It's official: YOU'RE paying for the wall; not Mexico

[Toddsterpatriot]

Trump logic: Spend 50 billion on a wall that can be defeated with a big ladder and some rope. Cut Coast Guard budget because no smuggling ever happens on the two huge coasts the US has.

A serious wall would not be that easy to defeat.

Define a "serious" wall.

Structure

Route 443 near Giv'at Ze'ev Junction, with pyramid-shaped stacks of barbed wire forming a section of the Israeli West Bank barrier
About 90-95% of the barrier will be constructed as a "multi-layered fence system"[24] with the IDF's preferred design having three fences, pyramid-shaped stacks of barbed wire on the two outer fences, a lighter-weight fence with intrusion detection equipment in the middle, an anti-vehicle ditch, patrol roads on both sides, and a smooth strip of sand for "intrusion tracking".[25]

The barrier contains an on-average 60-metre (200 ft) wide exclusion area.[26] The width of some sections is larger (up to 100 metres (330 ft)) due to topographic conditions.[27] The width of some sections (about 6% of the barrier) is 3 metres (9.8 ft) where the barrier is constructed as a concrete wall up to 8 metres (26 ft) high. These sections are narrower, require less land, and provide more protection against snipers. Wall construction is more common in urban settings, e.g., Qalqilyah and Jerusalem, and in areas where people have been killed by snipers, e.g., the Trans-Israel Highway.[28]

Israeli West Bank barrier - Wikipedia

Not bad. What's the cost on that?

Not sure. It wouldn't need to be that layered across the entire border.

 

[WheelieAddict]

Trump logic: Spend 50 billion on a wall that can be defeated with a big ladder and some rope. Cut Coast Guard budget because no smuggling ever happens on the two huge coasts the US has.

A serious wall would not be that easy to defeat.

Define a "serious" wall.

Structure

Route 443 near Giv'at Ze'ev Junction, with pyramid-shaped stacks of barbed wire forming a section of the Israeli West Bank barrier
About 90-95% of the barrier will be constructed as a "multi-layered fence system"[24] with the IDF's preferred design having three fences, pyramid-shaped stacks of barbed wire on the two outer fences, a lighter-weight fence with intrusion detection equipment in the middle, an anti-vehicle ditch, patrol roads on both sides, and a smooth strip of sand for "intrusion tracking".[25]

The barrier contains an on-average 60-metre (200 ft) wide exclusion area.[26] The width of some sections is larger (up to 100 metres (330 ft)) due to topographic conditions.[27] The width of some sections (about 6% of the barrier) is 3 metres (9.8 ft) where the barrier is constructed as a concrete wall up to 8 metres (26 ft) high. These sections are narrower, require less land, and provide more protection against snipers. Wall construction is more common in urban settings, e.g., Qalqilyah and Jerusalem, and in areas where people have been killed by snipers, e.g., the Trans-Israel Highway.[28]

Israeli West Bank barrier - Wikipedia

Not bad. What's the cost on that?

Not sure. It wouldn't need to be that layered across the entire border.

So no price. Now take into account our southern border is like 10 times Israel's border. And why wouldn't it need to be layered that much throughout, going half ass? Why bother? So how many billions for this bullshit? Damn free spending republicans don't care just throw it on the debt.

 

[bripat9643]

If it's "bloated," then why are douche bags like you bleating about how much Trump is cutting it?

Where is Trump cutting federal spending? Where has he even proposed cutting federal spending?

You haven't been watching the news, have you? He has proposed cuts in almost every department, especially the EPA and the Dept of Education. Big cuts.

 

[jc456]

If you were expecting a check, you are a ******* moron. Trump hater or supporter. Goes for both.

yep and supporters know this. it's those afraid of the wall and having their open borders crying. and only them. let's don't make shit up.

 

[bripat9643]

Trump logic: Spend 50 billion on a wall that can be defeated with a big ladder and some rope. Cut Coast Guard budget because no smuggling ever happens on the two huge coasts the US has.

A serious wall would not be that easy to defeat.

Define a "serious" wall.

 

[NightFox]

If it's "bloated," then why are douche bags like you bleating about how much Trump is cutting it?

Where is Trump cutting federal spending? Where has he even proposed cutting federal spending?

You haven't been watching the news, have you? He has proposed cuts in almost every department, especially the EPA and the Dept of Education. Big cuts.

Yeah, unfortunately he's proposing increases in Defense and DHS, the net effective of which is a $900 million dollar net INCREASE in overall spending ($58.6 billion in cuts versus $59.5 billion in increases), he's not proposing to cut overall spending he's just shifting the money around among executive branch departments and adding more spending on top of that.

"The devil is in the details"

 

[bripat9643]

If it's "bloated," then why are douche bags like you bleating about how much Trump is cutting it?

Where is Trump cutting federal spending? Where has he even proposed cutting federal spending?

You haven't been watching the news, have you? He has proposed cuts in almost every department, especially the EPA and the Dept of Education. Big cuts.

Yeah, unfortunately he's proposing increases in Defense and DHS, the net effective of which is a $900 million dollar net INCREASE in overall spending ($58.6 billion in cuts versus $59.5 billion in increases), he's not proposing to cut overall spending he's just shifting the money around among executive branch departments and adding more spending on top of that.

"The devil is in the details"

The net result is a $900 million increase in spending, which means virtually no increase in spending. When is the last time that happened in this country?

 

[NightFox]

If it's "bloated," then why are douche bags like you bleating about how much Trump is cutting it?

Where is Trump cutting federal spending? Where has he even proposed cutting federal spending?

You haven't been watching the news, have you? He has proposed cuts in almost every department, especially the EPA and the Dept of Education. Big cuts.

Yeah, unfortunately he's proposing increases in Defense and DHS, the net effective of which is a $900 million dollar net INCREASE in overall spending ($58.6 billion in cuts versus $59.5 billion in increases), he's not proposing to cut overall spending he's just shifting the money around among executive branch departments and adding more spending on top of that.

"The devil is in the details"

The net result is a $900 million increase in spending, which means virtually no increase in spending.

Have you been taking spin lessons from politicians or something?

A $900 million INCREASE is not a spending CUT, you're the one that made the assertion that Trump was CUTTING government right after you acknowledged that it was already "bloated", Trumps wish list that you're referring to just bloats it more and that only includes a fraction of the existing federal budget items and leaves out the additional $1 TRILLION he has proposed to spend on infrastructure, the revenue effects of his proposed tax cuts and everything else he's promised to do.

At the end of the day it doesn't really matter since none of the departmental level cuts he's proposing are going to pass Congress, he might get some defense spending increases but beyond that his wish list is DOA.

When is the last time that happened in this country?

In 2013 during the Obama Administration when the two crime families in Washington couldn't agree on spending and were forced by the BCA to implement budget sequestration.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

A serious wall would not be that easy to defeat.

Define a "serious" wall.

Structure

Route 443 near Giv'at Ze'ev Junction, with pyramid-shaped stacks of barbed wire forming a section of the Israeli West Bank barrier
About 90-95% of the barrier will be constructed as a "multi-layered fence system"[24] with the IDF's preferred design having three fences, pyramid-shaped stacks of barbed wire on the two outer fences, a lighter-weight fence with intrusion detection equipment in the middle, an anti-vehicle ditch, patrol roads on both sides, and a smooth strip of sand for "intrusion tracking".[25]

The barrier contains an on-average 60-metre (200 ft) wide exclusion area.[26] The width of some sections is larger (up to 100 metres (330 ft)) due to topographic conditions.[27] The width of some sections (about 6% of the barrier) is 3 metres (9.8 ft) where the barrier is constructed as a concrete wall up to 8 metres (26 ft) high. These sections are narrower, require less land, and provide more protection against snipers. Wall construction is more common in urban settings, e.g., Qalqilyah and Jerusalem, and in areas where people have been killed by snipers, e.g., the Trans-Israel Highway.[28]

Israeli West Bank barrier - Wikipedia

Not bad. What's the cost on that?

Not sure. It wouldn't need to be that layered across the entire border.

So no price. Now take into account our southern border is like 10 times Israel's border. And why wouldn't it need to be layered that much throughout, going half ass? Why bother? So how many billions for this bullshit? Damn free spending republicans don't care just throw it on the debt.

So no price.

I'll look.

Now take into account our southern border is like 10 times Israel's border.

Yes.

And why wouldn't it need to be layered that much throughout, going half ass?

Because some places are easy to cross, some are very difficult.
Use more layers in the higher traffic areas, fewer in the tougher areas.

So how many billions for this bullshit?

Good question. How many billions spent on illegals and their kids?

 

[usmbguest5318]

What's even more hilarious about this is that repubs are too stupid to know that there will be a never ending cost to maintain the wall after it is built.

Compared to the annual cost of illegal aliens....that'll be a bargain.

Okay.....just what is the net (benefits minus costs) economic impact of illegal immigration on U.S. GDP?

That you even made the statement above shows you don't actually know. The fact is that the answer can be found in a document published by one of the most anti-immigration conservative organizations around, the Center for Immigration Studies. Quite simply illegal immigration doesn't have a net cost, it yields a net gain to the U.S. economy.

The fact of the matter is that the net economic impact of illegal immigration is very small, but it's nonetheless positive, not negative.

• Illegal immigrants increased GDP by $395 to $472 billion. This “contribution” to the economy does not measure the net benefit to natives.
• The surplus from illegal immigration, or the net gain to US workers and employers exclusive of any labor income paid to the unauthorized immigrants themselves, is approximately 0.03 percent of US GDP.
• 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.
• Although the net benefits to natives from illegal immigrants are small, there is a sizable redistribution effect. Illegal immigration reduces the wage of native workers by an estimated $99 to $118 billion a year, and generates a gain for businesses and other users of immigrants of $107 to $128 billion.

Economists have long known that immigration redistributes income in the receiving society. Although immigration makes the aggregate economy larger, the actual net benefit accruing to natives is small, equal to an estimated two-tenths of 1 percent of GDP. There is little evidence indicating that immigration (legal and/or illegal) creates large net gains for native-born Americans.

Even though the overall net impact on natives is small, this does not mean that the wage losses suffered by some natives or the income gains accruing to other natives are not substantial. Some groups of workers face a great deal of competition from immigrants. These workers are primarily, but by no means exclusively, at the bottom end of the skill distribution, doing low wage jobs that require modest levels of education. Such workers make up a significant share of the nation’s working poor. The biggest winners from immigration are owners of businesses that employ a lot of immigrant labor and other users of immigrant labor. The other big winners are the immigrants themselves. Illegal immigration continues to vex the public and policymakers.

Illegal immigrants have clearly benefited by living and working in the United States. Many business owners and users of immigrant labor have also benefited by having access to their labor. But some native-born Americans have also lost, and these losers likely include a disproportionate number of the poorest Americans.
Source 1 - CIS
Source 2 - MPI​

It may be politically inauspicious to tell the whole story of both costs and benefits of illegal immigration, but that one tells only half of it -- the negative half -- does not make the other side of the story fail to exist for responsible voters and policy makers who want to be fully informed before arriving at conclusion. Now you can have fun parsing the matter any way you want, but there is no way the numbers make a net increase to GDP become a cost; it is a gain.

Note:
The sources for the economic points of the post above come from the two opposing "think tanks" on the matter of illegal immigration. They both say the same thing: illegal immigration yields a small net gain to the U.S. economy.

Thanks for the info.

Although immigration makes the aggregate economy larger, the actual net benefit accruing to natives is small, equal to an estimated two-tenths of 1 percent of GDP

And in Chicago, that 0.2% of GDP benefit is offset by the $11,000 a year, on average, we spend in the schools for every illegal alien student. Not to mention the cost of charging and incarcerating illegal alien criminals. And the stress and expense imposed on our healthcare system by treating, for free, illegal aliens at our already underfunded hospitals.

I'm willing to forgo the 0.2% benefit...........

Although immigration makes the aggregate economy larger, the actual net benefit accruing to natives is small, equal to an estimated two-tenths of 1 percent of GDP

And in Chicago, that 0.2% of GDP benefit is offset by the $11,000 a year, on average, we spend

What part of the word "net" do you not understand? Net = All Gains - All Costs.

Your citing specific costs incurred in Chicago (or anywhere else, for that matter) does not obviate the fact that those costs have already been evaluated in the calculation of the net economic impact.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What's even more hilarious about this is that repubs are too stupid to know that there will be a never ending cost to maintain the wall after it is built.

Compared to the annual cost of illegal aliens....that'll be a bargain.

Okay.....just what is the net (benefits minus costs) economic impact of illegal immigration on U.S. GDP?

That you even made the statement above shows you don't actually know. The fact is that the answer can be found in a document published by one of the most anti-immigration conservative organizations around, the Center for Immigration Studies. Quite simply illegal immigration doesn't have a net cost, it yields a net gain to the U.S. economy.

The fact of the matter is that the net economic impact of illegal immigration is very small, but it's nonetheless positive, not negative.

• Illegal immigrants increased GDP by $395 to $472 billion. This “contribution” to the economy does not measure the net benefit to natives.
• The surplus from illegal immigration, or the net gain to US workers and employers exclusive of any labor income paid to the unauthorized immigrants themselves, is approximately 0.03 percent of US GDP.
• 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.
• Although the net benefits to natives from illegal immigrants are small, there is a sizable redistribution effect. Illegal immigration reduces the wage of native workers by an estimated $99 to $118 billion a year, and generates a gain for businesses and other users of immigrants of $107 to $128 billion.

Economists have long known that immigration redistributes income in the receiving society. Although immigration makes the aggregate economy larger, the actual net benefit accruing to natives is small, equal to an estimated two-tenths of 1 percent of GDP. There is little evidence indicating that immigration (legal and/or illegal) creates large net gains for native-born Americans.

Even though the overall net impact on natives is small, this does not mean that the wage losses suffered by some natives or the income gains accruing to other natives are not substantial. Some groups of workers face a great deal of competition from immigrants. These workers are primarily, but by no means exclusively, at the bottom end of the skill distribution, doing low wage jobs that require modest levels of education. Such workers make up a significant share of the nation’s working poor. The biggest winners from immigration are owners of businesses that employ a lot of immigrant labor and other users of immigrant labor. The other big winners are the immigrants themselves. Illegal immigration continues to vex the public and policymakers.

Illegal immigrants have clearly benefited by living and working in the United States. Many business owners and users of immigrant labor have also benefited by having access to their labor. But some native-born Americans have also lost, and these losers likely include a disproportionate number of the poorest Americans.
Source 1 - CIS
Source 2 - MPI​

It may be politically inauspicious to tell the whole story of both costs and benefits of illegal immigration, but that one tells only half of it -- the negative half -- does not make the other side of the story fail to exist for responsible voters and policy makers who want to be fully informed before arriving at conclusion. Now you can have fun parsing the matter any way you want, but there is no way the numbers make a net increase to GDP become a cost; it is a gain.

Note:
The sources for the economic points of the post above come from the two opposing "think tanks" on the matter of illegal immigration. They both say the same thing: illegal immigration yields a small net gain to the U.S. economy.

Thanks for the info.

Although immigration makes the aggregate economy larger, the actual net benefit accruing to natives is small, equal to an estimated two-tenths of 1 percent of GDP

And in Chicago, that 0.2% of GDP benefit is offset by the $11,000 a year, on average, we spend in the schools for every illegal alien student. Not to mention the cost of charging and incarcerating illegal alien criminals. And the stress and expense imposed on our healthcare system by treating, for free, illegal aliens at our already underfunded hospitals.

I'm willing to forgo the 0.2% benefit...........

Although immigration makes the aggregate economy larger, the actual net benefit accruing to natives is small, equal to an estimated two-tenths of 1 percent of GDP

And in Chicago, that 0.2% of GDP benefit is offset by the $11,000 a year, on average, we spend

What part of the word "net" do you not understand? Net = All Gains - All Costs.

Your citing specific costs incurred in Chicago (or anywhere else, for that matter) does not obviate the fact that those costs have already been evaluated in the calculation of the net economic impact.

I'm willing to give up the tiny "net impact" to save on education, criminal justice system and healthcare system costs here in Chicago.

Understand?

 

[usmbguest5318]

What's even more hilarious about this is that repubs are too stupid to know that there will be a never ending cost to maintain the wall after it is built.

Compared to the annual cost of illegal aliens....that'll be a bargain.

Okay.....just what is the net (benefits minus costs) economic impact of illegal immigration on U.S. GDP?

That you even made the statement above shows you don't actually know. The fact is that the answer can be found in a document published by one of the most anti-immigration conservative organizations around, the Center for Immigration Studies. Quite simply illegal immigration doesn't have a net cost, it yields a net gain to the U.S. economy.

The fact of the matter is that the net economic impact of illegal immigration is very small, but it's nonetheless positive, not negative.

• Illegal immigrants increased GDP by $395 to $472 billion. This “contribution” to the economy does not measure the net benefit to natives.
• The surplus from illegal immigration, or the net gain to US workers and employers exclusive of any labor income paid to the unauthorized immigrants themselves, is approximately 0.03 percent of US GDP.
• 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.
• Although the net benefits to natives from illegal immigrants are small, there is a sizable redistribution effect. Illegal immigration reduces the wage of native workers by an estimated $99 to $118 billion a year, and generates a gain for businesses and other users of immigrants of $107 to $128 billion.

Economists have long known that immigration redistributes income in the receiving society. Although immigration makes the aggregate economy larger, the actual net benefit accruing to natives is small, equal to an estimated two-tenths of 1 percent of GDP. There is little evidence indicating that immigration (legal and/or illegal) creates large net gains for native-born Americans.

Even though the overall net impact on natives is small, this does not mean that the wage losses suffered by some natives or the income gains accruing to other natives are not substantial. Some groups of workers face a great deal of competition from immigrants. These workers are primarily, but by no means exclusively, at the bottom end of the skill distribution, doing low wage jobs that require modest levels of education. Such workers make up a significant share of the nation’s working poor. The biggest winners from immigration are owners of businesses that employ a lot of immigrant labor and other users of immigrant labor. The other big winners are the immigrants themselves. Illegal immigration continues to vex the public and policymakers.

Illegal immigrants have clearly benefited by living and working in the United States. Many business owners and users of immigrant labor have also benefited by having access to their labor. But some native-born Americans have also lost, and these losers likely include a disproportionate number of the poorest Americans.
Source 1 - CIS
Source 2 - MPI​

It may be politically inauspicious to tell the whole story of both costs and benefits of illegal immigration, but that one tells only half of it -- the negative half -- does not make the other side of the story fail to exist for responsible voters and policy makers who want to be fully informed before arriving at conclusion. Now you can have fun parsing the matter any way you want, but there is no way the numbers make a net increase to GDP become a cost; it is a gain.

Note:
The sources for the economic points of the post above come from the two opposing "think tanks" on the matter of illegal immigration. They both say the same thing: illegal immigration yields a small net gain to the U.S. economy.

Thanks for the info.

Although immigration makes the aggregate economy larger, the actual net benefit accruing to natives is small, equal to an estimated two-tenths of 1 percent of GDP

And in Chicago, that 0.2% of GDP benefit is offset by the $11,000 a year, on average, we spend in the schools for every illegal alien student. Not to mention the cost of charging and incarcerating illegal alien criminals. And the stress and expense imposed on our healthcare system by treating, for free, illegal aliens at our already underfunded hospitals.

I'm willing to forgo the 0.2% benefit...........

Although immigration makes the aggregate economy larger, the actual net benefit accruing to natives is small, equal to an estimated two-tenths of 1 percent of GDP

And in Chicago, that 0.2% of GDP benefit is offset by the $11,000 a year, on average, we spend

What part of the word "net" do you not understand? Net = All Gains - All Costs.

Your citing specific costs incurred in Chicago (or anywhere else, for that matter) does not obviate the fact that those costs have already been evaluated in the calculation of the net economic impact.

I'm willing to give up the tiny "net impact" to save on education, criminal justice system and healthcare system costs here in Chicago.

Understand?

If you read the source document that contains the analysis that arrived at the net impact, you'll find that you don't save. That's the point of "net".....When the net impact is positive, giving it up means one isn't saving. What you are saying, in effect and with regard to illegal immigration, is that you are willing to "cut off your nose to spite your face."

 

[bripat9643]

What's even more hilarious about this is that repubs are too stupid to know that there will be a never ending cost to maintain the wall after it is built.

Compared to the annual cost of illegal aliens....that'll be a bargain.

Okay.....just what is the net (benefits minus costs) economic impact of illegal immigration on U.S. GDP?

That you even made the statement above shows you don't actually know. The fact is that the answer can be found in a document published by one of the most anti-immigration conservative organizations around, the Center for Immigration Studies. Quite simply illegal immigration doesn't have a net cost, it yields a net gain to the U.S. economy.

The fact of the matter is that the net economic impact of illegal immigration is very small, but it's nonetheless positive, not negative.

• Illegal immigrants increased GDP by $395 to $472 billion. This “contribution” to the economy does not measure the net benefit to natives.
• The surplus from illegal immigration, or the net gain to US workers and employers exclusive of any labor income paid to the unauthorized immigrants themselves, is approximately 0.03 percent of US GDP.
• 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.
• Although the net benefits to natives from illegal immigrants are small, there is a sizable redistribution effect. Illegal immigration reduces the wage of native workers by an estimated $99 to $118 billion a year, and generates a gain for businesses and other users of immigrants of $107 to $128 billion.

Economists have long known that immigration redistributes income in the receiving society. Although immigration makes the aggregate economy larger, the actual net benefit accruing to natives is small, equal to an estimated two-tenths of 1 percent of GDP. There is little evidence indicating that immigration (legal and/or illegal) creates large net gains for native-born Americans.

Even though the overall net impact on natives is small, this does not mean that the wage losses suffered by some natives or the income gains accruing to other natives are not substantial. Some groups of workers face a great deal of competition from immigrants. These workers are primarily, but by no means exclusively, at the bottom end of the skill distribution, doing low wage jobs that require modest levels of education. Such workers make up a significant share of the nation’s working poor. The biggest winners from immigration are owners of businesses that employ a lot of immigrant labor and other users of immigrant labor. The other big winners are the immigrants themselves. Illegal immigration continues to vex the public and policymakers.

Illegal immigrants have clearly benefited by living and working in the United States. Many business owners and users of immigrant labor have also benefited by having access to their labor. But some native-born Americans have also lost, and these losers likely include a disproportionate number of the poorest Americans.
Source 1 - CIS
Source 2 - MPI​

It may be politically inauspicious to tell the whole story of both costs and benefits of illegal immigration, but that one tells only half of it -- the negative half -- does not make the other side of the story fail to exist for responsible voters and policy makers who want to be fully informed before arriving at conclusion. Now you can have fun parsing the matter any way you want, but there is no way the numbers make a net increase to GDP become a cost; it is a gain.

Note:
The sources for the economic points of the post above come from the two opposing "think tanks" on the matter of illegal immigration. They both say the same thing: illegal immigration yields a small net gain to the U.S. economy.

Thanks for the info.

Although immigration makes the aggregate economy larger, the actual net benefit accruing to natives is small, equal to an estimated two-tenths of 1 percent of GDP

And in Chicago, that 0.2% of GDP benefit is offset by the $11,000 a year, on average, we spend in the schools for every illegal alien student. Not to mention the cost of charging and incarcerating illegal alien criminals. And the stress and expense imposed on our healthcare system by treating, for free, illegal aliens at our already underfunded hospitals.

I'm willing to forgo the 0.2% benefit...........

Although immigration makes the aggregate economy larger, the actual net benefit accruing to natives is small, equal to an estimated two-tenths of 1 percent of GDP

And in Chicago, that 0.2% of GDP benefit is offset by the $11,000 a year, on average, we spend

What part of the word "net" do you not understand? Net = All Gains - All Costs.

Your citing specific costs incurred in Chicago (or anywhere else, for that matter) does not obviate the fact that those costs have already been evaluated in the calculation of the net economic impact.

Gains to an abstraction called "the economy" isn't what is important to Americans. The real question is how do native born Americans benefit from "immigration?" The answer is: they don't. Immigration harms the people who are already here by imposing costs and them and by lowering their wages. The money "immigrants" earn doesn't benefit me one bit. It only benefits them, and I could care less about that.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Compared to the annual cost of illegal aliens....that'll be a bargain.

Okay.....just what is the net (benefits minus costs) economic impact of illegal immigration on U.S. GDP?

That you even made the statement above shows you don't actually know. The fact is that the answer can be found in a document published by one of the most anti-immigration conservative organizations around, the Center for Immigration Studies. Quite simply illegal immigration doesn't have a net cost, it yields a net gain to the U.S. economy.

The fact of the matter is that the net economic impact of illegal immigration is very small, but it's nonetheless positive, not negative.

• Illegal immigrants increased GDP by $395 to $472 billion. This “contribution” to the economy does not measure the net benefit to natives.
• The surplus from illegal immigration, or the net gain to US workers and employers exclusive of any labor income paid to the unauthorized immigrants themselves, is approximately 0.03 percent of US GDP.
• 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.
• Although the net benefits to natives from illegal immigrants are small, there is a sizable redistribution effect. Illegal immigration reduces the wage of native workers by an estimated $99 to $118 billion a year, and generates a gain for businesses and other users of immigrants of $107 to $128 billion.

Economists have long known that immigration redistributes income in the receiving society. Although immigration makes the aggregate economy larger, the actual net benefit accruing to natives is small, equal to an estimated two-tenths of 1 percent of GDP. There is little evidence indicating that immigration (legal and/or illegal) creates large net gains for native-born Americans.

Even though the overall net impact on natives is small, this does not mean that the wage losses suffered by some natives or the income gains accruing to other natives are not substantial. Some groups of workers face a great deal of competition from immigrants. These workers are primarily, but by no means exclusively, at the bottom end of the skill distribution, doing low wage jobs that require modest levels of education. Such workers make up a significant share of the nation’s working poor. The biggest winners from immigration are owners of businesses that employ a lot of immigrant labor and other users of immigrant labor. The other big winners are the immigrants themselves. Illegal immigration continues to vex the public and policymakers.

Illegal immigrants have clearly benefited by living and working in the United States. Many business owners and users of immigrant labor have also benefited by having access to their labor. But some native-born Americans have also lost, and these losers likely include a disproportionate number of the poorest Americans.
Source 1 - CIS
Source 2 - MPI​

It may be politically inauspicious to tell the whole story of both costs and benefits of illegal immigration, but that one tells only half of it -- the negative half -- does not make the other side of the story fail to exist for responsible voters and policy makers who want to be fully informed before arriving at conclusion. Now you can have fun parsing the matter any way you want, but there is no way the numbers make a net increase to GDP become a cost; it is a gain.

Note:
The sources for the economic points of the post above come from the two opposing "think tanks" on the matter of illegal immigration. They both say the same thing: illegal immigration yields a small net gain to the U.S. economy.

Thanks for the info.

Although immigration makes the aggregate economy larger, the actual net benefit accruing to natives is small, equal to an estimated two-tenths of 1 percent of GDP

And in Chicago, that 0.2% of GDP benefit is offset by the $11,000 a year, on average, we spend in the schools for every illegal alien student. Not to mention the cost of charging and incarcerating illegal alien criminals. And the stress and expense imposed on our healthcare system by treating, for free, illegal aliens at our already underfunded hospitals.

I'm willing to forgo the 0.2% benefit...........

Although immigration makes the aggregate economy larger, the actual net benefit accruing to natives is small, equal to an estimated two-tenths of 1 percent of GDP

And in Chicago, that 0.2% of GDP benefit is offset by the $11,000 a year, on average, we spend

What part of the word "net" do you not understand? Net = All Gains - All Costs.

Your citing specific costs incurred in Chicago (or anywhere else, for that matter) does not obviate the fact that those costs have already been evaluated in the calculation of the net economic impact.

I'm willing to give up the tiny "net impact" to save on education, criminal justice system and healthcare system costs here in Chicago.

Understand?

If you read the source document that contains the analysis that arrived at the net impact, you'll find that you don't save. That's the point of "net".....When the net impact is positive, giving it up means one isn't saving. What you are saying, in effect and with regard to illegal immigration, is that you are willing to "cut off your nose to spite your face."

I'm willing to forgo the tiny, supposed, benefit. Are we clear?

 

[bripat9643]

Okay.....just what is the net (benefits minus costs) economic impact of illegal immigration on U.S. GDP?

That you even made the statement above shows you don't actually know. The fact is that the answer can be found in a document published by one of the most anti-immigration conservative organizations around, the Center for Immigration Studies. Quite simply illegal immigration doesn't have a net cost, it yields a net gain to the U.S. economy.

The fact of the matter is that the net economic impact of illegal immigration is very small, but it's nonetheless positive, not negative.

• Illegal immigrants increased GDP by $395 to $472 billion. This “contribution” to the economy does not measure the net benefit to natives.
• The surplus from illegal immigration, or the net gain to US workers and employers exclusive of any labor income paid to the unauthorized immigrants themselves, is approximately 0.03 percent of US GDP.
• 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.
• Although the net benefits to natives from illegal immigrants are small, there is a sizable redistribution effect. Illegal immigration reduces the wage of native workers by an estimated $99 to $118 billion a year, and generates a gain for businesses and other users of immigrants of $107 to $128 billion.

Economists have long known that immigration redistributes income in the receiving society. Although immigration makes the aggregate economy larger, the actual net benefit accruing to natives is small, equal to an estimated two-tenths of 1 percent of GDP. There is little evidence indicating that immigration (legal and/or illegal) creates large net gains for native-born Americans.

Even though the overall net impact on natives is small, this does not mean that the wage losses suffered by some natives or the income gains accruing to other natives are not substantial. Some groups of workers face a great deal of competition from immigrants. These workers are primarily, but by no means exclusively, at the bottom end of the skill distribution, doing low wage jobs that require modest levels of education. Such workers make up a significant share of the nation’s working poor. The biggest winners from immigration are owners of businesses that employ a lot of immigrant labor and other users of immigrant labor. The other big winners are the immigrants themselves. Illegal immigration continues to vex the public and policymakers.

Illegal immigrants have clearly benefited by living and working in the United States. Many business owners and users of immigrant labor have also benefited by having access to their labor. But some native-born Americans have also lost, and these losers likely include a disproportionate number of the poorest Americans.
Source 1 - CIS
Source 2 - MPI​

It may be politically inauspicious to tell the whole story of both costs and benefits of illegal immigration, but that one tells only half of it -- the negative half -- does not make the other side of the story fail to exist for responsible voters and policy makers who want to be fully informed before arriving at conclusion. Now you can have fun parsing the matter any way you want, but there is no way the numbers make a net increase to GDP become a cost; it is a gain.

Note:
The sources for the economic points of the post above come from the two opposing "think tanks" on the matter of illegal immigration. They both say the same thing: illegal immigration yields a small net gain to the U.S. economy.

Thanks for the info.

Although immigration makes the aggregate economy larger, the actual net benefit accruing to natives is small, equal to an estimated two-tenths of 1 percent of GDP

And in Chicago, that 0.2% of GDP benefit is offset by the $11,000 a year, on average, we spend in the schools for every illegal alien student. Not to mention the cost of charging and incarcerating illegal alien criminals. And the stress and expense imposed on our healthcare system by treating, for free, illegal aliens at our already underfunded hospitals.

I'm willing to forgo the 0.2% benefit...........

Although immigration makes the aggregate economy larger, the actual net benefit accruing to natives is small, equal to an estimated two-tenths of 1 percent of GDP

And in Chicago, that 0.2% of GDP benefit is offset by the $11,000 a year, on average, we spend

What part of the word "net" do you not understand? Net = All Gains - All Costs.

Your citing specific costs incurred in Chicago (or anywhere else, for that matter) does not obviate the fact that those costs have already been evaluated in the calculation of the net economic impact.

I'm willing to give up the tiny "net impact" to save on education, criminal justice system and healthcare system costs here in Chicago.

Understand?

If you read the source document that contains the analysis that arrived at the net impact, you'll find that you don't save. That's the point of "net".....When the net impact is positive, giving it up means one isn't saving. What you are saying, in effect and with regard to illegal immigration, is that you are willing to "cut off your nose to spite your face."

I'm willing to forgo the tiny, supposed, benefit. Are we clear?

You aren't benefiting in any way. You don't benefit from the money that illegals earn. They do. The question here is how do native born Americans benefit. They don't.

 

[Dschrute3]

I'm good with that. Just get it done. We're $20 Trillion in Debt, and i've gotten nothing out of it. So it's my turn. I don't care what it costs, just get it done.

 

[charwin95]

What's even more hilarious about this is that repubs are too stupid to know that there will be a never ending cost to maintain the wall after it is built.

Compared to the annual cost of illegal aliens....that'll be a bargain.

Wow. You really need to change your sig.

And you need to stop getting your news from Brietbart and Jones.

For the gazillionth time, most undocumented are not Mexican or SAmerican. Very few are coming across from the south. No terrorists came from the south. The wall is stupid, unnecessary and will not accomplish anything except take money away from America and Americans.

We have 2 sources of trespassers...
[1] Those who trespassed
[2] Those born of trespassers
Time to go back home when you're accustomed to living 5 families to a house and the next generation is no better off than the last generation.

You better get busy. Trump is not doing any mass or force deportation.

 

[charwin95]

Mexico will pay for the wall as there are a multitude of means of extracting wealth from the parasites.

Liberals need illegals. After all, who will mow their lawns and clean their hotels?

Democrat Sink: We need immigrants to clean our hotel rooms! - Allen B. West - AllenBWest.com

Dude you also need illegals. If you go to grocery to buy food that shove you in your mouth you support illegals. Don't be hypocrite.

 

[Dschrute3]

End Illegal Immigration period. If Trump makes a sincere effort to do that, he'll always have my support. We need to become a nation of laws again. I welcome folks to my country, but they need to do it the legal organized way. And honestly, i don't give a damn if that upsets Illegals and Open Borders Leftists. It needs to happen regardless.

 

[Indeependent]

What's even more hilarious about this is that repubs are too stupid to know that there will be a never ending cost to maintain the wall after it is built.

Compared to the annual cost of illegal aliens....that'll be a bargain.

Wow. You really need to change your sig.

And you need to stop getting your news from Brietbart and Jones.

For the gazillionth time, most undocumented are not Mexican or SAmerican. Very few are coming across from the south. No terrorists came from the south. The wall is stupid, unnecessary and will not accomplish anything except take money away from America and Americans.

We have 2 sources of trespassers...
[1] Those who trespassed
[2] Those born of trespassers
Time to go back home when you're accustomed to living 5 families to a house and the next generation is no better off than the last generation.

You better get busy. Trump is not doing any mass or force deportation.

You not watching the news lately?
I mean someone other than Rachel Maddow.