didn't mean to imply that I was interested in polls. Or anything else you have to say.

Then shut the fuck up and go away. YOu have proven you lack any interest at all in facts or truth. They get in the way of your fucked up opinions.

No, I have merely made the statement that I don't deal in the lies you present. Don't cry now.

 

[paddymurphy]

What do I think is preventing people from sneaking into North Korea? The fact that it is a totalitarian shit hole where people are starving to death might be a start. The mines and fences along the DMZ is to prevent people from LEAVING. Other nations enforce their immigration laws in much the same way we do. They do not call children fleeing violence and poverty "invaders". And, it is the biggest lie that illegals are a drain on our economy. They are a net benefit and removing them, in addition to costing hundreds of billions and turning us into more of a police state, would COST US lost taxes and lost economic activity. If every illegal in Texas or Arizona disappeared tomorrow, those states would suffer economically.

You are full of shit. Every comment you made is total, unsupportable garbage.

"When analyzed from the vantage point of information derived from reputable, nonpartisan sources (the Pew Research Center, USDA, United States Department of Labor, and leading economists and researchers) then one can obtain a clearer view of this muddled discussion. The truth of the matter is that illegal immigrants are important to the U.S. economy, as well as vital to certain industries like agriculture.

According to the Pew Research Hispanic Trends Project, there were 8.4 million unauthorized immigrants employed in the U.S.; representing 5.2 percent of the U.S. labor force (an increase from 3.8 percent in 2000). Their importance was highlighted in a report by Texas Comptroller Susan Combs that stated, “Without the undocumented population, Texas’ work force would decrease by 6.3 percent” and Texas’ gross state product would decrease by 2.1 percent. Furthermore, certain segments of the U.S. economy, like agriculture, are entirely dependent upon illegal immigrants.

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.

Finally, the aggregate economic impact of illegal immigration is debatable, but any claim that they’ve ruined the country doesn’t correlate to the views of any notable economist. An open letter to President George W. Bush in 2006, signed by around five hundred economists (including five Nobel laureates) stated the following: “While a small percentage of native-born Americans may be harmed by immigration, vastly more Americans benefit from the contributions that immigrants make to our economy, including lower consumer prices.”

Although Harvard economist Jorge Borjas has stated that illegal immigrants from 1980-2000 have reduced the wages of high school dropouts in the U.S, he also states that the average American’s wealth has increased by 1 percent because of illegal immigration. In an op-ed published in the Los Angeles Times, UC Davis economist Giovanni Peri stated that new laws are needed to meet demands within industries like construction, agriculture, and hospitality: “In recent decades, the high demand for these services and the pressure for keeping their cost low and prices competitive have generated incentives to hire undocumented workers.”

Some people claim that illegal immigrants represent an assault on our sovereignty. If this is true, then it might be the first time in world history that a country has employed its invaders. When illegal immigrants cross the border, there’s a citizen waiting to hire them and benefit in some manner from their labor. The sooner our country realizes that immigration reform should be based upon the views of economists and nonpartisan academic researchers, rather than think tanks and radio show hosts, then Congress will finally be able to help solve this national dilemma. "

Illegal immigrants benefit the U.S. economy

From the President's Council on Economic Advisers:

In 2006, foreign-born workers accounted for 15% of the U.S. labor force, and over the last decade they have accounted for about half of the growth in the labor force. That immigration has fueled U.S. macroeconomic growth is both uncontroversial and unsurprising – more total workers yield more total output. That immigrant workers benefit from working in the United States is also uncontroversial and unsurprising – few would come here otherwise.1

Assessing how immigration affects the well-being of U.S. natives is more complicated. This is because immigration’s economic impact is complex and may play out over generations, and because not all natives are alike in terms of their economic characteristics. Even in retrospect it is not easy to distinguish the influence of immigration from that of other economic forces at work at the same time. Nor is it easy to project costs and benefits far into the future. Nonetheless, economists and demographers have made headway on many of the measurement problems. This white paper assesses immigration’s economic impact based on the professional literature and concludes that immigration has a positive effect on the American economy as a whole and on the income of native-born American workers.

Key Findings

1. On average, US natives benefit from immigration. Immigrants tend to complement (not substitute for) natives, raising natives’ productivity and income.
2. Careful studies of the long-run fiscal effects of immigration conclude that it is likely to have a modest, positive influence.
3. Skilled immigrants are likely to be especially beneficial to natives. In addition to contributions to innovation, they have a significant positive fiscal impact.

General Points

• Immigrants are a critical part of the U.S. workforce and contribute to productivity growth and technological advancement. They make up 15% of all workers and even larger shares of certain occupations such as construction, food services and health care. Approximately 40% of Ph.D. scientists working in the United States were born abroad. (Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics; American Community Survey)
• Many immigrants are entrepreneurs. The Kauffman Foundation’s index of entrepreneurial activity is nearly 40% higher for immigrants than for natives. (Source: Kauffman Foundation)
• Immigrants and their children assimilate into U.S. culture. For example, although 72% of first-generation Latino immigrants use Spanish as their predominant language, only 7% of the second generation are Spanish-dominant. (Source: Pew Hispanic Center/Kaiser Family Foundation)
• Immigrants have lower crime rates than natives. Among men aged 18 to 40, immigrants are much less likely to be incarcerated than natives. (Source: Butcher and Piehl)
• Immigrants slightly improve the solvency of pay-as-you-go entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare. The 2007 OASDI Trustees Report indicates that an additional 100,000 net immigrants per year would increase the long-range actuarial balance by about 0.07% of taxable payroll. (Source: Social Security Administration)
• The long-run impact of immigration on public budgets is likely to be positive. Projections of future taxes and government spending are subject to uncertainty, but a careful study published by the National Research Council estimated that immigrants and their descendants would contribute about $80,000 more in taxes (in 1996 dollars) than they would receive in public services. (Source: Smith and Edmonston)

Oh, I didn't mean to imply that I was interested in polls. Or anything else you have to say.

Then shut the fuck up and go away. YOu have proven you lack any interest at all in facts or truth. They get in the way of your fucked up opinions.

No, I have merely made the statement that I don't deal in the lies you present. Don't cry now.

You cannot identify a single lie. Are you suggesting the President Bush's council or economic advisers lied in the key findings they reported in 2007?

 

[Jackson]

And those rights cost us $100 billion a year. Time for them to go back to their homeland.

You do understand, moron, that it is the act of finding, arresting, detaining, processing and then deporting (i.e sending them back to their homeland) that costs the 100 billion you claim? And that trying to do that for all 11 million would be several hundred billion more and would result in the loss of the billions in taxes that illegals pay and the billions in economic activity they spur?

The government benefits they consume is what costs us $130 billion a year. The cost of deporting them would be about $200 billion, if we have to go through the full legal process to deport every one of them. However, once they realize they can't get a job or escape the deportation schedule, most of them will self-deport.

It will cost much more than 200 billion. And it will mean billions in lost taxes and economic activity. All to assuage assholes like you who cannot offer up a rational basis why we should hunt down and remove 11 million folks who are harming no one and do more to benefit us that pricks like you do.

I doubt it. Based on the cost of the Israeli wall around the West bank it will be cheap. The cost of that wall is estimated at 3.67 million per mile. For an 1800 million wall, that only comes to less than $8 billion. Open Borders assholes grossly overestimate the cost of any proposed solution because they don't want a solution.

What "lost taxes and economic activity?" Unless you're counting smuggling drugs and illegal aliens, it won't stop an iota of economic activity, and it will vastly reduce the burden on taxpayers of paying for all these new mouths to feed, cloth, house and educate.

The excuses for not building the wall are so pathetic and weak that it's hard to believe anyone is shameless enough to utter them in a public forum.

These taxes, moron:
"The 50-state analysis by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy released on Thursday found that roughly 8.1 million of 11.4 million undocumented immigrants who work paid more than $11.8 billion in state and local taxes in 2012, even while they were living illegally in the country.

Related: Clinton’s Fuzzy Position on Immigration Worries Activists

The group’s analysis estimated that illegal immigrants’ combined nationwide state and local tax contributions would increase by $845 million under full implementation of Obama’s 2012 and 2014 executive actions and by $2.2 billion under comprehensive immigration reform.

Tax contributions from illegal immigrants ranged from less than $3.2 million in Montana with an estimated undocumented population of 6,000 to more than $3.2 billion in California with more than 3.1 million illegal immigrants, according to the study.

“The numbers alone make a compelling case for reform,” said Matthew Gardner, executive director of ITEP. “This analysis shows that undocumented immigrants already are paying billions in taxes to state and local governments, and if they are allowed to work in the country legally, their state and local tax contributions would considerably increase.”

A lousy 11.8 billion? They cost $100 billion to the nation!

 

[bripat9643]

And those rights cost us $100 billion a year. Time for them to go back to their homeland.

You do understand, moron, that it is the act of finding, arresting, detaining, processing and then deporting (i.e sending them back to their homeland) that costs the 100 billion you claim? And that trying to do that for all 11 million would be several hundred billion more and would result in the loss of the billions in taxes that illegals pay and the billions in economic activity they spur?

The government benefits they consume is what costs us $130 billion a year. The cost of deporting them would be about $200 billion, if we have to go through the full legal process to deport every one of them. However, once they realize they can't get a job or escape the deportation schedule, most of them will self-deport.

It will cost much more than 200 billion. And it will mean billions in lost taxes and economic activity. All to assuage assholes like you who cannot offer up a rational basis why we should hunt down and remove 11 million folks who are harming no one and do more to benefit us that pricks like you do.

I doubt it. Based on the cost of the Israeli wall around the West bank it will be cheap. The cost of that wall is estimated at 3.67 million per mile. For an 1800 million wall, that only comes to less than $8 billion. Open Borders assholes grossly overestimate the cost of any proposed solution because they don't want a solution.

What "lost taxes and economic activity?" Unless you're counting smuggling drugs and illegal aliens, it won't stop an iota of economic activity, and it will vastly reduce the burden on taxpayers of paying for all these new mouths to feed, cloth, house and educate.

The excuses for not building the wall are so pathetic and weak that it's hard to believe anyone is shameless enough to utter them in a public forum.

These taxes, moron:
"The 50-state analysis by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy released on Thursday found that roughly 8.1 million of 11.4 million undocumented immigrants who work paid more than $11.8 billion in state and local taxes in 2012, even while they were living illegally in the country.

Related: Clinton’s Fuzzy Position on Immigration Worries Activists

The group’s analysis estimated that illegal immigrants’ combined nationwide state and local tax contributions would increase by $845 million under full implementation of Obama’s 2012 and 2014 executive actions and by $2.2 billion under comprehensive immigration reform.

Tax contributions from illegal immigrants ranged from less than $3.2 million in Montana with an estimated undocumented population of 6,000 to more than $3.2 billion in California with more than 3.1 million illegal immigrants, according to the study.

“The numbers alone make a compelling case for reform,” said Matthew Gardner, executive director of ITEP. “This analysis shows that undocumented immigrants already are paying billions in taxes to state and local governments, and if they are allowed to work in the country legally, their state and local tax contributions would considerably increase.”

Illegals cost state, local and federal governments $120 billion. I'll take that trade any day of the week. That doesn't even count the cost of unemployed Americans who were displaced by cheap foreign labor.

 

[koshergrl]

I've already explained that many times. Simply enforce our immigration laws. Rescind Obama's Executive Orders re immigration. Deport all illegal aliens whenever they are discovered. Insect employers to ensure they are compliant with our immigration laws. Build a wall on the border and hire sufficient personnel to staff it.

Sure you know what specific means. Those are not specific. How do you know which ones are illegals? Are you going to issue ID for membership? How do you round them up? Are you just deport illegal parents and leave the kids on the streets? Are you going to raid houses, schools, malls, groceries etc.? Logistics?
So try again.

Yes, those are pretty damned specific. They are certainly specific enough to judge a candidate by.

What is your SPECIFIC solution to the problem, other than doing nothing.

For stupid fucks like you, sure that is all YOU need. Normal people need to know things like how much money will it cost; how much will it damage our economy; who will take the millions of jobs that will suddenly not be filled; what will it do to our relations with the rest of the world.

Really? The didn't need to know that when Obama was selling his healthcare scheme to them. The wall will prevent illegals from taking jobs from Americans. That's why you object to it. You want to take a great big shit on American workers.

We knew precisely what it would cost and the actual cost has been lower and the deficit reducing effect even greater. Of course, you have proven to be not bright enough to understand things this complicated.

Lies aren't complicated. And if a truth is complicated it's a lie.

 

[bripat9643]

What do you think is preventing people from sneaking into countries like Iran and North Korea? Does the Mexican government treat illegals the same as we do in this country? Why are other nation's willing to enforce their borders and immigration laws but the United States can't? Are we serious about providing Americans and "legal" immigrants with an opportunity to achieve economic prosperity and opportunity? .... or do we want to continue wasting taxpayer dollars coming up with excuses as to why we must freely give to those illegal immigrants who don't respect our system of government, the way other immigrants who ALSO desire to become citizens do?

What do I think is preventing people from sneaking into North Korea? The fact that it is a totalitarian shit hole where people are starving to death might be a start. The mines and fences along the DMZ is to prevent people from LEAVING. Other nations enforce their immigration laws in much the same way we do. They do not call children fleeing violence and poverty "invaders". And, it is the biggest lie that illegals are a drain on our economy. They are a net benefit and removing them, in addition to costing hundreds of billions and turning us into more of a police state, would COST US lost taxes and lost economic activity. If every illegal in Texas or Arizona disappeared tomorrow, those states would suffer economically.

You are full of shit. Every comment you made is total, unsupportable garbage.

"When analyzed from the vantage point of information derived from reputable, nonpartisan sources (the Pew Research Center, USDA, United States Department of Labor, and leading economists and researchers) then one can obtain a clearer view of this muddled discussion. The truth of the matter is that illegal immigrants are important to the U.S. economy, as well as vital to certain industries like agriculture.

According to the Pew Research Hispanic Trends Project, there were 8.4 million unauthorized immigrants employed in the U.S.; representing 5.2 percent of the U.S. labor force (an increase from 3.8 percent in 2000). Their importance was highlighted in a report by Texas Comptroller Susan Combs that stated, “Without the undocumented population, Texas’ work force would decrease by 6.3 percent” and Texas’ gross state product would decrease by 2.1 percent. Furthermore, certain segments of the U.S. economy, like agriculture, are entirely dependent upon illegal immigrants.

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.

Finally, the aggregate economic impact of illegal immigration is debatable, but any claim that they’ve ruined the country doesn’t correlate to the views of any notable economist. An open letter to President George W. Bush in 2006, signed by around five hundred economists (including five Nobel laureates) stated the following: “While a small percentage of native-born Americans may be harmed by immigration, vastly more Americans benefit from the contributions that immigrants make to our economy, including lower consumer prices.”

Although Harvard economist Jorge Borjas has stated that illegal immigrants from 1980-2000 have reduced the wages of high school dropouts in the U.S, he also states that the average American’s wealth has increased by 1 percent because of illegal immigration. In an op-ed published in the Los Angeles Times, UC Davis economist Giovanni Peri stated that new laws are needed to meet demands within industries like construction, agriculture, and hospitality: “In recent decades, the high demand for these services and the pressure for keeping their cost low and prices competitive have generated incentives to hire undocumented workers.”

Some people claim that illegal immigrants represent an assault on our sovereignty. If this is true, then it might be the first time in world history that a country has employed its invaders. When illegal immigrants cross the border, there’s a citizen waiting to hire them and benefit in some manner from their labor. The sooner our country realizes that immigration reform should be based upon the views of economists and nonpartisan academic researchers, rather than think tanks and radio show hosts, then Congress will finally be able to help solve this national dilemma. "

Illegal immigrants benefit the U.S. economy

From the President's Council on Economic Advisers:

In 2006, foreign-born workers accounted for 15% of the U.S. labor force, and over the last decade they have accounted for about half of the growth in the labor force. That immigration has fueled U.S. macroeconomic growth is both uncontroversial and unsurprising – more total workers yield more total output. That immigrant workers benefit from working in the United States is also uncontroversial and unsurprising – few would come here otherwise.1

Assessing how immigration affects the well-being of U.S. natives is more complicated. This is because immigration’s economic impact is complex and may play out over generations, and because not all natives are alike in terms of their economic characteristics. Even in retrospect it is not easy to distinguish the influence of immigration from that of other economic forces at work at the same time. Nor is it easy to project costs and benefits far into the future. Nonetheless, economists and demographers have made headway on many of the measurement problems. This white paper assesses immigration’s economic impact based on the professional literature and concludes that immigration has a positive effect on the American economy as a whole and on the income of native-born American workers.

Key Findings

1. On average, US natives benefit from immigration. Immigrants tend to complement (not substitute for) natives, raising natives’ productivity and income.
2. Careful studies of the long-run fiscal effects of immigration conclude that it is likely to have a modest, positive influence.
3. Skilled immigrants are likely to be especially beneficial to natives. In addition to contributions to innovation, they have a significant positive fiscal impact.

General Points

• Immigrants are a critical part of the U.S. workforce and contribute to productivity growth and technological advancement. They make up 15% of all workers and even larger shares of certain occupations such as construction, food services and health care. Approximately 40% of Ph.D. scientists working in the United States were born abroad. (Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics; American Community Survey)
• Many immigrants are entrepreneurs. The Kauffman Foundation’s index of entrepreneurial activity is nearly 40% higher for immigrants than for natives. (Source: Kauffman Foundation)
• Immigrants and their children assimilate into U.S. culture. For example, although 72% of first-generation Latino immigrants use Spanish as their predominant language, only 7% of the second generation are Spanish-dominant. (Source: Pew Hispanic Center/Kaiser Family Foundation)
• Immigrants have lower crime rates than natives. Among men aged 18 to 40, immigrants are much less likely to be incarcerated than natives. (Source: Butcher and Piehl)
• Immigrants slightly improve the solvency of pay-as-you-go entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare. The 2007 OASDI Trustees Report indicates that an additional 100,000 net immigrants per year would increase the long-range actuarial balance by about 0.07% of taxable payroll. (Source: Social Security Administration)
• The long-run impact of immigration on public budgets is likely to be positive. Projections of future taxes and government spending are subject to uncertainty, but a careful study published by the National Research Council estimated that immigrants and their descendants would contribute about $80,000 more in taxes (in 1996 dollars) than they would receive in public services. (Source: Smith and Edmonston)

The Department of Labor and the USDA are not non-partisan sources. For one thing, they are run by Obama appointees. The phrase "important to the economy" sure as hell doesn't mean that it benefits American workers. Every illegal takes an American job.

The claim that they have lower crime rates is also a farce. Illegals are the perpetrators of a large percentage of all the crimes committed in states like Texas and Arizona.

The term "labor shortage" simply means employers would rather employ labor at a price below the market rate. If they upped their wages, the so-called "shortage" would evaporate. "Labor Shortage" is a propaganda term intended to deceive rather than enlighten.

What you posted is Obama open borders propaganda.

That was from the Bush Council of Economic Advisers in 2007. Did I forget to point that out?

These agencies are staffed primarily by pro big-government Democrats. They are biased in favor of big government no matter who is in office.