CDZ Effects of having fewer people in the country

[Toronado3800]

Another post got me thinking. What are the effects of booting all the illegals from the country.

On the negative side:

Businesses who employ illegals will be forced to hire citizens. (Is there a move to use existing laws to punish the human resources departments there? The business owners hiring them is why many illegals come.)

There will be more demand for the workers we have....not like illegals typically get the best jobs...so maybe it will cost even more to hire tree trimmers and have your roof redone or crops harvested.

Also, average and below average home values will be hurt....

There will then be less demand for services in the average and below average neighborhoods. Fast foods, malls, supermarkets. That type of thing.

On the positive for the U.S.

Lower population means the need for fewer houses, larger lots, better for the environment here....Although I dunno if it is better for the world environment.

Illegals can't be paying the most in taxes so the government will save some money.
-in law enforcement.
-in educating their children.

We will save money in healthcare (feel free to insert a crack about Reagan / Carter era socialized medicine treating everyone who comes into the ER and us paying here). I just can't see illegals having the best healthcare from their crook employers.

EDIT: Oh, we can raise the quotas to import "desirable" foreigners. This would make me the happiest. I really believe population growth in the U.S. fixes some of our problems.

What other effects do you all see?

 

[RodISHI]

Those they learned skills can go back to their own country and make demands for more civilized lives in their own countries?

The countries with drug cartels will have to deal with their own problem children?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Another post got me thinking. What are the effects of booting all the illegals from the country.

On the negative side:

Businesses who employ illegals will be forced to hire citizens. (Is there a move to use existing laws to punish the human resources departments there? The business owners hiring them is why many illegals come.)

There will be more demand for the workers we have....not like illegals typically get the best jobs...so maybe it will cost even more to hire tree trimmers and have your roof redone or crops harvested.

Also, average and below average home values will be hurt....

There will then be less demand for services in the average and below average neighborhoods. Fast foods, malls, supermarkets. That type of thing.

On the positive for the U.S.

Lower population means the need for fewer houses, larger lots, better for the environment here....Although I dunno if it is better for the world environment.

Illegals can't be paying the most in taxes so the government will save some money.
-in law enforcement.
-in educating their children.

We will save money in healthcare (feel free to insert a crack about Reagan / Carter era socialized medicine treating everyone who comes into the ER and us paying here). I just can't see illegals having the best healthcare from their crook employers.

EDIT: Oh, we can raise the quotas to import "desirable" foreigners. This would make me the happiest. I really believe population growth in the U.S. fixes some of our problems.

What other effects do you all see?

Lower population means the need for fewer houses, larger lots, better for the environment here....Although I dunno if it is better for the world environment.

Mexicans in Mexico emit much less CO2 than the average American.
Liberals should be all for building a wall and booting illegal aliens, if they really cared about the planet.

 

[Vastator]

Another post got me thinking. What are the effects of booting all the illegals from the country.

On the negative side:

Businesses who employ illegals will be forced to hire citizens. (Is there a move to use existing laws to punish the human resources departments there? The business owners hiring them is why many illegals come.)

There will be more demand for the workers we have....not like illegals typically get the best jobs...so maybe it will cost even more to hire tree trimmers and have your roof redone or crops harvested.

Also, average and below average home values will be hurt....

There will then be less demand for services in the average and below average neighborhoods. Fast foods, malls, supermarkets. That type of thing.

On the positive for the U.S.

Lower population means the need for fewer houses, larger lots, better for the environment here....Although I dunno if it is better for the world environment.

Illegals can't be paying the most in taxes so the government will save some money.
-in law enforcement.
-in educating their children.

We will save money in healthcare (feel free to insert a crack about Reagan / Carter era socialized medicine treating everyone who comes into the ER and us paying here). I just can't see illegals having the best healthcare from their crook employers.

EDIT: Oh, we can raise the quotas to import "desirable" foreigners. This would make me the happiest. I really believe population growth in the U.S. fixes some of our problems.

What other effects do you all see?

Lower population means the need for fewer houses, larger lots, better for the environment here....Although I dunno if it is better for the world environment.

Mexicans in Mexico emit much less CO2 than the average American.
Liberals should be all for building a wall and booting illegal aliens, if they really cared about the planet.

Nobody gives a shit. Except Matthew.

 

[MisterBeale]

For the truth? Watch this whole video and you will be informed about why the human farmers, IOW, the elites that run the system, have wanted to import foreigners, and why it has probably been a bad idea.

IT's a long watch, but it is necessary. They don't teach it in high school, college, or cover it in documentaries in the MSM.

This is for liberals, snowflakes, low IQ, those with ADHD, twitter adicts, etc. IOW, the intellectually infirm.



This is SO important. You need to learn from history. This is for those who really want to make a difference and for those who really do care.

 

[Vastator]

I've really struggled to truly find a down side to getting rid of illegals and curbing 3rd world imports. The down sides just aren't there. Even with a price increase for produce; I'm just not seeing it.

 

[usmbguest5318]

If you want to have this conversation, can we put some facts around it, please?

• Undocumented Immigrants’ State & Local Tax Contributions
  
  • The 11 million undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States collectively paid $11.64B in state and local taxes.
    
  • Under full implementation of the Obama administration’s 2012 and 2014 executive actions, illegal immigrants' combined nationwide state and local tax contributions would have increased by $805M and by $2.1M under comprehensive immigration reform.
• Social Security Administration
  • In 2013, analysts at the Social Security Administration calculated that in 2010 undocumented immigrants had paid $13B into the system. That's $13B that cannot be collected by the payees because illegal immigrants are not eligible to receive Social Security benefits.
• Illegal Immigrants contribute to the economy
  • Illegal immigrant in Boston buys $400K home; pays 7.8% mortgage from pay earned cleaning offices, money from tenants, and family.
    • 7% is typical and compares with 3%-4% paid by similarly qualified legal residents
  • CitiBank has been offering loans through ITIN numbers since 2004 in partnership with the Neighborhood Assistance Corp. of America
    • The [ITIN loans], even through the toughest times of the mortgage crisis, were showing record performances when the market was going in the other direction, the default rates on ITIN-obtained mortgages obtained by illegal immigrants remained between 1% and 3% through the length of the crisis. One can see from the chart below, that made mortgage loans to illegal immigrants a far better deal for lenders -- low rates of default and high rates of interest.
      
      
      
• Illegal Immigrant numbers are not increasing according to Pew Research, and it's gone down from its 2007 estimated high of 12.3M
  
  
  
  
  
• In 2012 1/3rd of illegal immigrants lived with a U.S. citizen
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
• About 65 percent of unauthorized immigrants over age 15 are employed, according to the Migration Policy Institute, a higher share than for the U.S. population as a whole.
  
• 51% of illegal immigrants have incomes at 150%+ of the poverty level, the value of which varies by household size.
• View the size of the illegal immigrant population by state (except MT, ND and VT) here. This was interesting to me as I spend a reasonable about of time in D.C. and at least three or four times a year visit a few states. D.C., where I live, has about 27K, which amounts to ~4% of the population in D.C. States I routinely visit have the following ratios (I go to specific places in these states; I'm not claiming I know anything about illegal immigrants in these states as a whole.):
  • MA -- 1.5%
  • NY -- 10%
  • DE -- 2.4%
  • LA -- 1.4%
  • WY -- 1%
  • CO -- 3%
  • NV -- 4.5%
  • CA -- 7.7%

Why did I think that last set of metrics is interesting? Because in another thread I asked what an illegal immigrant had done to deprive individuals here of something. My own answer was "nothing." Looking at the percentages of immigrants in the places I go, I'm not surprised that I haven't been deprived of anything by an illegal immigrant; there're aren't many there. The odds of my encountering one are low, very low. Even in the states I go to where the odds are high relative to other states, they're still low.

I'm reminded of a conversation I had a couple weeks back. I was talking to a guy from Ghana. He asked me what I thought about Ghanaians. I told him. "I don't think anything about Ghanaians because Ghanaians and Ghana don't cross my mind to begin with. I don't think I even know a Ghanaian, so what is there for me to think about them? You should probably tell me what you think about Ghanaians."

 

[Toronado3800]

For the truth? Watch this whole video and you will be informed about why the human farmers, IOW, the elites that run the system, have wanted to import foreigners, and why it has probably been a bad idea.

IT's a long watch, but it is necessary. They don't teach it in high school, college, or cover it in documentaries in the MSM.

This is for liberals, snowflakes, low IQ, those with ADHD, twitter adicts, etc. IOW, the intellectually infirm.



This is SO important. You need to learn from history. This is for those who really want to make a difference and for those who really do care.

"This is for liberals, snowflakes, low IQ, those with ADHD, twitter adicts, etc. IOW, the intellectually infirm."

I always like Roman history. I prefer to read than watch but videos are good.

This is the CDZ though so maybe be careful with the names.

Anyways, all that is less likely to make anyone open minded about what you said.

 

[Toronado3800]

If you want to have this conversation, can we put some facts around it, please?

• Undocumented Immigrants’ State & Local Tax Contributions
  • The 11 million undocumented immigrants currently living in the United States collectively paid $11.64B in state and local taxes.
    
  • Under full implementation of the Obama administration’s 2012 and 2014 executive actions, illegal immigrants' combined nationwide state and local tax contributions would have increased by $805M and by $2.1M under comprehensive immigration reform.
• Social Security Administration
  • In 2013, analysts at the Social Security Administration calculated that in 2010 undocumented immigrants had paid $13B into the system. That's $13B that cannot be collected by the payees because illegal immigrants are not eligible to receive Social Security benefits.
• Illegal Immigrants contribute to the economy
  • Illegal immigrant in Boston buys $400K home; pays 7.8% mortgage from pay earned cleaning offices, money from tenants, and family.
    • 7% is typical and compares with 3%-4% paid by similarly qualified legal residents
  • CitiBank has been offering loans through ITIN numbers since 2004 in partnership with the Neighborhood Assistance Corp. of America
    • The [ITIN loans], even through the toughest times of the mortgage crisis, were showing record performances when the market was going in the other direction, the default rates on ITIN-obtained mortgages obtained by illegal immigrants remained between 1% and 3% through the length of the crisis. One can see from the chart below, that made mortgage loans to illegal immigrants a far better deal for lenders -- low rates of default and high rates of interest.
      
      
      
• Illegal Immigrant numbers are not increasing according to Pew Research, and it's gone down from its 2007 estimated high of 12.3M
  
  
  
  
  
• In 2012 1/3rd of illegal immigrants lived with a U.S. citizen
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
• About 65 percent of unauthorized immigrants over age 15 are employed, according to the Migration Policy Institute, a higher share than for the U.S. population as a whole.
  
• 51% of illegal immigrants have incomes at 150%+ of the poverty level, the value of which varies by household size.
• View the size of the illegal immigrant population by state (except MT, ND and VT) here. This was interesting to me as I spend a reasonable about of time in D.C. and at least three or four times a year visit a few states. D.C., where I live, has about 27K, which amounts to ~4% of the population in D.C. States I routinely visit have the following ratios (I go to specific places in these states; I'm not claiming I know anything about illegal immigrants in these states as a whole.):
  • MA -- 1.5%
  • NY -- 10%
  • DE -- 2.4%
  • LA -- 1.4%
  • WY -- 1%
  • CO -- 3%
  • NV -- 4.5%
  • CA -- 7.7%

Why did I think that last set of metrics is interesting? Because in another thread I asked what an illegal immigrant had done to deprive individuals here of something. My own answer was "nothing." Looking at the percentages of immigrants in the places I go, I'm not surprised that I haven't been deprived of anything by an illegal immigrant; there're aren't many there. The odds of my encountering one are low, very low. Even in the states I go to where the odds are high relative to other states, they're still low.

I'm reminded of a conversation I had a couple weeks back. I was talking to a guy from Ghana. He asked me what I thought about Ghanaians. I told him. "I don't think anything about Ghanaians because Ghanaians and Ghana don't cross my mind to begin with. I don't think I even know a Ghanaian, so what is there for me to think about them? You should probably tell me what you think about Ghanaians."

Interesting.

Keep in mind I want to make probably 95% of our illegals into citizens if for no reason than to create more demand for my home, but I'll debate some points.

I still have a difficult time believing illegals contribute as much as a citizen. That Social Security bit is a good point though.

Really, 51% are above the poverty line? I just don't hang in the right circles than. I remember sorta knowing where illegals were because of landscaping businesses buying mattresses en mass. Then there were the fellows sneaking by at the pizza joints. (I don't see many migrant farm workers here I suppose).

How about crime stats?

 

[usmbguest5318]

How about crime stats?

How about some? It's your thread. Don't you think I've done enough research for it?

Really, 51% are above the poverty line? I just don't hang in the right circles than.

I hang in a few circles -- probably the same kinds as most folks: family, close friends and acquaintances, extended social, and professional. They are what they are, but they are the "right" circles for me. There's not one illegal immigrant in any of them. There're some parties coming up in a few weeks. Maybe there'll be an illegal immigrant at one of them? Maybe I'll wear a hat that says "Holler if you're an illegal immigrant."

When my oldest son got married, he had what I thought was a huge wedding and reception that consisted of ~400 of his "closest friends and family." The U.S., which has a population of ~320M, is estimated to have ~11M illegal immigrants (3%). I suspect that given the dispersal shown in state map to which I linked, it'd be quite hard for any one person to have a large enough circle to come by a material quantity of illegal immigrants. The numbers just don't augur for there being high odds for that happening often.

 

[usmbguest5318]

For the truth? Watch this whole video and you will be informed about why the human farmers, IOW, the elites that run the system, have wanted to import foreigners, and why it has probably been a bad idea.

IT's a long watch, but it is necessary. They don't teach it in high school, college, or cover it in documentaries in the MSM.

This is for liberals, snowflakes, low IQ, those with ADHD, twitter adicts, etc. IOW, the intellectually infirm.



This is SO important. You need to learn from history. This is for those who really want to make a difference and for those who really do care.

IT's a long watch, but it is necessary.

Okay, so I watched short version. Some questions I'd like answered before I delve into responding to you vis a vis the content of Stefan's video essay and this thread's topic (the impacts of expelling illegal immigrants from the U.S.):

• Did you present short version of video essay for its discussion on the role illegal immigration plays in the demise of rich nations/cultures?
  • If "yes," are there, based on what you know about the differences in content between the short and long versions of the analogy Stefan developed, ideas in the long version that he did not summarize and mention in the short version?
    • If "yes," please identify the minute markers whereat in the long version one'll find the ideas he didn't summarize in the short version and that pertain to illegal immigration or immigration in general.

They don't teach it in high school, college, or cover it in documentaries in the MSM.

Actually they do. I can't say "they" teach it in all high school and college history classes. Indeed, the topic is out of scope for, say, an American history class, so, of course they don't teach it there. If, one takes what in my day was called EWC (European/Early and Western Civilization), one can be sure the rise and fall of Rome will be covered. I can't say whether all schools require a research paper on the topic -- Rome's rise and fall was the first long (25 pages) paper I recall having to write in high school -- but the topic is covered. Each of my four children had to write a paper of some sort on the same topic. (My second called me at home one night asking me to dig through her brother's stuff to see if his "Rome" paper was there and would I mail it to her.)

Moreover, I cannot imagine the role migration played in The Fall of the Roman Empire is not taught to some degree in thousands of high schools. What I remember is this:

1. Huns' rampage out of Asia (basically Russia) and into Europe by way of what we call the Baltic States-Belarus region.
2. This pushes Goths (Visigoths), who knew the Huns were coming, south and eventually onto Rome's borders in about the area of present day Balkans, Hungary, Austria or there abouts.
   
   
   
   
   
   
3. That creates large groups of scared-shitless Goths -- Visigoths; the Ostrogoths had by this time been killed or absorbed into the Hunnic empire; seeing that is basically why the Visigoths were scared -- trapped between the advancing Huns and Rome's frontier borders.
4. Rome in response begrudgingly accepts the fleeing Goths into the safety of the Empire.
5. Rome treated the Goths like sh*t -- conscripted them, made slaves (not exactly chattel slaves in the 19th century sense of the term, but bottom of the social ladder with little to no "climbing" opportunity, which is much more relevant than what kind of slaves they were) of others -- thus pissing off and creating an enemy within its borders. Back in school, I called these people "Gothromans" so I could remember who they were, but it's important to realize they were given only ally status and relatively safety of being allowed to live within Rome's borders, but they weren't citizens. There were roughly like a mix of H1B immigrant, migrant worker, resident alien, conscripts, low wage worker/slaves, and refugee, but still not Roman.
6. The Gothromans eventually had enough and revolted. The revolt was settled by a treaty that gave the Gotheromans some land on the outer edge of the Eastern Empire in the area we call the Balkans. That essentially let Rome conserve its "native sons" and forced the Gothromans to fight the tribal invaders from the north like the Sarmatians.
7. The Empire fell into civil war (in large part to defend Christianity's primacy over the remaining vestiges of Roman paganism) and Theodosius, the Eastern Emperor, didn't have enough Romans to fight its battles, so he hired Alaric and his Visigoths essentially as contract soldiers. The Gothromans, living in the region where the Eastern and Western Empires met, were used by Theodosius as "cannon fodder."
8. Theodosius' side won, the Empire is once again united, and Christianity is thenceforth decidedly the Empire's religion, but the pagans in the West aren't at all happy, so deep animosity remains. Keep in mind that the ill will is between the people in power. "Everyday" people don't care. They just want to raise and screw their sheep, and occasionally a woman, have some kids, grow old and die. They only time they care is when they have to fulfill their duty and serve in the Legions, which was the one thing and time that was likely to get them killed.
9. Theodosius dies. His boys inherit the Empire and end up as the emperors of the East and Western halves of the empire. They do what brothers and other relatives do and get into disagreements, but since they "own" whole empires and armies, they play out their contretemps on a different scale than might you and your sibling, or even the Hatfields and McCoys. The result is that there is obvious tension between them; thus between the two empires. (If you remember Dynasty with Alexis and Crystal battling all the time, well, it was something like that and everyone around them got caught up in the battle one way or another. Something more or less like that is the story of Western history from the Dark Ages to WWI. After WWI, the key players aren't all relatives.)
10. The brother who got the Western Empire moves the capital from Rome to Ravenna.
11. Alaric, who was the Gothromans' leader, figures out that there are deep divisions between the East and West, so he decides it's a good time for him to press for a renegotiation of the Gothroman peace treaty that settled the Gothic uprising some twenty years prior. He wants some land, grain, a pension of sorts, and citizenship for his people, and for himself, he wanted to be given the title/job of full Roman commander/general, equal to the commander with whom he'd shared the burden of winning the civil war for Theodosius. The Roman general, who by this time has married his daughter to the Western Emperor, had designs on the Eastern Roman throne, so knowing that, Alaric promised to side with the general and attack the Eastern Emperor. (Keep in mind that the Gothromans' are part of the Eastern Empire because their official place is that land in the Balkans.)
12. The general with whom Alaric had fought for Theodosius is to whom Alaric appealed, and that general was down with it, and took the request to the Western Roman Senate with a recommendation to approve it.
13. The Senators said "no," and a powerful Senator got his panties in a buch over the mere fact that Alaric had even asked for a better deal for his people. The Senator convinced the Western emperor that Alaric's "ask" was an act of war.
14. The Senator got the Western Emperor to agree to attack his brother and Alaric's war-buddy general advised the Emperor to let him lead the charge, a request that was granted, and he off he went to attack the Eastern Emperor.
15. The Senator unilaterally orders the genocide against Goth sympathizers in Northern Italy in an areas somewhere around what we call Milan. (The Emperor didn't condone this, but it happened all the same.)
16. Alaric's general friend dies in a battle.
17. Alaric finds out about the Senator's deceit and massacre of his friends/allies around Milan and is pissed. Other Goths find out too and ally with Alaric.
18. Alaric and the Goths surround Rome and lay siege, starving the residents and denying them fresh water, no way to bury their dead or dispose of their waste.
19. Alaric sacks Rome when it's sufficiently weakened by the siege and disease and succeeds. This happens around 400-410 or so. (It's important to remember that Ravenna, not Rome, is the capital of the Western Roman Empire when Alaric does this. )
20. Remember the pissed off "Gothromans" eventually had enough of being condescended to and treated like crap, so they allied themselves with Alaric and his band of Visigoths, who were essentially a mercenary force Rome hired because there weren't enough Romans to fight Rome's battles.

That's the very simplified version of it -- massive texts, and lots of them, have been written about The Fall. Even so, I remember that much off the top of my head from friggin' high school. Now I know that Rome had Germanic (people who roughly occupied regions we'd call Austria, the Czech Republic, Poland, and Slovakia) settler issues back in Marcus Aurelius' time too....that was the mess

Now, do high school teachers stand at the front of the room and literally say, "The Romans took in Germanic settlers who came from the northern and Scandinavian regions of Europe. The Germanic people and the Goths were immigrants."? No. Why would they? "Immigrant" is a word and idea that high school students are reasonably expected to comprehend.

Even were she to give just the short overview I wrote above as their lecture on Rome's Fall, a high school history teacher would expect his students to glean that the Germanic people and Goths who were fleeing the Huns were essentially refugees and that the ones whom Rome admitted were, wonder of wonders, immigrants. Making that connection -- history is, after all, about causes and effects -- is one small thing that a high school student would be expected to do on his own. A college student would be expected to make notably more insightful connections.

• C-Students: students who merely parrot the story as it was given to them by the text/teacher.
• B-Students: students who make small connections like realizing that the Goths were immigrants.
• A-Students: students who make the small connections and draw accurate inferences by integrating their awareness of the human condition with history's events and how various people responded to them and or how those events and responses made possible subsequent developments and events in humanity's story.

So, while it's fair to say that teacher may not explicitly refer to the people entering the Empire as immigrants, it's not exactly fair to say the role of immigrants wasn't taught. It's more apropos to say that some students master the topic of the Roman Empire and its Fall (and scores of others; I realize the Roman Empire's fall is just an example) and others not so much.

 

[Fishlore]

Rounding up and shipping out a group of people the size of the population of Georgia or Ohio simply isn't going to happen, so forget about it. Giving the boot to even half of them -- a group the size, say, of Colorado or Wisconsin is beyond the logistical capabilities of Uncle Sam.

We are already seeing the first signs of the social chaos and division produced by the talk of deportation: the immigrants don't want to go and lots of Americans sympathize. The result is a rip in the social fabric akin to the effects of the Fugitive Slave Law: sanctuary cities, churches and other groups setting up to shelter potential deportees and a nasty feeling of Nazi-like persecution. Even more destructive is the vindictive conviction of deportation fans that America's problems are, at heart the fault of non-whites and that police crackdown is the solution to our economic and social problems.

 

[usmbguest5318]

I've really struggled to truly find a down side to getting rid of illegals and curbing 3rd world imports. The down sides just aren't there. Even with a price increase for produce; I'm just not seeing it.

Pros and Cons of importing goods







Notes:

• Autarky is introduced for to enhance didactic clarity, not as an existential attestation.
• "Homogeneous goods" defined -- Goods consumers view as perfect substitutes for one another, for example, say, a Burberry trench coat and an Aquascutum trench coat, or "Farmer Joe's" Granny Smith apples and "Farmer Brown's" Granny Smith apples.
• Producer Surplus

 

[MisterBeale]

For the truth? Watch this whole video and you will be informed about why the human farmers, IOW, the elites that run the system, have wanted to import foreigners, and why it has probably been a bad idea.

IT's a long watch, but it is necessary. They don't teach it in high school, college, or cover it in documentaries in the MSM.

This is for liberals, snowflakes, low IQ, those with ADHD, twitter adicts, etc. IOW, the intellectually infirm.



This is SO important. You need to learn from history. This is for those who really want to make a difference and for those who really do care.

"This is for liberals, snowflakes, low IQ, those with ADHD, twitter adicts, etc. IOW, the intellectually infirm."

I always like Roman history. I prefer to read than watch but videos are good.

This is the CDZ though so maybe be careful with the names.

Anyways, all that is less likely to make anyone open minded about what you said.

Sorry, I often forget to look what sub-forum a thread is posted in. My bad. It wasn't directed at anyone in particular, it was only intended to motivate folks to watch the full lecture.

 

[Fishlore]

The Migration Policy Institute reported in 2013 that the federal government spends more each year on immigration enforcement — through Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Border Patrol — than on all other federal law enforcement agencies combined... This exceeds the sum of all spending for the Federal Bureau of Investigation; the Drug Enforcement Administration; the Secret Service; the Marshals Service; and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

ICE and the Border Patrol already refer more cases for federal prosecution than the entire Justice Department, and the number of people they detain each year (more than 400,000) is greater than the number of inmates being held by the Federal Bureau of Prisons for all other federal crimes.

Congress requires the Homeland Security Department to maintain about 34,000 immigration detention beds, at an estimated annual cost of $2 billion, or $5.5 million a day.

The American Action Forum last year estimated that expelling all unauthorized immigrants, and keeping them out, would cost $400 billion to $600 billion, and reduce the gross domestic product by $1 trillion.

The Social Security Administration estimatesthat unauthorized immigrations pay about $13 billion a year into Social Security and get only about $1 billion back.

The war on illegal immigrants is another gigantic boondoggle that isn't working, can't work and is bad for America. That doesn't mean we should just walk away, but it does mean that we are approaching the issue the wrong way and need to change our approach.

 

[OldLady]

The Migration Policy Institute reported in 2013 that the federal government spends more each year on immigration enforcement — through Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Border Patrol — than on all other federal law enforcement agencies combined... This exceeds the sum of all spending for the Federal Bureau of Investigation; the Drug Enforcement Administration; the Secret Service; the Marshals Service; and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

ICE and the Border Patrol already refer more cases for federal prosecution than the entire Justice Department, and the number of people they detain each year (more than 400,000) is greater than the number of inmates being held by the Federal Bureau of Prisons for all other federal crimes.

Congress requires the Homeland Security Department to maintain about 34,000 immigration detention beds, at an estimated annual cost of $2 billion, or $5.5 million a day.

The American Action Forum last year estimated that expelling all unauthorized immigrants, and keeping them out, would cost $400 billion to $600 billion, and reduce the gross domestic product by $1 trillion.

The Social Security Administration estimatesthat unauthorized immigrations pay about $13 billion a year into Social Security and get only about $1 billion back.

The war on illegal immigrants is another gigantic boondoggle that isn't working, can't work and is bad for America. That doesn't mean we should just walk away, but it does mean that we are approaching the issue the wrong way and need to change our approach.

In what way are we actually approaching it wrongly?
ICE has been instructed to enforce the laws on the books, focusing on those with criminal charges or convictions. There has been one "raid" in which a little under 700 people were taken into custody. At least, that's what I've heard about.
I agree with you that we can't just "walk away;'" what do you propose instead? Actually, from what you've just laid out, maybe enhanced border security and a Wall are just what we need.

 

[Fishlore]

The laws ICE has been instructed to enforce are means by which we are approaching it wrongly. What we need instead is an immigration system that recognizes the reality of who the immigrants are, why we need them, and their obligations if they come to work in this country. Nobody wants uncontrolled borders. Nobody wants criminals, drug dealers etc. running around, and everybody wants a strong and growing economy.

The first step would be some sort of guest worker program which vets immigrants, matches them up to jobs and makes sure they pay their taxes etc. Such a work visa does not mean automatic citizenship.

We already have several such programs operating in everything from scientific research to apple picking. We need to take a hard look at where immigrant labor is needed in our economy and create a systematic program whereby foreigners who want to do those jobs (jobs which Americans aren't taking) can come into the country legally and live here productively.

 

[usmbguest5318]

For the truth? Watch this whole video....IT's a long watch, but it is necessary. They don't teach it in high school, college, or cover it in documentaries in the MSM.

I watched the long version video early this morning.....

MisterBeale, you are correct that the (long) video is excellent -- well, very good, excellent is too strong -- and well worth watching. The short one is good, but really doesn't say much that's critical to the topic of illegal immigrants.

Folks who are willing to consider the essay and its key points in totality -- rather than compartmentalizing bits and pieces of it and then transforming those isolated bits into the "be all end all" for advancing a partisan stance on a single issue -- will find much of value there.

The author of the two videos Mr. Beale posted, Stefan Molyneux, is, for the most part, spot on right. The short video essay doesn't say much of note that relates to immigration, which is the subject of the thread. The long one does have some interesting observations/analysis that draws a correlation between Roman slavery/slaves and immigration/immigrants. The correspondence he makes, though reasonable at a high level, leaves something to be desired in one important dimension.

Mr. Beale is not correct that "they don't teach" that stuff in high school or college. [1] It would, however, be correct to say that the content isn't frequently (perhaps not at all) presented as a unified set of ideas in one single class that one might take at baccalaureate or lower levels. That it isn't is unsurprising.

• Baccalaureate level expectation -- develop strong understanding of the most important bits of foundational knowledge in a discipline and focus on doing the same for a tiny "corner" of the disciple.
• Master's level expectation -- develop strong understanding of the general body of knowledge across the entirety of a discipline and integrate those ideas with facts from related disciplines. (This is what Stefan's long video does.)
• Doctoral level expectation -- contribute to the body of knowledge in a given discipline by performing original research and sharing it.

Given that's the way, it's not surprising that folks who've not taken some political/governance science along with taking (1) a master's degree in history with a concentration on economics, or (2) an econ master's with focus on Roman/Greek economic history, or (3) a baccalaureate or high school class that called one to consider the economics of the Roman Empire (most likely for a paper), the integrated whole that Molyneux presents isn't likely to come up.

That's not without good reason. One has to have a strong understanding of macro and micro econ (principles-level class is sufficient) and a whole lot of detail about Roman history, detail that, at high school and bachelor's levels, is beyond the scope of anything but a class devoted to Rome's history. It's not the econ or poly-sci that inhibits students making the observations and arriving at the conclusions Stefan shares; it's the history. I don't think many people would be keen to have their high school age kids exposed to the nature and extent of Roman depravity and decadence such a course will necessarily introduce. Even considering my own very bright and mature kids, I don't think at high school age they were ready to learn of that history and keep it in the right context.

Should it? Well, that's a normative decision. I could easily say it should, but I like economics and history.


Specific Observations:

• Stefan has some inconsistencies and contextual missteps. I don't think they're material to the overall comparison he makes in the essay, but they are clearly contradictions.
  • Early in the essay, Stefan notes that Goths and Germans sought to join the Empire to partake of the riches of the Empire. He doesn't present that as an ignoble desire on their part, but rather as a rational one. He goes on, then, to describe how those would be immigrants don't assimilate well into the culture, because economics not cultural mores drew them in. He classifies the presences of so many economically motivated immigrants as part of what contributed to the decline of the Empire. Later, in his discussion of the declining years of the 5th century, he describes the very same categories of people as having noble ideas and intentions, and blames Roman Tyranny and coarseness for what he earlier attributed to immigrants. He never establishes or even hints that earlier (in the age of the Republic and early Empire years) immigrants were the impetus for the later Emperors' governance failings. He doesn't, of course, because they were not.
  • At one point Stefan cites excise taxes as being bad fiscal policy for the people, citing farmers in particular. Later he presents excise taxes as positive and points to taxes having become rate based as contributing the decline in social and political stability.
  • Stefan equates Roman slaves with immigrants today. That's an off-kilter analogy, but the situational economic context of the Empire's slave population and that of the U.S.' illegal immigrant population bears no resemblance to one another. I don't disagree with the impact he attributes to the existence and consistency of the Roman slave population, but as Molyneux points out, the slaves constituted, during the period of decline, 1/3rd of population. Similarly situated immigrants in the U.S. aren't even 5% of the population, and immigrants as a whole only comprise something shy of 15%.
    
  • Minor but since I'm listing things....Stefan glosses over the fact that when Alaric sacked Rome, Rome was a small town, even though it had the name "Rome." He doesn't explicitly mention Ravenna, which at the time of the sack was the bustling metropolis and capital of the Western Empire.
• Stefan advocates strongly for free trade and does a fine job illustrating its virtues.
• The essay has a wealth of footnotes that would enthrall any player of Trivial Pursuit. They add interest to Stefan's oration.
• At 2:08 or so, Stefan notes what strikes me and at least one other scholar, Lawrence Reed, whom Molyneux cites in another of his essays, as the keystone cause of all the other maladies that beset the Empire. I think that's a thread he should have interwoven more palpably throughout the essay, especially as he's drawing parallels to modern day America. That one feature and its erosion is the single most important factor that drives the rise and fall of great civilizations.

Notes:

1. FWIW, the content, as Molyneux presents it, came to me via two courses, both of which were electives:
   1. HS --> AP European History -- This is the class from which I remember the history of the rise, decline and fall of the Roman Empire. Indeed one of the supplemental texts for the class had nearly that as its title. (elective insofar as one didn't have to take AP EWC, but one did have to take a European history survey class.)
   2. Undergrad --> American Economic History (taken as a lower level social science elective)

 

[sealybobo]

Another post got me thinking. What are the effects of booting all the illegals from the country.

On the negative side:

Businesses who employ illegals will be forced to hire citizens. (Is there a move to use existing laws to punish the human resources departments there? The business owners hiring them is why many illegals come.)

There will be more demand for the workers we have....not like illegals typically get the best jobs...so maybe it will cost even more to hire tree trimmers and have your roof redone or crops harvested.

Also, average and below average home values will be hurt....

There will then be less demand for services in the average and below average neighborhoods. Fast foods, malls, supermarkets. That type of thing.

On the positive for the U.S.

Lower population means the need for fewer houses, larger lots, better for the environment here....Although I dunno if it is better for the world environment.

Illegals can't be paying the most in taxes so the government will save some money.
-in law enforcement.
-in educating their children.

We will save money in healthcare (feel free to insert a crack about Reagan / Carter era socialized medicine treating everyone who comes into the ER and us paying here). I just can't see illegals having the best healthcare from their crook employers.

EDIT: Oh, we can raise the quotas to import "desirable" foreigners. This would make me the happiest. I really believe population growth in the U.S. fixes some of our problems.

What other effects do you all see?

You almost nailed exactly what I was thinking.

What made me do a search for this subject is I was thinking how poor people breeding is hurting us all. They produce the cheap labor companies rely on. A shortage of help means wages go up.

You watch if illegals leaving really brings up wages you will see once again the corporations and government will once again encourage us to have families. Right now 30 year olds don't want to have kids. They have loans want a home and want to retire some day. If companies had day care, they offered good public schools, healthcare and wages people might want to have kids.

I think lowering the population is good. The problem is it's middle class people who are having less kids. Poor people don't care because they're already poor. So this is dumbing down our society too. The poor don't do a good job raising doctors and scientists.

 

[Dan Stubbs]

Another post got me thinking. What are the effects of booting all the illegals from the country.

On the negative side:

Businesses who employ illegals will be forced to hire citizens. (Is there a move to use existing laws to punish the human resources departments there? The business owners hiring them is why many illegals come.)

There will be more demand for the workers we have....not like illegals typically get the best jobs...so maybe it will cost even more to hire tree trimmers and have your roof redone or crops harvested.

Also, average and below average home values will be hurt....

There will then be less demand for services in the average and below average neighborhoods. Fast foods, malls, supermarkets. That type of thing.

On the positive for the U.S.

Lower population means the need for fewer houses, larger lots, better for the environment here....Although I dunno if it is better for the world environment.

Illegals can't be paying the most in taxes so the government will save some money.
-in law enforcement.
-in educating their children.

We will save money in healthcare (feel free to insert a crack about Reagan / Carter era socialized medicine treating everyone who comes into the ER and us paying here). I just can't see illegals having the best healthcare from their crook employers.

EDIT: Oh, we can raise the quotas to import "desirable" foreigners. This would make me the happiest. I really believe population growth in the U.S. fixes some of our problems.

What other effects do you all see?

Few pay income tax, most work under the going rates. Most work as drug pushers, and transporters. All of them use the EM rooms as a clinic, and most use the school system for education. As far as housing I see no problem in the matter. Dual Language classes double the cost of schools. If the do it the legal way I have no problems with them.