Immigration issue: legal vs. illegal and, more generally, how about the utility of it to the rest of us?

[BackAgain]

Immigration issue: legal vs. illegal and, more generally, how about the utility of it to the rest of us?



I agree with what Milton Friedman said ^ so clearly, back then in 1978.

My Summary: “Free immigration” before 1914 was the norm, and evidently it was supported by most Americans. But later on, many (maybe most) Americans now see as wrong and as unworkable that same “free immigration.”

The explanation is that when immigration takes place, now, under what has become a welfare state to a large degree, the financial needs of the immigrants are met and guaranteed by the government (meaning by the taxpayers). So a flood of immigrants, (largely illegal immigrants, at that, I would add) can take a lot from us but offer us little, if anything, in return.

It is straightforward and I submit obvious and logical.

Who disagrees? On, if you do disagree, on what basis or bases do you disagree.

 

[Donald H]

Deporting immigrants is exactly contrary to America's need for cheap and affordable labour.

For that reason both sides of the one big political party were remaining silent about the issues.

As it stands with the obsessions over gays, the more involved employers of illegal labourers, become the most vocal.

Wasn't Trump himself caught redhanded?

 

[Winston]

Immigration issue: legal vs. illegal and, more generally, how about the utility of it to the rest of us?



I agree with what Milton Friedman said ^ so clearly, back then in 1978.

My Summary: “Free immigration” before 1914 was the norm, and evidently it was supported by most Americans. But later on, many (maybe most) Americans now see as wrong and as unworkable that same “free immigration.”

The explanation is that when immigration takes place, now, under what has become a welfare state to a large degree, the financial needs of the immigrants are met and guaranteed by the government (meaning by the taxpayers). So a flood of immigrants, (largely illegal immigrants, at that, I would add) can take a lot from us but offer us little, if anything, in return.

It is straightforward and I submit obvious and logical.

Who disagrees? On, if you do disagree, on what basis or bases do you disagree.

Yes, Friedman was straightforward. But I don't think you are getting what he was saying. For instance,

Look, for example, at the obvious, immediate, practical example of illegal Mexican immigration. Now, that Mexican immigration, over the border, is a good thing. It’s a good thing for the illegal immigrants. It’s a good thing for the United States. It’s a good thing for the citizens of the country. But, it’s only good so long as it’s illegal.
I will keep this short and go with this quote.

Anyone really committed to Friedman’s stated view about welfare and immigration should by no means try to restrict immigration, but instead should try to enable illegal immigration. A devout Friedmanite should stand stoutly against every fence, every border cop, every increase in the INS budget, any proposed database check for a new workers’ legal status, etc.

Private Site

www.willwilkinson.net

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

Deporting immigrants is exactly contrary to America's need for cheap and affordable labour.

For that reason both sides of the one big political party were remaining silent about the issues.

As it stands with the obsessions over gays, the more involved employers of illegal labourers, become the most vocal.

Wasn't Trump himself caught redhanded?

.

So you support slavery.





.

 

[BackAgain]

Yes, Friedman was straightforward. But I don't think you are getting what he was saying. For instance,

Look, for example, at the obvious, immediate, practical example of illegal Mexican immigration. Now, that Mexican immigration, over the border, is a good thing. It’s a good thing for the illegal immigrants. It’s a good thing for the United States. It’s a good thing for the citizens of the country. But, it’s only good so long as it’s illegal.
I will keep this short and go with this quote.

Anyone really committed to Friedman’s stated view about welfare and immigration should by no means try to restrict immigration, but instead should try to enable illegal immigration. A devout Friedmanite should stand stoutly against every fence, every border cop, every increase in the INS budget, any proposed database check for a new workers’ legal status, etc.

Private Site

www.willwilkinson.net

A more ridiculous post from you would be hard to imagine.

Sure. We should “encourage” illegal immigration.

 

[Winston]

A more ridiculous post from you would be hard to imagine.

Sure. We should “encourage” illegal immigration’s.

Did you not start this thread wanting to discuss Friedman's take on illegal immigration? Did you even bother to watch the entire speech, or really any of it at all. By making immigration illegal we disconnect the welfare state from the immigrant, we return the illegal immigrant back to the way the country was before 1913. The illegal has no access to the "welfare" state. And in no small way, we are at that point now. Illegals are not eligible for Medicaid except in a few states, nor are the eligible for SNAP benefits. In some cases, they are eligible for emergency health care funding, but that is another topic we can talk about.

Nope, Biden's approach seems much closer to Friedman's view than Trump's, that is the first topic at hand.

 

[BackAgain]

Did you not start this thread wanting to discuss Friedman's take on illegal immigration?

Discuss away. That doesn’t mean I can’t mock a ridiculous reply urging us to encourage illegal immigration.

Did you even bother to watch the entire speech, or really any of it at all.

Why ask? You wouldn’t believe regardless of the fact that I did which is exactly why I posted it. Stop being a mindless drone troll.

By making immigration illegal we disconnect the welfare state from the immigrant, we return the illegal immigrant back to the way the country was before 1913.

We don’t make immigration illegal. We have made immigration a thing that now comes with laws, rules and regulations rather than just simply making a journey to a place like Ellis Island. The US already has the most accepting immigration of any nation on Earth. It isn’t too much to ask that anyone seeking to come here comply with our laws in the process.

We DO want to “disconnect” illegal aliens from obtaining any benefits of our economic welfare policies (excepting, as we do, access to health care which is both humane of us and also helpful to us to try to avoid contagions).

“Returning” those who enter or remain here
Illegally to their points of origin is deportation. Although a slightly different topic, I will say that deportation is a proper remedy for the US to impose on illegal aliens.

The illegal has no access to the "welfare" state.

Horseshit.

While they may be legally barred from enrollment in “Welfare” programs, some manage to obtain it anyway. It’s a crime, of course. But so was sneaking over our border in the first place. So the concern of some of our illegal aliens is clearly not about such quaint notions as not committing criminal acts.

Even so, your comment was false:

Benefits They Are Entitled To by Law

Even undocumented immigrants must be allowed access to certain benefits and services:

1. Emergency Medical Care
   
   • Medicaid emergency services are available regardless of status (42 U.S.C. § 1396b(v)(2)).
   • This includes labor and delivery.
2. Disaster Relief
   
   • Short-term, in-kind, non-cash emergency disaster relief is available (e.g., FEMA aid).
3. Public Health Programs
   
   • Immunizations and treatment of communicable diseases are available regardless of status.
   • Federal law ensures this to protect public health.
4. Education (K–12)
   
   • Plyler v. Doe (1982): Supreme Court ruled that states cannot deny undocumented children access to free public elementary and secondary schooling.
5. Nutrition & School Programs for Children
   
   • School lunch and breakfast programs are open to all children, regardless of status.
6. Other Narrow Services
   
   • Certain community-level in-kind services (e.g., soup kitchens, shelters) are generally available, since they are not classified as “federal means-tested benefits.”

Excerpted from an AI but case citations are included therein, in part. Hu

And in no small way, we are at that point now. Illegals are not eligible for Medicaid except in a few states, nor are the eligible for SNAP benefits. In some cases, they are eligible for emergency health care funding, but that is another topic we can talk about.

Nope. See above.

Nope, Biden's approach seems much closer to Friedman's view than Trump's, that is the first topic at hand.

No. It doesn’t. And,in any event, the point made by Friedman was — to a large degree — that where we choose to allow immigration, it makes sense where it involves a benefit to us. (Not talking about “asylum” cases on that one.)

It doesn’t make sense when those immigrants become a burden on us. In fact, we still try to ensure that legal immigrants won’t become a financial burden on the rest of the population.

 

[Winston]

Discuss away. That doesn’t mean I can’t mock a ridiculous reply urging us to encourage illegal immigration.

Why ask? You wouldn’t believe regardless of the fact that I did which is exactly why I posted it. Stop being a mindless drone troll.

Then why do you ignore the last part, about illegal immigration being good.

We don’t make immigration illegal. We have made immigration a thing that now comes with laws, rules and regulations rather than just simply making a journey to a place like Ellis Island. The US already has the most accepting immigration of any nation on Earth. It isn’t too much to ask that anyone seeking to come here comply with our laws in the process.

Once again, how would the libertarian Friedman feel about those rules and regulations? I would contend that if he did not outright oppose them he would at least be very lax in the enforcement of them. I mean it is complete cognitive dissonance to contend, on one hand, that the government needs to stay out of the "free market", while, on the other hand, allowing the government to actually pick and choose it's citizens. Why can't the "free market" control immigration? And if you think that the United States has the most accepting immigration policy on Earth I would suggest you Google "Schengen Area".

We DO want to “disconnect” illegal aliens from obtaining any benefits of our economic welfare policies (excepting, as we do, access to health care which is both humane of us and also helpful to us to try to avoid contagions).

“Returning” those who enter or remain here
Illegally to their points of origin is deportation. Although a slightly different topic, I will say that deportation is a proper remedy for the US to impose on illegal aliens.

Yes, let's leave deportation out of this discussion. Now, lets talk about those benefits. You have already conceded the Public Health Programs and I commend you for that. But let's look at the rest--emergency medical benefits, including labor and delivery. Well, as per the Constitution, at least as it is currently interpreted by the SCOTUS, those "births" are of American citizens. And if one is against abortion one also has to provide for the mother. So let's strike that off the "cost" of illegals. Disaster relief, you have to either be a citizen or have legal status to qualify for FEMA aid, let's strike that off the list. Education, that one really gets me. Education is state controlled and for the most part, locally financed through property and sales taxes. Do illegals pay property and sales taxes. Why yes, yes they do. Let's strike that off the list. Nutrition programs like in schools. As noted, illegals do not qualify for SNAP benefits, perhaps they do qualify for free school lunches. But my position is that all school lunches should be free, regardless of income, let alone citizenship status. And in some districts, with a certain percentage of students on free lunch, it is free for everyone regardless of income. And the other programs are both insignificant and rarely federally funded.

No. It doesn’t. And,in any event, the point made by Friedman was — to a large degree — that where we choose to allow immigration, it makes sense where it involves a benefit to us. (Not talking about “asylum” cases on that one.)

It doesn’t make sense when those immigrants become a burden on us. In fact, we still try to ensure that legal immigrants won’t become a financial burden on the rest of the population.

Persactly, we choose to allow immigration because it benefits us. And, for most economists, the case is pretty clear. It does benefit us. I mean let me place this on the table if you are willing to discuss.

Effects of the Surge in Immigration on State and Local Budgets in 2023

At a Glance In this report, the Congressional Budget Office estimates how the surge in immigration that began in 2021 affected state and local budgets in 2023. In addition to estimating the direct effects of the surge, CBO calculated an alternative measure that includes the potential broader or...

www.cbo.gov

• Direct Effects. The surge led to a direct increase in revenues of $10.1 billion, primarily from sales taxes, and a direct increase in spending of $19.3 billion, chiefly for public elementary and secondary education, shelter and related services, and border security. The result was a direct net cost of $9.2 billion in 2023, amounting to 0.3 percent of state and local spending (net of federal grants-in-aid).
• Potential Effects. In addition to those direct effects, CBO’s alternative measure accounts for expected increases in property tax revenues, additional tax revenues from greater economic activity, and nonbudgetary costs associated with greater demand for government services. By that measure, the surge in immigration had the potential to increase revenues by $18.8 billion and spending by $28.6 billion, resulting in a potential net cost to state and local governments of $9.8 billion in 2023.

As you can see, this study only applies to the "surge", call it the Biden surge, and it contends that there was a cost. My position is that the numbers are deeply flawed, alternate studies have indicated that there was a net positive benefit, the immigration benefited us. So let's examine why the different conclusions.

 

[BackAgain]

Then why do you ignore the last part, about illegal immigration being good.

It isn’t.

By the way, you’re entirely too verbose. Seriously, go for brevity.

Once again, how would the libertarian Friedman feel about those rules and regulations?

And that matters how? If he says he would handle it in some other way, am I obligated to agree with him just because I found his main argument to be compelling?

I would contend that if he did not outright oppose them he would at least be very lax in the enforcement of them.

I’m not interested in your speculations.

I mean it is complete cognitive dissonance to contend, on one hand, that the government needs to stay out of the "free market", while, on the other hand, allowing the government to actually pick and choose it's citizens.

Apples and oranges. Humans are products or raw material.

Why can't the "free market" control immigration?

It isn’t a free market matter.

And if you think that the United States has the most accepting immigration policy on Earth I would suggest you Google "Schengen Area".

No thanks. Use your words. Again, be brief.

Yes, let's leave deportation out of this discussion. Now, let’s talk about those benefits. You have already conceded the Public Health Programs and I commend you for that.

Oh good. What a relief.

But let's look at the rest--emergency medical benefits, including labor and delivery. Well, as per the Constitution, at least as it is currently interpreted by the SCOTUS, those "births" are of American citizens.

So what? Do you claim the mothers are being denied care for birthing? If so, you’re being absurd.

And if one is against abortion one also has to provide for the mother. So let's strike that off the "cost" of illegals.

It’s not even on the list. You’re being absurd.

As for the balance of your overly lengthy post, I’ll defer it to later for the sake of brevity. Maybe I’ll address the balance of your post later.

But first a hint. The same general answer applies.

 

[Winston]

So what? Do you claim the mothers are being denied care for birthing? If so, you’re being absurd.

It’s not even on the list. You’re being absurd.

No, it is on the "list", the list of costs associated with illegal immigrants. Including the medical cost of delivering healthy American citizens which cannot be counted as a cost of illegal immigration. The same holds true for the cost of educating those children, and even the children born outside of the US but within our boundaries.

As for the balance of your overly lengthy post, I’ll defer it to later for the sake of brevity. Maybe I’ll address the balance of your post later.

But first a hint. The same general answer applies.

And what is that general answer, that Friedman claims immigration must be a economic plus for the United States in order for it to be accepted? I am more than fine with that because it IS an economic plus. We have already eliminated the public health spending from the equation. It appears we may have eliminated the birthing expenses from the equation. I believe I have made a strong argument to eliminate the educational expenses from the equation from simply a financing standpoint, illegals pay sales and property taxes, the bulk of the financing for public education. Besides, what would you do, tell the children of illegals they can't go to school. That don't seem very bright. And the spending on healthcare outside of pregnancy and childbirth, I am more than willing to argue that expense is grossly overstated.

The real takeaway is right there in the recent CBO report I linked concerning the cost of the "Biden" influx in immigration. .3%, which is thirty cents out of every hundred dollars in state and local tax revenues. And the majority of those expenses, well WE have eliminated the bulk of them and I am just getting started. It is absolutely delusional to think that minimal cost is not outweighed by the benefits those immigrants provide.

 

[BackAgain]

No, it is on the "list", the list of costs associated with illegal immigrants. Including the medical cost of delivering healthy American citizens which cannot be counted as a cost of illegal immigration.

You’re making up terms and lack the ability to retain information. There are many costs associated with illegal immigration. No, that doesn’t include “healthy Americans citizen [sic] …. “

One: if they weren’t here in the first place, genius, then they couldn’t be costing taxpayers anything for medical service.

Two: It is also uncertain whether the SCOTUS will eventually agree with President Trump’s legal team re: the “meaning” of the 14th Amendment somehow makes an illegal alien’s baby — who is born here after mom (at least) has illegally come her — a “citizen.” I speculate, sometimes, also. And my hunch is that the prior and current “understanding” regarding “birthright citizenships” for illegal alien moms — is about to fall.

The same holds true for the cost of educating those children, and even the children born outside of the US but within our boundaries.

But it doesn’t hold true. U.S. taxpayers wouldn’t be compelled to bear the excess cost of the illegal aliens did not come here in the first place.

And what is that general answer, that Friedman claims immigration must be an economic plus for the United States in order for it to be accepted?

He was addressing the economic impact of we can call open borders. And, obviously, there are economic impacts from aliens massively but illegally coming here, and some of them aren’t even just extra tax burdens.

I am more than fine with that because it IS an economic plus.

Highly debatable.

We have already eliminated the public health spending from the equation.

No; we have not. Again: we wouldn’t be bearing their costs at all if they didn’t enter and/or remain here illegally.

It appears we may have eliminated the birthing expenses from the equation.

Again: wrong. WE wouldn’t be compelled to bear THEIR “birthing costs,” at all, if they weren’t here at all.

I believe I have made a strong argument to eliminate the educational expenses from the equation from simply a financing standpoint, illegals pay sales and property taxes, the bulk of the financing for public education.

Your belief is misguided: You use many false premises: You seem to believe that paying some taxes (like point of sale “sales taxes”) is sufficient. No. It sure as hell is not. Many (perhaps most) don’t pay income taxes for obvious reasons such as leaving a massive electronically recorded paper trail of their illegal status.) And what about property taxes? Etc.

Besides, what would you do, tell the children of illegals they can't go to school.

No. What I’d do is send them back home.

That don't seem very bright.

You aren’t.

And the spending on healthcare outside of pregnancy and childbirth, I am more than willing to argue that expense is grossly overstated.

Good for you.

The real takeaway is right there in the recent CBO report I linked concerning the cost of the "Biden" influx in immigration. .3%, which is thirty cents out of every hundred dollars in state and local tax revenues. And the majority of those expenses, well WE have eliminated the bulk of them and I am just getting started. It is absolutely delusional to think that minimal cost is not outweighed by the benefits those immigrants provide.

CBO reports are often less reliable than meteorological forecasts. So your supposedly “real take” is a flop. A real flop.

 

[Winston]

You’re making up terms and lack the ability to retain information. There are many costs associated with illegal immigration. No, that doesn’t include “healthy Americans citizen [sic] …. “

One: if they weren’t here in the first place, genius, then they couldn’t be costing taxpayers anything for medical service.

Two: It is also uncertain whether the SCOTUS will eventually agree with President Trump’s legal team re: the “meaning” of the 14th Amendment somehow makes an illegal alien’s baby — who is born here after mom (at least) has illegally come her — a “citizen.” I speculate, sometimes, also. And my hunch is that the prior and current “understanding” regarding “birthright citizenships” for illegal alien moms — is about to fall.

But it doesn’t hold true. U.S. taxpayers wouldn’t be compelled to bear the excess cost of the illegal aliens did not come here in the first place.

He was addressing the economic impact of we can call open borders. And, obviously, there are economic impacts from aliens massively but illegally coming here, and some of them aren’t even just extra tax burdens.

Highly debatable.

No; we have not. Again: we wouldn’t be bearing their costs at all if they didn’t enter and/or remain here illegally.

Again: wrong. WE wouldn’t be compelled to bear THEIR “birthing costs,” at all, if they weren’t here at all.

If a frog had wings he wouldn't bump his ass every time he took a hop.

Your belief is misguided: You use many false premises: You seem to believe that paying some taxes (like point of sale “sales taxes”) is sufficient. No. It sure as hell is not. Many (perhaps most) don’t pay income taxes for obvious reasons such as leaving a massive electronically recorded paper trail of their illegal status.) And what about property taxes? Etc.

"Some" taxes? Let me show you how this is supposed to work.

the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, the undocumented population in 2022 paid almost $97 billion in taxes, with over $54 billion in payments to the federal government and more than $37 billion paid out to states and localities. Put another way, the U.S. stands to lose $8.9 billion in tax revenue for every 1 million undocumented immigrants who are sent out of this country under a program of mass deportation.

Undocumented Immigrants Pay More Than Their Fair Share of Taxes

Undocumented immigrants help fund teacher salaries, road and bridge repairs and other local quality-of-life improvements. They also pay into vital programs that make up our social safety net (including Social Security, Medicare and unemployment insurance) even though they will likely never see...

itep.org

As to not paying federal income taxes, 40% of American households pay no federal income tax. Property taxes--

In 2023, immigrant households paid over $167 billion in rent in the housing market, and held over $6.6 trillion in housing wealth.

New Data: Immigrants Keep Economy Strong, As Congress Considers Wasting Billions on Mass Deportation - American Immigration Council

New data shows how immigrants are contributing billions of dollars to the U.S. economy, even as the Trump administration and Congress are pushing for unprecedented funding for mass deportation.

www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org

No. What I’d do is send them back home.

You aren’t.

Good for you.

CBO reports are often less reliable than meteorological forecasts. So your supposedly “real take” is a flop. A real flop.

You took one quote from Friedman totally out of context and initiated this thread. Your attempts at defending that quote amount to little more than "wouldn't" and "if". And the real context of Friedman's message is that immigration is acceptable when the country benefits from that immigration. We still benefit from that immigration, both legal and illegal, and the numbers, when calculated honestly, bear that out.