Debate Now I find it amusing, why so much anger against the Wall?

[miketx]

People keep talking about the costs, meanwhile it's a drop in the bucket compared to the costs of paying for illegal immigration.

The real question is, really, why is there SO much rage and emotional triggering by the thought of a wall? To me it's as transparent as can be, some realize the ability to turn America socialist and another global shytehole is impacted greatly if they cannot send mass illegal immigration over the border.

I can imagine some heated arguments over abortion, religious freedom, even right to bear arms...but a wall? It's a structure designed to protect your border, what in the hell is wrong with this that so many lose it?

it's a drop in the bucket compared to the costs of paying for illegal immigration.

Right there is your problem: you seem to have assumed that the net economic impact of illegal immigration is negative. Were you to read the book that contains the foremost and most comprehensive analysis of the economic impact of immigration in the U.S., what you'd find is that illegal immigration has a net positive economic impact on the U.S. economy, positive to the extent of $395 to $472 billion increase in GDP. You will find a brief summary of the findings reported in detail in the book here: Immigration and the American Worker. Reading it, one will the unequivocal statement: "illegal immigrants increased GDP by $395 to $472 billion."

It's nice to talk about costs, and it's nice to talk about gains. When one evaluating the impact of something, however, one must consider the costs and gains and subtract the former from the latter to determine what the net impact is.

The book, no doubt written a factually challenged regressive democrat with an agenda and a paycheck to keep.

 

[Dale Smith]

People keep talking about the costs, meanwhile it's a drop in the bucket compared to the costs of paying for illegal immigration.

The real question is, really, why is there SO much rage and emotional triggering by the thought of a wall? To me it's as transparent as can be, some realize the ability to turn America socialist and another global shytehole is impacted greatly if they cannot send mass illegal immigration over the border.

I can imagine some heated arguments over abortion, religious freedom, even right to bear arms...but a wall? It's a structure designed to protect your border, what in the hell is wrong with this that so many lose it?

it's a drop in the bucket compared to the costs of paying for illegal immigration.

Right there is your problem: you seem to have assumed that the net economic impact of illegal immigration is negative. Were you to read the book that contains the foremost and most comprehensive analysis of the economic impact of immigration in the U.S., what you'd find is that illegal immigration has a net positive economic impact on the U.S. economy, positive to the extent of $395 to $472 billion increase in GDP. You will find a brief summary of the findings reported in detail in the book here: Immigration and the American Worker. Reading it, one will the unequivocal statement: "illegal immigrants increased GDP by $395 to $472 billion."

It's nice to talk about costs, and it's nice to talk about gains. When one evaluating the impact of something, however, one must consider the costs and gains and subtract the former from the latter to determine what the net impact is.

Here in lies the rub....illegals may make a profit to the ones that hire them, but those here legally pick up the costs for their "spawn" and they use social services and the lower class pays for it by the fact that their presence here lowers wages.

Let's cut to the chase, shall we? The ONLY reason that leftards are on board with illegals and granting amnesty to those from third world countries is because they are use to "gubermint" control and believe in the socialist model.

 

[miketx]

People keep talking about the costs, meanwhile it's a drop in the bucket compared to the costs of paying for illegal immigration.

The real question is, really, why is there SO much rage and emotional triggering by the thought of a wall? To me it's as transparent as can be, some realize the ability to turn America socialist and another global shytehole is impacted greatly if they cannot send mass illegal immigration over the border.

I can imagine some heated arguments over abortion, religious freedom, even right to bear arms...but a wall? It's a structure designed to protect your border, what in the hell is wrong with this that so many lose it?

it's a drop in the bucket compared to the costs of paying for illegal immigration.

Right there is your problem: you seem to have assumed that the net economic impact of illegal immigration is negative. Were you to read the book that contains the foremost and most comprehensive analysis of the economic impact of immigration in the U.S., what you'd find is that illegal immigration has a net positive economic impact on the U.S. economy, positive to the extent of $395 to $472 billion increase in GDP. You will find a brief summary of the findings reported in detail in the book here: Immigration and the American Worker. Reading it, one will the unequivocal statement: "illegal immigrants increased GDP by $395 to $472 billion."

It's nice to talk about costs, and it's nice to talk about gains. When one evaluating the impact of something, however, one must consider the costs and gains and subtract the former from the latter to determine what the net impact is.

Here in lies the rub....illegals may make a profit to the ones that hire them, but those here legally pick up the costs for their "spawn" and they use social services and the lower class pays for it by the fact that their presence here lowers wages.

Let's cut to the chase, shall we? The ONLY reason that leftards are on board with illegals and granting amnesty to those from third world countries is because they are use to "gubermint" control and believe in the socialist model.

All the while while said liberals IGNORE the conditions going on in Europe caused by muslims.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

People keep talking about the costs, meanwhile it's a drop in the bucket compared to the costs of paying for illegal immigration.

The real question is, really, why is there SO much rage and emotional triggering by the thought of a wall? To me it's as transparent as can be, some realize the ability to turn America socialist and another global shytehole is impacted greatly if they cannot send mass illegal immigration over the border.

I can imagine some heated arguments over abortion, religious freedom, even right to bear arms...but a wall? It's a structure designed to protect your border, what in the hell is wrong with this that so many lose it?

it's a drop in the bucket compared to the costs of paying for illegal immigration.

Right there is your problem: you seem to have assumed that the net economic impact of illegal immigration is negative. Were you to read the book that contains the foremost and most comprehensive analysis of the economic impact of immigration in the U.S., what you'd find is that illegal immigration has a net positive economic impact on the U.S. economy, positive to the extent of $395 to $472 billion increase in GDP. You will find a brief summary of the findings reported in detail in the book here: Immigration and the American Worker. Reading it, one will the unequivocal statement: "illegal immigrants increased GDP by $395 to $472 billion."

It's nice to talk about costs, and it's nice to talk about gains. When one evaluating the impact of something, however, one must consider the costs and gains and subtract the former from the latter to determine what the net impact is.

You might try reading the book you linked to. Borjas is talking all immigrants, and only legal immigrants are a net positive. Without legal immigrants, illegals by themselves are a net drain, to which Borjas says illegals drive down wages and hurt the poorest of US citizens. Borjas is an adamant economist against illegal immigration. LMFAO

Gordon Hanson and the Migration Policy Institute wrote a report and cited Borjas many times in it, concluding illegals cost US GDP -.1%. The only persons gaining from illegal immigration are the illegals and their employers. The Economics and Policy of Illegal Immigration in the United States

 

[Liquid Reigns]

People keep talking about the costs, meanwhile it's a drop in the bucket compared to the costs of paying for illegal immigration.

The real question is, really, why is there SO much rage and emotional triggering by the thought of a wall? To me it's as transparent as can be, some realize the ability to turn America socialist and another global shytehole is impacted greatly if they cannot send mass illegal immigration over the border.

I can imagine some heated arguments over abortion, religious freedom, even right to bear arms...but a wall? It's a structure designed to protect your border, what in the hell is wrong with this that so many lose it?

it's a drop in the bucket compared to the costs of paying for illegal immigration.

Right there is your problem: you seem to have assumed that the net economic impact of illegal immigration is negative. Were you to read the book that contains the foremost and most comprehensive analysis of the economic impact of immigration in the U.S., what you'd find is that illegal immigration has a net positive economic impact on the U.S. economy, positive to the extent of $395 to $472 billion increase in GDP. You will find a brief summary of the findings reported in detail in the book here: Immigration and the American Worker. Reading it, one will the unequivocal statement: "illegal immigrants increased GDP by $395 to $472 billion."

It's nice to talk about costs, and it's nice to talk about gains. When one evaluating the impact of something, however, one must consider the costs and gains and subtract the former from the latter to determine what the net impact is.

The book, no doubt written a factually challenged regressive democrat with an agenda and a paycheck to keep.

Xelor never read the book by Borjas. Borjas is against illegal immigration and clearly states that the only persons benefiting from their labor are the illegals and the employers themselves. Like most sympathetic illegal lovers, Xelor mis-represents what the book says. Xelor knows that what Borjas is stating is that immigration in total (legal and illegals) then there is a surplus, remove the illegals and that surplus is greater, thus illegals cost us GDP yearly to include costs at the local and state levels.

 

[Humorme]

People keep talking about the costs, meanwhile it's a drop in the bucket compared to the costs of paying for illegal immigration.

The real question is, really, why is there SO much rage and emotional triggering by the thought of a wall? To me it's as transparent as can be, some realize the ability to turn America socialist and another global shytehole is impacted greatly if they cannot send mass illegal immigration over the border.

I can imagine some heated arguments over abortion, religious freedom, even right to bear arms...but a wall? It's a structure designed to protect your border, what in the hell is wrong with this that so many lose it?

All illegals are not just Hispanics...

Are you IN this conversation? The thread is about the wall and the wall only affects Hispanics. 99 percent of those coming from south of the border are Hispanic.

 

[Humorme]

People keep talking about the costs, meanwhile it's a drop in the bucket compared to the costs of paying for illegal immigration.

The real question is, really, why is there SO much rage and emotional triggering by the thought of a wall? To me it's as transparent as can be, some realize the ability to turn America socialist and another global shytehole is impacted greatly if they cannot send mass illegal immigration over the border.

I can imagine some heated arguments over abortion, religious freedom, even right to bear arms...but a wall? It's a structure designed to protect your border, what in the hell is wrong with this that so many lose it?

it's a drop in the bucket compared to the costs of paying for illegal immigration.

Right there is your problem: you seem to have assumed that the net economic impact of illegal immigration is negative. Were you to read the book that contains the foremost and most comprehensive analysis of the economic impact of immigration in the U.S., what you'd find is that illegal immigration has a net positive economic impact on the U.S. economy, positive to the extent of $395 to $472 billion increase in GDP. You will find a brief summary of the findings reported in detail in the book here: Immigration and the American Worker. Reading it, one will the unequivocal statement: "illegal immigrants increased GDP by $395 to $472 billion."

It's nice to talk about costs, and it's nice to talk about gains. When one evaluating the impact of something, however, one must consider the costs and gains and subtract the former from the latter to determine what the net impact is.

Here in lies the rub....illegals may make a profit to the ones that hire them, but those here legally pick up the costs for their "spawn" and they use social services and the lower class pays for it by the fact that their presence here lowers wages.

Let's cut to the chase, shall we? The ONLY reason that leftards are on board with illegals and granting amnesty to those from third world countries is because they are use to "gubermint" control and believe in the socialist model.

Pure cowdung!

Do Undocumented Immigrants Overuse Government Benefits? | Econofact

FWIW - I personally oppose any "amnesty" that includes a path to citizenship... and NOBODY should be forced to become a citizen in order to become a Guest Worker.

 

[BulletProof]

Free money and services, not a lack of a [bigger] wall, is the cause of mass illegal immigration.

Libtards are in a constant state of inflammation, attacking anything Trump does, period.

 

[Humorme]

People keep talking about the costs, meanwhile it's a drop in the bucket compared to the costs of paying for illegal immigration.

The real question is, really, why is there SO much rage and emotional triggering by the thought of a wall? To me it's as transparent as can be, some realize the ability to turn America socialist and another global shytehole is impacted greatly if they cannot send mass illegal immigration over the border.

I can imagine some heated arguments over abortion, religious freedom, even right to bear arms...but a wall? It's a structure designed to protect your border, what in the hell is wrong with this that so many lose it?

I gave you one response to this. Shall we try another?

LEGAL dictionaries define "immigration" as:

"The coming Into a country of foreigners for purposes of permanent residence."

What is IMMIGRATION? definition of IMMIGRATION (Black's Law Dictionary)

Those advocates of the wall cannot delineate or differentiate between citizens and Guest Workers. And so they beat this subject to death regarding why people don't come here "legally." It is a bogus argument. The immigration statute that governs this argument is plainly about improper entry. In the first place, not everyone who comes here wants to become a permanent resident.

Add to that, the United States Constitution provides for the "equal protection of the laws." Therefore, laws that allow SOME employers to hire foreign labor while denying to other employers the same luxury is blatantly unconstitutional since it denies to employers the equal protection of the laws as per the 14th Amendment.

After all, the employer creates the job. It is his / her job to give to whomever they want. Those who accuse foreigners of "stealing jobs" are making a purely SOCIALIST argument. Period. Nobody can steal a job the citizens didn't own in the first place.

Statutes that deny foreigners access to come into the United States to do business with private companies are antithetical to the objective of a nation conceived in Liberty; they deny employers their Rights under the 14th Amendment; they fail to pass constitutional muster.

Building a wall to perpetuate that evil is trashing your own Constitution.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

Pure cowdung!

Do Undocumented Immigrants Overuse Government Benefits? | Econofact

FWIW - I personally oppose any "amnesty" that includes a path to citizenship... and NOBODY should be forced to become a citizen in order to become a Guest Worker.

From the Econofact link provided:

There are some federal programs that serve those in need, regardless of immigration status.

and

State and local governments disproportionately bear the burden of supporting undocumented immigrants.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

I gave you one response to this. Shall we try another?

LEGAL dictionaries define "immigration" as:

"The coming Into a country of foreigners for purposes of permanent residence."

What is IMMIGRATION? definition of IMMIGRATION (Black's Law Dictionary)

Those advocates of the wall cannot delineate or differentiate between citizens and Guest Workers. And so they beat this subject to death regarding why people don't come here "legally." It is a bogus argument. The immigration statute that governs this argument is plainly about improper entry. In the first place, not everyone who comes here wants to become a permanent resident.

Add to that, the United States Constitution provides for the "equal protection of the laws." Therefore, laws that allow SOME employers to hire foreign labor while denying to other employers the same luxury is blatantly unconstitutional since it denies to employers the equal protection of the laws as per the 14th Amendment.

After all, the employer creates the job. It is his / her job to give to whomever they want. Those who accuse foreigners of "stealing jobs" are making a purely SOCIALIST argument. Period. Nobody can steal a job the citizens didn't own in the first place.

Statutes that deny foreigners access to come into the United States to do business with private companies are antithetical to the objective of a nation conceived in Liberty; they deny employers their Rights under the 14th Amendment; they fail to pass constitutional muster.

Building a wall to perpetuate that evil is trashing your own Constitution.

Or you have people like this clown that can't differentiate between legal and illegal immigration. SMFH

Someone clearly doesn't understand what Equal Protection is. The 14th EPC is directed at the state. LMFAO

 

[Humorme]

Free money and services, not a lack of a [bigger] wall, is the cause of mass illegal immigration.

Libtards are in a constant state of inflammation, attacking anything Trump does, period.

As per your first paragraph: Undocumented foreigners do NOT qualify for welfare that passes through federal channels. IF your state government provides some kind of welfare, your best course of action is to deal with your state government.

We do need a constitutional amendment outlawing the use of taxpayer dollars for providing a free education to the children in the U.S. without papers. So, I guess if you build a wall and the undocumented can get a free education and state benefits, that will be acceptable? If not, deal with that now and cry about a wall later.

As per your second paragraph: I'm going to dismantle the arguments in favor of a wall and never mention Trump. Personally, I'm not a "libtard" since I've never voted left nor for a Democrat... and FWIW, I voted for Trump. This is not an issue over some dude with a God complex. It's clearly about Freedom and Liberty.

 

[Muhammed]

People keep talking about the costs, meanwhile it's a drop in the bucket compared to the costs of paying for illegal immigration.

The real question is, really, why is there SO much rage and emotional triggering by the thought of a wall? To me it's as transparent as can be, some realize the ability to turn America socialist and another global shytehole is impacted greatly if they cannot send mass illegal immigration over the border.

I can imagine some heated arguments over abortion, religious freedom, even right to bear arms...but a wall? It's a structure designed to protect your border, what in the hell is wrong with this that so many lose it?

They are opposed to it for one reason. They know it is an excellent policy and do not want Trump to get credit for it.

Notice that you didn't hear a peep of this blatantly disingenuous and absurdly ridiculous faux outrage from the disgusting party of slavery supporters when the Obama administration was building a southern border wall.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

As per your first paragraph: Undocumented foreigners do NOT qualify for welfare that passes through federal channels. IF your state government provides some kind of welfare, your best course of action is to deal with your state government.

We do need a constitutional amendment outlawing the use of taxpayer dollars for providing a free education to the children in the U.S. without papers. So, I guess if you build a wall and the undocumented can get a free education and state benefits, that will be acceptable? If not, deal with that now and cry about a wall later.

As per your second paragraph: I'm going to dismantle the arguments in favor of a wall and never mention Trump. Personally, I'm not a "libtard" since I've never voted left nor for a Democrat... and FWIW, I voted for Trump. This is not an issue over some dude with a God complex. It's clearly about Freedom and Liberty.

His /\/\ own link says there are some Federal Welfare Programs that Unauthorized immigrants are ineligible for most major federally-funded safety net programs. and There are some federal programs that serve those in need, regardless of immigration status.
SMFH Do these clowns really not read the things they link to?

 

[usmbguest5318]

People keep talking about the costs, meanwhile it's a drop in the bucket compared to the costs of paying for illegal immigration.

The real question is, really, why is there SO much rage and emotional triggering by the thought of a wall? To me it's as transparent as can be, some realize the ability to turn America socialist and another global shytehole is impacted greatly if they cannot send mass illegal immigration over the border.

I can imagine some heated arguments over abortion, religious freedom, even right to bear arms...but a wall? It's a structure designed to protect your border, what in the hell is wrong with this that so many lose it?

it's a drop in the bucket compared to the costs of paying for illegal immigration.

Right there is your problem: you seem to have assumed that the net economic impact of illegal immigration is negative. Were you to read the book that contains the foremost and most comprehensive analysis of the economic impact of immigration in the U.S., what you'd find is that illegal immigration has a net positive economic impact on the U.S. economy, positive to the extent of $395 to $472 billion increase in GDP. You will find a brief summary of the findings reported in detail in the book here: Immigration and the American Worker. Reading it, one will the unequivocal statement: "illegal immigrants increased GDP by $395 to $472 billion."

It's nice to talk about costs, and it's nice to talk about gains. When one evaluating the impact of something, however, one must consider the costs and gains and subtract the former from the latter to determine what the net impact is.

You might try reading the book you linked to. Borjas is talking all immigrants, and only legal immigrants are a net positive. Without legal immigrants, illegals by themselves are a net drain, to which Borjas says illegals drive down wages and hurt the poorest of US citizens. Borjas is an adamant economist against illegal immigration. LMFAO

Gordon Hanson and the Migration Policy Institute wrote a report and cited Borjas many times in it, concluding illegals cost US GDP -.1%. The only persons gaining from illegal immigration are the illegals and their employers. The Economics and Policy of Illegal Immigration in the United States

You might try reading the book you linked to. Borjas is talking all immigrants

I provided a link to excerpted finding from Borjas' book. If you were to have noted the author of the excerpted findings, you'd have seen that George Borjas is the author.

The only persons gaining from illegal immigration are the illegals and their employers. The Economics and Policy of Illegal Immigration in the United States

From the paper you cite:

• You picked the wrong person to whom to present the MPI's 2009 report, "The Economics and Policy of Illegal Immigration in the United States."
  • According to this report by University of California, San Diego Professor of Economics Gordon Hanson, illegal immigration’s overall impact on the U.S. economy is small. The modest net gain that remains after subtracting U.S. workers’ losses from U.S. employers’ gains is tiny....A substantial increase in spending on border and interior enforcement could easily cost far more than the tax savings generated from reducing illegal immigration in the United States. "
    -- Gordon H. Hanson, "The Economics and Policy of Illegal Immigration in the United States"

Need I point out that even a "tiny gain" as goes net economic impact is nonetheless not a loss of any measure?

"You picked the wrong group's paper to cite, although the nonpartisan-to-liberal leaning MPI, as does the ardently conservative Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), relies on Borjas' work. Indeed, that both groups have differing "axes to grind," yet both acknowledge that illegal immigration has a net positive economic impact was quite surprising to me. My surprise at discovering that point of agreement between the two is why I created the following thread: Liberal & Conservative Think Tanks Agree on The Net Economic Impact of Illegal Immigration. Nobody disputes that the net economic impact of illegal immigration, $395B to $475B, is a small sum relative to the size of U.S. GDP, $18.57T, of which it is a part, specifically (eyeballing it) about two percent or less.

 

[usmbguest5318]

People keep talking about the costs, meanwhile it's a drop in the bucket compared to the costs of paying for illegal immigration.

The real question is, really, why is there SO much rage and emotional triggering by the thought of a wall? To me it's as transparent as can be, some realize the ability to turn America socialist and another global shytehole is impacted greatly if they cannot send mass illegal immigration over the border.

I can imagine some heated arguments over abortion, religious freedom, even right to bear arms...but a wall? It's a structure designed to protect your border, what in the hell is wrong with this that so many lose it?

it's a drop in the bucket compared to the costs of paying for illegal immigration.

Right there is your problem: you seem to have assumed that the net economic impact of illegal immigration is negative. Were you to read the book that contains the foremost and most comprehensive analysis of the economic impact of immigration in the U.S., what you'd find is that illegal immigration has a net positive economic impact on the U.S. economy, positive to the extent of $395 to $472 billion increase in GDP. You will find a brief summary of the findings reported in detail in the book here: Immigration and the American Worker. Reading it, one will the unequivocal statement: "illegal immigrants increased GDP by $395 to $472 billion."

It's nice to talk about costs, and it's nice to talk about gains. When one evaluating the impact of something, however, one must consider the costs and gains and subtract the former from the latter to determine what the net impact is.

The book, no doubt written a factually challenged regressive democrat with an agenda and a paycheck to keep.

Xelor never read the book by Borjas. Borjas is against illegal immigration and clearly states that the only persons benefiting from their labor are the illegals and the employers themselves. Like most sympathetic illegal lovers, Xelor mis-represents what the book says. Xelor knows that what Borjas is stating is that immigration in total (legal and illegals) then there is a surplus, remove the illegals and that surplus is greater, thus illegals cost us GDP yearly to include costs at the local and state levels.

Xelor knows that what Borjas is stating is that immigration in total (legal and illegals) then there is a surplus

You can say that, but that you say it does not make it be so. Read Borjas' paper, which is his literature it is the literature review that he used as the starting point for his book. The paper is: Immigration and the American Worker. What does he say in it?

• Illegal immigrants increased GDP by $395 to $472 billion.
• The immigration surplus or benefit to natives created by illegal immigrants is estimated at around $9 billion a year or 0.06 percent of GDP — six one-hundredths of 1 percent.

What is GDP? It is the result of adding the gains an economy produces and subtracting from them the costs of obtaining those gains. Just as GDP is calculated that way, so too is every element/activity that produces an increase or decrease to GDP. Illegal immigration/immigrants is one of the many elements that affect GDP.

Xelor never read the book by Borjas. Borjas is against illegal immigration

I have never remarked on whether Borjas favors or doesn't favor illegal immigration. All I have ever done is cite his empirical findings regarding the net economic impact of illegal immigration. Notwithstanding Borjas' political stance on illegal immigration, his empirical figures are what they are, and what they are is very clear in Borjas' own words:

• Illegal immigrants increased GDP by $395 to $472 billion.
• The immigration surplus or benefit to natives created by illegal immigrants is estimated at around $9 billion a year or 0.06 percent of GDP — six one-hundredths of 1 percent.

I haven't discussed Borjas' political stance on illegal immigration because I don't care what be his politics. I care only about his research. I don't care about Borjas' political stance because using his research I can form my own political stance.

The fact of the matter is that I don't know anyone -- liberal or conservative -- who is pleased that illegal immigration happens. I certainly don't; however, illegal immigrants are people and they are in the U.S., and that means the first thing I'm going to do is try to figure out whether their being in the U.S. has a quantifiable net impact that is economically positive or economically negative. If there is such an analysis, my stance will be based primarily on the findings of that analysis, which is to say:

• if the net impact is positive, I will advocate for a solution that does not force us to give up that impact, or
• if the net impact is negative, I'll advocate for a solution that as humanely as possible stops the economic "bleeding," as it were.

As goes the mere fact that illegal immigrants status are present in the U.S., I feel no allegiance or obligation to them whatsoever. Accordingly, insofar as they are illegally present, as far as I'm concerned, they are subject to the vicissitudes of cold empiricism. To my way of thinking and as goes my willingness to do something about them and their presence, well, they're just "lucky" that their net economic impact is positive, for were it not, I'd be of a mind to deport them en masse and move on to other things.

In answering the question of what to do about the fact that it has happened and what to do with the people who illegally reside in the U.S., I am of the mind that whatever course we take to address either/both must be one that produces net economic gains in excess of the net economic gains illegal immigrants produce plus the cost of doing whatever "it" be, as illustrated below.

Let G be the nation's economy (GDP).
Let X be an existential person, place or thing that produces $400B worth of the net value of G.
Let Y be an action(s) that costs money to implement and that eliminates X.

For Y to be "worth it," it must at least produce returns greater than $400B + Y.
​

As for why my approach [do not conflate "approach" with "stance"] to doing "whatever" about illegal immigration/immigrants is as I've described above, well, that's because, where/when possible to do so soundly/cogently, I form my conclusions using largely on economic positivist approaches, not using economic normativist approaches.

 

[usmbguest5318]

People keep talking about the costs, meanwhile it's a drop in the bucket compared to the costs of paying for illegal immigration.

The real question is, really, why is there SO much rage and emotional triggering by the thought of a wall? To me it's as transparent as can be, some realize the ability to turn America socialist and another global shytehole is impacted greatly if they cannot send mass illegal immigration over the border.

I can imagine some heated arguments over abortion, religious freedom, even right to bear arms...but a wall? It's a structure designed to protect your border, what in the hell is wrong with this that so many lose it?

it's a drop in the bucket compared to the costs of paying for illegal immigration.

Right there is your problem: you seem to have assumed that the net economic impact of illegal immigration is negative. Were you to read the book that contains the foremost and most comprehensive analysis of the economic impact of immigration in the U.S., what you'd find is that illegal immigration has a net positive economic impact on the U.S. economy, positive to the extent of $395 to $472 billion increase in GDP. You will find a brief summary of the findings reported in detail in the book here: Immigration and the American Worker. Reading it, one will the unequivocal statement: "illegal immigrants increased GDP by $395 to $472 billion."

It's nice to talk about costs, and it's nice to talk about gains. When one evaluating the impact of something, however, one must consider the costs and gains and subtract the former from the latter to determine what the net impact is.

Here in lies the rub....illegals may make a profit to the ones that hire them, but those here legally pick up the costs for their "spawn" and they use social services and the lower class pays for it by the fact that their presence here lowers wages.

Let's cut to the chase, shall we? The ONLY reason that leftards are on board with illegals and granting amnesty to those from third world countries is because they are use to "gubermint" control and believe in the socialist model.

Pure cowdung!

Do Undocumented Immigrants Overuse Government Benefits? | Econofact

FWIW - I personally oppose any "amnesty" that includes a path to citizenship... and NOBODY should be forced to become a citizen in order to become a Guest Worker.

Do Undocumented Immigrants Overuse Government Benefits? | Econofact

Well, in fairness, whether illegal immigrants overuse government benefits and the extent to which they do or don't is but one element in the overall equation that determines what is their net impact on the U.S. economy/GDP.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

People keep talking about the costs, meanwhile it's a drop in the bucket compared to the costs of paying for illegal immigration.

The real question is, really, why is there SO much rage and emotional triggering by the thought of a wall? To me it's as transparent as can be, some realize the ability to turn America socialist and another global shytehole is impacted greatly if they cannot send mass illegal immigration over the border.

I can imagine some heated arguments over abortion, religious freedom, even right to bear arms...but a wall? It's a structure designed to protect your border, what in the hell is wrong with this that so many lose it?

it's a drop in the bucket compared to the costs of paying for illegal immigration.

Right there is your problem: you seem to have assumed that the net economic impact of illegal immigration is negative. Were you to read the book that contains the foremost and most comprehensive analysis of the economic impact of immigration in the U.S., what you'd find is that illegal immigration has a net positive economic impact on the U.S. economy, positive to the extent of $395 to $472 billion increase in GDP. You will find a brief summary of the findings reported in detail in the book here: Immigration and the American Worker. Reading it, one will the unequivocal statement: "illegal immigrants increased GDP by $395 to $472 billion."

It's nice to talk about costs, and it's nice to talk about gains. When one evaluating the impact of something, however, one must consider the costs and gains and subtract the former from the latter to determine what the net impact is.

You might try reading the book you linked to. Borjas is talking all immigrants, and only legal immigrants are a net positive. Without legal immigrants, illegals by themselves are a net drain, to which Borjas says illegals drive down wages and hurt the poorest of US citizens. Borjas is an adamant economist against illegal immigration. LMFAO

Gordon Hanson and the Migration Policy Institute wrote a report and cited Borjas many times in it, concluding illegals cost US GDP -.1%. The only persons gaining from illegal immigration are the illegals and their employers. The Economics and Policy of Illegal Immigration in the United States

You might try reading the book you linked to. Borjas is talking all immigrants

I provided a link to excerpted finding from Borjas' book. If you were to have noted the author of the excerpted findings, you'd have seen that George Borjas is the author.

The only persons gaining from illegal immigration are the illegals and their employers. The Economics and Policy of Illegal Immigration in the United States

From the paper you cite:

• You picked the wrong person to whom to present the MPI's 2009 report, "The Economics and Policy of Illegal Immigration in the United States."
  • According to this report by University of California, San Diego Professor of Economics Gordon Hanson, illegal immigration’s overall impact on the U.S. economy is small. The modest net gain that remains after subtracting U.S. workers’ losses from U.S. employers’ gains is tiny....A substantial increase in spending on border and interior enforcement could easily cost far more than the tax savings generated from reducing illegal immigration in the United States. "
    -- Gordon H. Hanson, "The Economics and Policy of Illegal Immigration in the United States"

Need I point out that even a "tiny gain" as goes net economic impact is nonetheless not a loss of any measure?

"You picked the wrong group's paper to cite, although the nonpartisan-to-liberal leaning MPI, as does the ardently conservative Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), relies on Borjas' work. Indeed, that both groups have differing "axes to grind," yet both acknowledge that illegal immigration has a net positive economic impact was quite surprising to me. My surprise at discovering that point of agreement between the two is why I created the following thread: Liberal & Conservative Think Tanks Agree on The Net Economic Impact of Illegal Immigration. Nobody disputes that the net economic impact of illegal immigration, $395B to $475B, is a small sum relative to the size of U.S. GDP, $18.57T, of which it is a part, specifically (eyeballing it) about two percent or less.

You failed to read both the book from Borjas and the report from Hanson.
From the MPI report:

Despite all this, illegal immigration’s overall impact on the US economy is small. Low-skilled native workers who compete with unauthorized immigrants are the clearest losers. US employers, on the other hand, gain from lower labor costs and the ability to use their land, capital, and technology more productively. The stakes are highest for the unauthorized immigrants themselves, who see very substantial income gains after migrating. If we exclude these immigrants from the calculus, however (as domestic policymakers are naturally inclined to do), the small net gain that remains after subtracting US workers’ losses from US employers’ gains is tiny. And if we account for the small fiscal burden that unauthorized immigrants impose,

and

A second important effect of immigration on national income occurs through changes in the net tax burden on US households. Many unauthorized immigrants contribute to government coffers at the local, state, and federal levels by paying income, payroll, property, and sales taxes. They also increase government expenditure by using public services, including fire and police protection, public roads and bridges, publically funded emergency health care, and, most importantly, public education — though not all at the same levels as the native born. Whether illegal immigration causes the tax burden on natives to rise or fall depends on how much income immigrants earn, the size and structure of their families, and whether they receive public benefits. Based on the profile of immigrant households in the US Current Population Survey, households headed by an unauthorized immigrant appear to generate a short-run net fiscal cost of approximately 0.1 percent of US GDP. 24 Adding the small positive immigration surplus to the small negative net fiscal impact, the total short-run change in US national income from illegal immigration is -0.07 percent of GDP. While the value is negative, indicating illegal immigration on net lowers US national income,

Even the Progressive Economist Pual Krugman has stated illegals cost us. All economists are pretty much in agreement on this point.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

People keep talking about the costs, meanwhile it's a drop in the bucket compared to the costs of paying for illegal immigration.

The real question is, really, why is there SO much rage and emotional triggering by the thought of a wall? To me it's as transparent as can be, some realize the ability to turn America socialist and another global shytehole is impacted greatly if they cannot send mass illegal immigration over the border.

I can imagine some heated arguments over abortion, religious freedom, even right to bear arms...but a wall? It's a structure designed to protect your border, what in the hell is wrong with this that so many lose it?

it's a drop in the bucket compared to the costs of paying for illegal immigration.

Reply

Right there is your problem: you seem to have assumed that the net economic impact of illegal immigration is negative. Were you to read the book that contains the foremost and most comprehensive analysis of the economic impact of immigration in the U.S., what you'd find is that illegal immigration has a net positive economic impact on the U.S. economy, positive to the extent of $395 to $472 billion increase in GDP. You will find a brief summary of the findings reported in detail in the book here: Immigration and the American Worker. Reading it, one will the unequivocal statement: "illegal immigrants increased GDP by $395 to $472 billion."

It's nice to talk about costs, and it's nice to talk about gains. When one evaluating the impact of something, however, one must consider the costs and gains and subtract the former from the latter to determine what the net impact is.

The book, no doubt written a factually challenged regressive democrat with an agenda and a paycheck to keep.

Xelor never read the book by Borjas. Borjas is against illegal immigration and clearly states that the only persons benefiting from their labor are the illegals and the employers themselves. Like most sympathetic illegal lovers, Xelor mis-represents what the book says. Xelor knows that what Borjas is stating is that immigration in total (legal and illegals) then there is a surplus, remove the illegals and that surplus is greater, thus illegals cost us GDP yearly to include costs at the local and state levels.

Xelor knows that what Borjas is stating is that immigration in total (legal and illegals) then there is a surplus

You can say that, but that you say it does not make it be so. Read Borjas' paper, which is his literature it is the literature review that he used as the starting point for his book. The paper is: Immigration and the American Worker. What does he say in it?

• Illegal immigrants increased GDP by $395 to $472 billion.
• The immigration surplus or benefit to natives created by illegal immigrants is estimated at around $9 billion a year or 0.06 percent of GDP — six one-hundredths of 1 percent.

What is GDP? It is the result of adding the gains an economy produces and subtracting from them the costs of obtaining those gains. Just as GDP is calculated that way, so too is every element/activity that produces an increase or decrease to GDP. Illegal immigration/immigrants is one of the many elements that affect GDP.

Xelor never read the book by Borjas. Borjas is against illegal immigration

I have never remarked on whether Borjas favors or doesn't favor illegal immigration. All I have ever done is cite his empirical findings regarding the net economic impact of illegal immigration. Notwithstanding Borjas' political stance on illegal immigration, his empirical figures are what they are, and what they are is very clear in Borjas' own words:

• Illegal immigrants increased GDP by $395 to $472 billion.
• The immigration surplus or benefit to natives created by illegal immigrants is estimated at around $9 billion a year or 0.06 percent of GDP — six one-hundredths of 1 percent.

I haven't discussed Borjas' political stance on illegal immigration because I don't care what be his politics. I care only about his research. I don't care about Borjas' political stance because using his research I can form my own political stance.

The fact of the matter is that I don't know anyone -- liberal or conservative -- who is pleased that illegal immigration happens. I certainly don't; however, illegal immigrants are people and they are in the U.S., and that means the first thing I'm going to do is try to figure out whether their being in the U.S. has a quantifiable net impact that is economically positive or economically negative. If there is such an analysis, my stance will be based primarily on the findings of that analysis, which is to say:

• if the net impact is positive, I will advocate for a solution that does not force us to give up that impact, or
• if the net impact is negative, I'll advocate for a solution that as humanely as possible stops the economic "bleeding," as it were.

As goes the mere fact that illegal immigrants status are present in the U.S., I feel no allegiance or obligation to them whatsoever. Accordingly, insofar as they are illegally present, as far as I'm concerned, they are subject to the vicissitudes of cold empiricism. To my way of thinking and as goes my willingness to do something about them and their presence, well, they're just "lucky" that their net economic impact is positive, for were it not, I'd be of a mind to deport them en masse and move on to other things.

In answering the question of what to do about the fact that it has happened and what to do with the people who illegally reside in the U.S., I am of the mind that whatever course we take to address either/both must be one that produces net economic gains in excess of the net economic gains illegal immigrants produce plus the cost of doing whatever "it" be, as illustrated below.

Let G be the nation's economy (GDP).
Let X be an existential person, place or thing that produces $400B worth of the net value of G.
Let Y be an action(s) that costs money to implement and that eliminates X.

For Y to be "worth it," it must at least produce returns greater than $400B + Y.
​

As for why my approach [do not conflate "approach" with "stance"] to doing "whatever" about illegal immigration/immigrants is as I've described above, well, that's because, where/when possible to do so soundly/cogently, I form my conclusions using largely on economic positivist approaches, not using economic normativist approaches.

You still haven't read either the Borjas book or the MPI report. The small net gain is to themselves and the employers (.03% Surplus to GDP - what you are claiming as their net positive effect), over all they have a net impact (-.1% subtract the .03% gain then = -.07% impact to GDP)

You should try reading the book and the report verse relying on bullet points and only a portion of the actual equation. SHRUG

 

[usmbguest5318]

People keep talking about the costs, meanwhile it's a drop in the bucket compared to the costs of paying for illegal immigration.

The real question is, really, why is there SO much rage and emotional triggering by the thought of a wall? To me it's as transparent as can be, some realize the ability to turn America socialist and another global shytehole is impacted greatly if they cannot send mass illegal immigration over the border.

I can imagine some heated arguments over abortion, religious freedom, even right to bear arms...but a wall? It's a structure designed to protect your border, what in the hell is wrong with this that so many lose it?

it's a drop in the bucket compared to the costs of paying for illegal immigration.

Right there is your problem: you seem to have assumed that the net economic impact of illegal immigration is negative. Were you to read the book that contains the foremost and most comprehensive analysis of the economic impact of immigration in the U.S., what you'd find is that illegal immigration has a net positive economic impact on the U.S. economy, positive to the extent of $395 to $472 billion increase in GDP. You will find a brief summary of the findings reported in detail in the book here: Immigration and the American Worker. Reading it, one will the unequivocal statement: "illegal immigrants increased GDP by $395 to $472 billion."

It's nice to talk about costs, and it's nice to talk about gains. When one evaluating the impact of something, however, one must consider the costs and gains and subtract the former from the latter to determine what the net impact is.

You might try reading the book you linked to. Borjas is talking all immigrants, and only legal immigrants are a net positive. Without legal immigrants, illegals by themselves are a net drain, to which Borjas says illegals drive down wages and hurt the poorest of US citizens. Borjas is an adamant economist against illegal immigration. LMFAO

Gordon Hanson and the Migration Policy Institute wrote a report and cited Borjas many times in it, concluding illegals cost US GDP -.1%. The only persons gaining from illegal immigration are the illegals and their employers. The Economics and Policy of Illegal Immigration in the United States

You might try reading the book you linked to. Borjas is talking all immigrants

I provided a link to excerpted finding from Borjas' book. If you were to have noted the author of the excerpted findings, you'd have seen that George Borjas is the author.

The only persons gaining from illegal immigration are the illegals and their employers. The Economics and Policy of Illegal Immigration in the United States

From the paper you cite:

• You picked the wrong person to whom to present the MPI's 2009 report, "The Economics and Policy of Illegal Immigration in the United States."
  • According to this report by University of California, San Diego Professor of Economics Gordon Hanson, illegal immigration’s overall impact on the U.S. economy is small. The modest net gain that remains after subtracting U.S. workers’ losses from U.S. employers’ gains is tiny....A substantial increase in spending on border and interior enforcement could easily cost far more than the tax savings generated from reducing illegal immigration in the United States. "
    -- Gordon H. Hanson, "The Economics and Policy of Illegal Immigration in the United States"

Need I point out that even a "tiny gain" as goes net economic impact is nonetheless not a loss of any measure?

"You picked the wrong group's paper to cite, although the nonpartisan-to-liberal leaning MPI, as does the ardently conservative Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), relies on Borjas' work. Indeed, that both groups have differing "axes to grind," yet both acknowledge that illegal immigration has a net positive economic impact was quite surprising to me. My surprise at discovering that point of agreement between the two is why I created the following thread: Liberal & Conservative Think Tanks Agree on The Net Economic Impact of Illegal Immigration. Nobody disputes that the net economic impact of illegal immigration, $395B to $475B, is a small sum relative to the size of U.S. GDP, $18.57T, of which it is a part, specifically (eyeballing it) about two percent or less.

LMFAO You failed to read both the book from Borjas and the report from Hanson.
From the MPI report:

Despite all this, illegal immigration’s overall impact on the US economy is small. Low-skilled native workers who compete with unauthorized immigrants are the clearest losers. US employers, on the other hand, gain from lower labor costs and the ability to use their land, capital, and technology more productively. The stakes are highest for the unauthorized immigrants themselves, who see very substantial income gains after migrating. If we exclude these immigrants from the calculus, however (as domestic policymakers are naturally inclined to do), the small net gain that remains after subtracting US workers’ losses from US employers’ gains is tiny. And if we account for the small fiscal burden that unauthorized immigrants impose,

and

A second important effect of immigration on national income occurs through changes in the net tax burden on US households. Many unauthorized immigrants contribute to government coffers at the local, state, and federal levels by paying income, payroll, property, and sales taxes. They also increase government expenditure by using public services, including fire and police protection, public roads and bridges, publically funded emergency health care, and, most importantly, public education — though not all at the same levels as the native born. Whether illegal immigration causes the tax burden on natives to rise or fall depends on how much income immigrants earn, the size and structure of their families, and whether they receive public benefits. Based on the profile of immigrant households in the US Current Population Survey, households headed by an unauthorized immigrant appear to generate a short-run net fiscal cost of approximately 0.1 percent of US GDP. 24 Adding the small positive immigration surplus to the small negative net fiscal impact, the total short-run change in US national income from illegal immigration is -0.07 percent of GDP. While the value is negative, indicating illegal immigration on net lowers US national income,

Even the Progressive Economist Pual Krugman has stated illegals cost us. All economists are pretty much in agreement on this point.

Have you lost your mind or are you just a poor reader? Maybe both?

RE: the first passage you quoted:

In the first paragraph you quoted from the executive summary of the paper is found the very sentence I already quoted:

the small net gain that remains after subtracting US workers’ losses from US employers’ gains is tiny

What does that mean? It means there is a net gain, not a net loss. What have I been saying? Only that the net impact of illegal immigration is positive, a gain, not negative, a loss.​

RE: the second passage you quoted:

The emboldened text from the passage you quoted is presented to address this issue:

Whether illegal immigration causes the tax burden on natives to rise or fall

The "tax burden on natives" factor of the overall equation for whether illegal immigration imposes a net cost or net gain is indeed a factor that, like all cost factors, is rightly preceded by a minus sign. I don't take exception with the assertion that the "tax burden on natives" is negative/a cost. My assertion has been and remains that the net impact of illegal immigration on the U.S. economy is positive/a gain.​

You, I or anyone can cite the costs of illegal immigration all day long, but doing so and forming conclusions about illegal immigration's net impact without also citing the gains is to form an unsound/uncogent conclusion.

Sum all the gains (+), sum all the costs (-) net the two and what one will end up with, even using the MPI's data/report is a positive number, not a negative one. That number will be a relatively small number, something in the neighborhood of ~$400B, but it will nonetheless be a positive number. You want me (others?) to look only at one or more costs and form a conclusion, or agree with you, and, quite simply, I'm not going to look only at costs and ignore gains. Period.