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

[BasicHumanUnit]

What part of "A nation without borders is not a nation" can't imbeciles understand?

And really, it does NOT take fancy phrases and over hyped nonsense to know WHY there is so much LEFTIST anger against "the Wall".

The Left CAN ONLY win through deceptive practices. They run on a platform of being immigrant friendly when in fact, the goal is to get their votes to consolidate power ultimately....by whatever means necessary. Millions of illegals promised Utopia and a free ride by the Left deprives Americans of THEIR choice for how they are governed by giving the power of elections to illegal immigrants.

There is no need for all the BS and garbage some here are throwing out to try to defend the illegal tactics of the Left.

Immigrants are nothing but tools to the Left PTB.

 

[Wyatt earp]

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?

The same words the Soviet Union used when they built the Berlin Wall.

It is entirely against the fabric of America.

You bad at history, the Berlin wall was meant to keep people in, goofball


This wall is to keep people out

 

[sedwin]

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?

"Hey Obama....we will give you NOTHING without an offset. However, now that we have total control we will blow a $2 TRILLION dollar hole in the budget so oil exec's don't have to pay taxes, pay billions more on people who no longer have health insurance but will have to use our tax money to pay for their Emergency Room visits and, in honor of Reagan's paradigm "tear down this wall," we will build a wall here". That's the GOP....the party of "We represent nothing at all except what Sean Hannity and Alex Jones happen to scream on their reality TV fantasy shows last night." lmao

 

[Wyatt earp]

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?

"Hey Obama....we will give you NOTHING without an offset. However, now that we have total control we will blow a $2 TRILLION dollar hole in the budget so oil exec's don't have to pay taxes, pay billions more on people who no longer have health insurance but will have to use our tax money to pay for their Emergency Room visits and, in honor of Reagan's paradigm "tear down this wall," we will build a wall here". That's the GOP....the party of "We represent nothing at all except what Sean Hannity and Alex Jones happen to scream on their reality TV fantasy shows last night." lmao

The spin on the left is amazing , the tear down this wall comment was about freedom, west Berlin didn't build that wall to divide their city...

 

[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.

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

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)

Impacts on GDP are impacts that appertain to the whole U.S. economy. Who within that economy specifically reaps those gains is of no consequence to me. I care about U.S. GDP, not your share of it, my share of it, or anyone else's share of it. Indeed, the only thing I've remarked upon is the net impact on GDP. You, apparently, think I've been remarking on something other than that.

From the paper you keep citing:

The arriving labor does contribute to a significantly larger expansion in overall US GDP, as unauthorized workers increase the total amount of output the US economy generates.

 

[Cossack1483]

The (((left))) is determined to race mix Whites with shit holers. Nothing will get in the way of this (((agenda))). Dick (((Turbin's))) recent rant shows the dedication the (((left))) has to mongrelizing a once White Nation.

 

[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.

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.

WOW. SMFH Why do you think I quoted that very portion? Yes it says what you claim, that is why I quoted it, it also explains how that percentage comes about, it is the gain of the employer as I had previously stated.

As to the remainder of your comment, as I previously stated, your conclusion is based on only a portion of the equation. When you ad the .03% gain to the net -.1% impact, you end up with a net impact of .07%. You aren't looking at costs or impacts at all, is my point. The very first sentence in my quote above that you still refuse to acknowledge is: Despite all this, illegal immigration’s overall impact on the US economy is small. (NOTE: it says IMPACT not gain) And you claim either I lost my mind or I am a poor reader? Are you fucking stupid?

 

[Liquid Reigns]

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

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)

Impacts on GDP are impacts that appertain to the whole U.S. economy. Who within that economy specifically reaps those gains is of no consequence to me. I care about U.S. GDP, not your share of it, my share of it, or anyone else's share of it. Indeed, the only thing I've remarked upon is the net impact on GDP. You, apparently, think I've been remarking on something other than that.

From the paper you keep citing:

The arriving labor does contribute to a significantly larger expansion in overall US GDP, as unauthorized workers increase the total amount of output the US economy generates.

You still rely on only portions of the overall equation. You're being disingenuous. SHRUG

 

[usmbguest5318]

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.

WOW. SMFH Why do you think I quoted that very portion? Yes it says what you claim, that is why I quoted it, it also explains how that percentage comes about, it is the gain of the employer as I had previously stated.

As to the remainder of your comment, as I previously stated, your conclusion is based on only a portion of the equation. When you ad the .03% gain to the net -.1% impact, you end up with a net impact of .07%. You aren't looking at costs or impacts at all, is my point. The very first sentence in my quote above that you still refuse to acknowledge is: Despite all this, illegal immigration’s overall impact on the US economy is small. (NOTE: it says IMPACT not gain) And you claim either I lost my mind or I am a poor reader? Are you fucking stupid?

Yes it says what you claim, that is why I quoted it, it also explains how that percentage comes about, it is the gain of the employer as I had previously stated.

And as I stated, I don't care who specifically realizes the gains; I care that the gains accrue to U.S. GDP. That U.S. GDP is increased by the net impact of illegal immigration is what I've been saying all along and it's why have stated that whatever we do about illegal immigration must, to obtain my approbation, comply with the requirements I described toward the end of post 36.

Despite all this, illegal immigration’s overall impact on the US economy is small.

What does it take for you to realize that a small net impact can be either negative (a cost) or positive (a gain)? In this case the small net impact is positive, specifically between $350B and $500B.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

You still rely on only portions of the overall equation. You're being disingenuous. SHRUG

A Leftists being disingenuous ?

Now that's a first.

 

[OldLady]

In the end I don't care if we build a wall or not. I just don't think it's going to do much good. I think we need to increase border security in other more practical areas. Increase manpower, fencing, sensors, etc.

It won't stop illegal immigration, but I think it will probably decrease it quite a bit. As long as we keep things as they are, where illegals can come to this country and easily find steady work, they will continue to find a way in, though. So e-verify, doing something about stolen identities (if our banks can figure out if someone who shouldn't is using our debit/credit card #, why can't they figure out if a SS# if being hijacked?) and throwing employers who knowingly employ illegals in jail are just as necessary as fencing. Perhaps more so. I don't hear the Republicans talking about those things hardly at all. It's all about chasing the "bad guys."

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

What does it take for you to realize that a small net impact can be either negative (a cost) or positive (a gain)? In this case the small net impact is positive, specifically between $350B and $500B.

I'm beginning to believe you are some sort of PAID troll

You seem to have to much passion for the advancement of illegal immigration without a corresponding concern for it's negative impacts on American citizens

A-G-E-N-D-A

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

It won't stop illegal immigration, but I think it will probably decrease it quite a bit. As long as we keep things as they are, where illegals can come to this country and easily find steady work, they will continue to find a way in, though. So e-verify, doing something about stolen identities (if our banks can figure out if someone who shouldn't is using our debit/credit card #, why can't they figure out if a SS# if being hijacked?) and throwing employers who knowingly employ illegals in jail are just as necessary as fencing. Perhaps more so. I don't hear the Republicans talking about those things hardly at all. It's all about chasing the "bad guys."

You're either kidding or uninformed.

You fail to add that the vast majority of illegal immigration takes place in largely Leftist controlled areas. It is in those areas where enforcement is difficult if not discouraged......ie...California, NewYork, Chicago etc.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

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.

WOW. SMFH Why do you think I quoted that very portion? Yes it says what you claim, that is why I quoted it, it also explains how that percentage comes about, it is the gain of the employer as I had previously stated.

As to the remainder of your comment, as I previously stated, your conclusion is based on only a portion of the equation. When you ad the .03% gain to the net -.1% impact, you end up with a net impact of .07%. You aren't looking at costs or impacts at all, is my point. The very first sentence in my quote above that you still refuse to acknowledge is: Despite all this, illegal immigration’s overall impact on the US economy is small. (NOTE: it says IMPACT not gain) And you claim either I lost my mind or I am a poor reader? Are you fucking stupid?

Yes it says what you claim, that is why I quoted it, it also explains how that percentage comes about, it is the gain of the employer as I had previously stated.

And as I stated, I don't care who specifically realizes the gains; I care that the gains accrue to U.S. GDP. That U.S. GDP is increased by the net impact of illegal immigration is what I've been saying all along and it's why have stated that whatever we do about illegal immigration must, to obtain my approbation, comply with the requirements I described toward the end of post 36.

Despite all this, illegal immigration’s overall impact on the US economy is small.

What does it take for you to realize that a small net impact can be either negative (a cost) or positive (a gain)? In this case the small net impact is positive, specifically between $350B and $500B.

What's it gonna take for you to accept that the small gain of .03% is then reduced by the impact of .1% equating to an overall IMPACT of -.07% to GDP? I gave you the entire equation and you still try to claim only the portion of the equation you want to acknowledge. SMFH

 

[Liquid Reigns]

It won't stop illegal immigration, but I think it will probably decrease it quite a bit. As long as we keep things as they are, where illegals can come to this country and easily find steady work, they will continue to find a way in, though. So e-verify, doing something about stolen identities (if our banks can figure out if someone who shouldn't is using our debit/credit card #, why can't they figure out if a SS# if being hijacked?) and throwing employers who knowingly employ illegals in jail are just as necessary as fencing. Perhaps more so. I don't hear the Republicans talking about those things hardly at all. It's all about chasing the "bad guys."

In most situations, i.e. large corporations, it is the HR officers that are violating the hiring laws, or they are being directed by cheating District Managers looking to climb the corporate ladder (Asplundh recently). E-verify should be mandated, as it will catch/deny a good majority, of the illegals.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

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?

The same words the Soviet Union used when they built the Berlin Wall.

It is entirely against the fabric of America.

Wrong. You don't have a wall on the Canadian border, because it isn't a sieve. If it was, you should put one up. As it were you have some pressing major problems with Canada unrelated but that's neither here nor there.

Clearly you must understand the difference between a wall designed to keep people out, which the wall on your southern border will accomplish, versus a wall designed to keep people in, oppress and limit movement of their own citizens, as the Berlin Wall achieved.

There is far more border patrol already along the southern border. You act as if it is undefended and anyone can just walk across. Not by a long shot.

LOL....the ranches I hunted on the border in Texas were wide open.
Hell,when I lived in Junction Tx,about 100 miles from the border, I called ICE a bunch of times on mexicans walking down the river.

 

[Wyatt earp]

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?

The same words the Soviet Union used when they built the Berlin Wall.

It is entirely against the fabric of America.

Wrong. You don't have a wall on the Canadian border, because it isn't a sieve. If it was, you should put one up. As it were you have some pressing major problems with Canada unrelated but that's neither here nor there.

Clearly you must understand the difference between a wall designed to keep people out, which the wall on your southern border will accomplish, versus a wall designed to keep people in, oppress and limit movement of their own citizens, as the Berlin Wall achieved.

There is far more border patrol already along the southern border. You act as if it is undefended and anyone can just walk across. Not by a long shot.

That's the most stupest post this week.

 

[OldLady]

It won't stop illegal immigration, but I think it will probably decrease it quite a bit. As long as we keep things as they are, where illegals can come to this country and easily find steady work, they will continue to find a way in, though. So e-verify, doing something about stolen identities (if our banks can figure out if someone who shouldn't is using our debit/credit card #, why can't they figure out if a SS# if being hijacked?) and throwing employers who knowingly employ illegals in jail are just as necessary as fencing. Perhaps more so. I don't hear the Republicans talking about those things hardly at all. It's all about chasing the "bad guys."

You're either kidding or uninformed.

You fail to add that the vast majority of illegal immigration takes place in largely Leftist controlled areas. It is in those areas where enforcement is difficult if not discouraged......ie...California, NewYork, Chicago etc.

Okay. Sanctuary cities are pretty low on my list, because ICE can come in and do its work without being actually stopped. Sanctuary cities simply don't get involved in the feds' work. If ICE doesn't show up to pick up a guy who has been arrested on another crime when he is released from jail, should it be the local jail's responsibility to keep the guy an extra couple of days on the local's dime while ICE gets around to it? I can also see why cops don't ask if someone is legal or illegal when they are investigating a crime. They need people to come forward and speak to them. If illegals were questioned and then arrested for that, they wouldn't come forward. Since some of gangs are active in communities with a lot of illegal immigrants, trying to kick out MS13 would be even harder without the neighborhood's cooperation. We need to listen to law enforcement when they insist on that. It is not a left or a right position--it is simply realistic.

 

[OldLady]

It won't stop illegal immigration, but I think it will probably decrease it quite a bit. As long as we keep things as they are, where illegals can come to this country and easily find steady work, they will continue to find a way in, though. So e-verify, doing something about stolen identities (if our banks can figure out if someone who shouldn't is using our debit/credit card #, why can't they figure out if a SS# if being hijacked?) and throwing employers who knowingly employ illegals in jail are just as necessary as fencing. Perhaps more so. I don't hear the Republicans talking about those things hardly at all. It's all about chasing the "bad guys."

In most situations, i.e. large corporations, it is the HR officers that are violating the hiring laws, or they are being directed by cheating District Managers looking to climb the corporate ladder (Asplundh recently). E-verify should be mandated, as it will catch/deny a good majority, of the illegals.

Question: Will everyone need an e-verify whatever now? I don't know what it is. When I've applied for jobs the past years, I've needed to show my license and my birth certificate. Will I have to get something else if I apply for another job?

 

[Wyatt earp]

It won't stop illegal immigration, but I think it will probably decrease it quite a bit. As long as we keep things as they are, where illegals can come to this country and easily find steady work, they will continue to find a way in, though. So e-verify, doing something about stolen identities (if our banks can figure out if someone who shouldn't is using our debit/credit card #, why can't they figure out if a SS# if being hijacked?) and throwing employers who knowingly employ illegals in jail are just as necessary as fencing. Perhaps more so. I don't hear the Republicans talking about those things hardly at all. It's all about chasing the "bad guys."

You're either kidding or uninformed.

You fail to add that the vast majority of illegal immigration takes place in largely Leftist controlled areas. It is in those areas where enforcement is difficult if not discouraged......ie...California, NewYork, Chicago etc.

Okay. Sanctuary cities are pretty low on my list, because ICE can come in and do its work without being actually stopped. Sanctuary cities simply don't get involved in the feds' work. If ICE doesn't show up to pick up a guy who has been arrested on another crime when he is released from jail, should it be the local jail's responsibility to keep the guy an extra couple of days on the local's dime while ICE gets around to it? I can also see why cops don't ask if someone is legal or illegal when they are investigating a crime. They need people to come forward and speak to them. If illegals were questioned and then arrested for that, they wouldn't come forward. Since some of gangs are active in communities with a lot of illegal immigrants, trying to kick out MS13 would be even harder without the neighborhood's cooperation. We need to listen to law enforcement when they insist on that. It is not a left or a right position--it is simply realistic.

You didn't hear about California's law against business , they will fine company's if they cooperate with ICE...



These lawmakers really need to go to jail.

Under a new state law – the Immigration Worker Protection Act – employers and businesses could face fines of up to $10,000 if they provide employee information to U.S. Immigration Customs, Becerra said. ... Under California's sanctuary laws, local police are restricted from cooperating with federal immigration authorities.10 hours ago
California AG: 'We will prosecute' employers who violate sanctuary ...
Fox News › 2018/01/19 › califo...