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

[well named]

Because you are PURPOSELY conflating legal and illegal immigration

You should attempt to substantiate this claim, and also to show where it matters to the claims I'm making. So for example I cited Peri (2007) in relation to worker complementarity. That research does not distinguish directly between legal and illegal immigrants, but I cited it in response to your assertion about poor illegal immigrants being bad for the economy. The operative word there is really poor, not illegal, and Peri does research labor market impacts across different educational and income levels, thus you can see the data for poorer immigrants specifically, who in California are going to be mostly illegal. I've already pointed out that Allen et al. (2018) explicitly deals with illegal immigration specifically.

Beyond that, one of the points I have made repeatedly is that these cost estimates you've cited depend on estimating costs associated with providing services to the children of illegal immigrants, without estimating the economic benefits of having those children grow up in the US. But those children are also very often US citizens. That does not make their economic contributions less valid, and it's still misleading to exclude them from the analysis, because the economic consequences are directly related to illegal immigration. On this particular question it doesn't really make a lot of sense to consider exclusively their illegal parents in a vacuum, if you want to understand the economic impact.

 

[danielpalos]

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

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

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

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

It's pretty pathetic.

We don't have an immigration problem we have a naturalization problem.

 

[DandyDonovan]

Because you are PURPOSELY conflating legal and illegal immigration

You should attempt to substantiate this claim, and also to show where it matters to the claims I'm making. So for example I cited Peri (2007) in relation to worker complementarity. That research does not distinguish directly between legal and illegal immigrants, but I cited it in response to your assertion about poor illegal immigrants being bad for the economy. The operative word there is really poor, not illegal, and Peri does research labor market impacts across different educational and income levels, thus you can see the data for poorer immigrants specifically, who in California are going to be mostly illegal. I've already pointed out that Allen et al. (2018) explicitly deals with illegal immigration specifically.

Beyond that, one of the points I have made repeatedly is that these cost estimates you've cited depend on estimating costs associated with providing services to the children of illegal immigrants, without estimating the economic benefits of having those children grow up in the US. But those children are also very often US citizens. That does not make their economic contributions less valid, and it's still misleading to exclude them from the analysis, because the economic consequences are directly related to illegal immigration. On this particular question it doesn't really make a lot of sense to consider exclusively their illegal parents in a vacuum, if you want to understand the economic impact.

Look, we both know that 12M poor illegal immigrants into this country costs the tax payer money.

If you want to argue that the benefits outweigh those costs , fine. But to ignore facts well that's dishonest and I'll have no further part in it.

 

[well named]

Look, we both know that 12M poor illegal immigrants into this country costs the tax payer money. If you want to argue that the benefits outweigh those costs , fine.

You've literally just restated my argument. So it's bizarre to accuse me of ignoring facts which I've explicitly stated, and even provided supporting documentation for. Whether or not you participate in this conversation is entirely up to you, but I think it's fair to point out that so far you haven't really participated in a constructive way. You're clearly not really reading what I'm writing, and you're not trying to engage with it except in a very superficial way. You accuse me of dishonesty but you can't actually point to any specific way in which I've been dishonest. Instead of supporting your claims you appeal to "common sense". Instead of debating my claims you just ignore them.

 

[danielpalos]

Because you are PURPOSELY conflating legal and illegal immigration

You should attempt to substantiate this claim, and also to show where it matters to the claims I'm making. So for example I cited Peri (2007) in relation to worker complementarity. That research does not distinguish directly between legal and illegal immigrants, but I cited it in response to your assertion about poor illegal immigrants being bad for the economy. The operative word there is really poor, not illegal, and Peri does research labor market impacts across different educational and income levels, thus you can see the data for poorer immigrants specifically, who in California are going to be mostly illegal. I've already pointed out that Allen et al. (2018) explicitly deals with illegal immigration specifically.

Beyond that, one of the points I have made repeatedly is that these cost estimates you've cited depend on estimating costs associated with providing services to the children of illegal immigrants, without estimating the economic benefits of having those children grow up in the US. But those children are also very often US citizens. That does not make their economic contributions less valid, and it's still misleading to exclude them from the analysis, because the economic consequences are directly related to illegal immigration. On this particular question it doesn't really make a lot of sense to consider exclusively their illegal parents in a vacuum, if you want to understand the economic impact.

Look, we both know that 12M poor illegal immigrants into this country costs the tax payer money.

If you want to argue that the benefits outweigh those costs , fine. But to ignore facts well that's dishonest and I'll have no further part in it.

let's raise the minimum wage.

 

[DandyDonovan]

Because you are PURPOSELY conflating legal and illegal immigration

You should attempt to substantiate this claim, and also to show where it matters to the claims I'm making. So for example I cited Peri (2007) in relation to worker complementarity. That research does not distinguish directly between legal and illegal immigrants, but I cited it in response to your assertion about poor illegal immigrants being bad for the economy. The operative word there is really poor, not illegal, and Peri does research labor market impacts across different educational and income levels, thus you can see the data for poorer immigrants specifically, who in California are going to be mostly illegal. I've already pointed out that Allen et al. (2018) explicitly deals with illegal immigration specifically.

Beyond that, one of the points I have made repeatedly is that these cost estimates you've cited depend on estimating costs associated with providing services to the children of illegal immigrants, without estimating the economic benefits of having those children grow up in the US. But those children are also very often US citizens. That does not make their economic contributions less valid, and it's still misleading to exclude them from the analysis, because the economic consequences are directly related to illegal immigration. On this particular question it doesn't really make a lot of sense to consider exclusively their illegal parents in a vacuum, if you want to understand the economic impact.

Look, we both know that 12M poor illegal immigrants into this country costs the tax payer money.

If you want to argue that the benefits outweigh those costs , fine. But to ignore facts well that's dishonest and I'll have no further part in it.

let's raise the minimum wage.

Once again one has to read one of your posts and think "WTF is he talking about?"

 

[danielpalos]

Because you are PURPOSELY conflating legal and illegal immigration

You should attempt to substantiate this claim, and also to show where it matters to the claims I'm making. So for example I cited Peri (2007) in relation to worker complementarity. That research does not distinguish directly between legal and illegal immigrants, but I cited it in response to your assertion about poor illegal immigrants being bad for the economy. The operative word there is really poor, not illegal, and Peri does research labor market impacts across different educational and income levels, thus you can see the data for poorer immigrants specifically, who in California are going to be mostly illegal. I've already pointed out that Allen et al. (2018) explicitly deals with illegal immigration specifically.

Beyond that, one of the points I have made repeatedly is that these cost estimates you've cited depend on estimating costs associated with providing services to the children of illegal immigrants, without estimating the economic benefits of having those children grow up in the US. But those children are also very often US citizens. That does not make their economic contributions less valid, and it's still misleading to exclude them from the analysis, because the economic consequences are directly related to illegal immigration. On this particular question it doesn't really make a lot of sense to consider exclusively their illegal parents in a vacuum, if you want to understand the economic impact.

Look, we both know that 12M poor illegal immigrants into this country costs the tax payer money.

If you want to argue that the benefits outweigh those costs , fine. But to ignore facts well that's dishonest and I'll have no further part in it.

let's raise the minimum wage.

Once again one has to read one of your posts and think "WTF is he talking about?"

i try to keep it simple for the right wing.