Liberal & Conservative Think Tanks Agree on The Net Economic Impact of Illegal Immigration

[rhodescholar]

Do they buy American made cars? YES
Do they buy T.V.'s and other electronics? YES
Do they buy food? Yes
Do they buy houses? Yes--in fact 40% own homes in this country.
Do they go to restaurants? Yes
Do they go to the movies? Yes
Do they buy clothes & furniture? Yes

Now remove 11 million of them and see what happens next.

Just go away, please. Your second-grade level talking, meaningless talking points achieve nothing but dumb the thread down.

 

[oreo]

The biggest cost of illegal immigration is education.

Uh, so?

They are not eligible for WELFARE benefits.

They collect welfare benefits through their anchor baby children.

Nor can they VOTE.

Many have been caught doing so.

Education--we're talking about public schools meaning kids.

Which means what exactly? That I should pay higher taxes to pay for the children of Honduras to come to my kids' public schools, use their resources, make the classes more crowded - which liberals always like to use an excuse that makes it harder for their pet public union employee teachers?

They do work, many pay taxes, and they are typically working in low end jobs, that most Americans are not interested in doing.

Not even going to waste my time with idiots like this anymore.

Farmers lost their workers, hotels could find anyone, one chicken place couldn't find workers etc.etc. etc.

Guess what, idiot - in Australia they got rid of their seasonal farm workers, and improved their technology to replace them. What an amazing idea!

Just how many anchor babies are delivered every year. In my state of Colorado, which is heavily populated with Hispanics--you will find more white women giving birth to children that are on WELFARE than you will find of any other race. My daughter is a Nurse practitioner working in a large hospital in Colorado who would gladly tell you that.

Most of the illegals I have come to know WORK, and do NOT receive any benefits of any kind. Many have been here for decades.

We have a case study already and it's called ALABAMA--of the impact of kicking out all undocumented workers. It's really doesn't hurt to READ.
Alabama law drives out illegal immigrants but also has unexpected consequences

 

[usmbguest5318]

Back it up....The math supporting the figures I cited is in the reports to which I linked.

He used statistical models, not actual figures. You want facts from an unbiased source, start here:

The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on United States Taxpayers (2013)

State Cost Studies | Federation for American Immigration Reform

You wouldn't ask that question if you'd read the reports or the source study that underpins them, or if you truly were among the country's leading immigration economists

Oh I get it, because the Fortune 500-loving WSJ claims he is "one of america's leading immigration experts..." that makes his claims legit? Are you ******* for real?

Providing something as comprehensive and rigorous as the content I linked to in the OP just one time would be sufficient. You have yet to do that.

Just did, see above.

You are a piece of work, dude. You really don't know the topic on which you've chosen to engage me. I guess I will give you credit for scouring the Internet and finding a document that confirms your point of view.

You cited a FAIR report and attempted to discredit George Borjas. It apparently is unbeknownst to you that FAIR saw fit to publish a 2014 lecture he gave. In doing so, FAIR recounts Borjas's following statement:

If we do the math, we find that the economic gains do exceed the costs by $35 billion per year.​

In its editorial commentary about the lecture, FAIR tacitly grants the validity of Borjas' findings and it all but asserts that facts don't have much to with what it thinks should be U.S. immigration policy, writing:

What type of immigration policy should the U.S. pursue and should it be inspired by what immigration economics teaches us? The answer goes beyond mere facts....Economics does not tell us which path to pursue when it comes to immigration policies or what hat to wear. It just gives us facts and numbers relative to the costs and benefits of each different path.​

because the Fortune 500-loving WSJ claims he is "one of america's leading immigration experts..." that makes [Borjas'] claims legit?

Number 1:

As a matter of fact, no, the legitimacy of Borjas' research findings have nothing to do with the WSJ and Business Week accolade, even though both have given it.

George J. Borjas has been described by both Business Week and the Wall Street Journal as “America’s leading immigration economist”. He is the Robert W. Scrivner Professor of Economics and Social Policy at the Harvard Kennedy School. He is the recipient of the 2011 IZA Prize in Labor Economics. Professor Borjas is also a Research Associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research and a Research Fellow at IZA. Professor Borjas is the author of several books, including Heaven’s Door: Immigration Policy and the American Economy (Princeton University Press, 1999), and the widely used textbook Labor Economics (McGraw-Hill, 2012), now in its sixth edition. He has published over 125 articles in books and scholarly journals. He received his Ph.D. in economics from Columbia University in 1975.​

It is also worth noting that the FAIR report you referenced specifically quotes a portion of an article Dr. Borjas published in 2003. That is not the only instance in which FAIR has referenced Dr. Borjas' work; however, it like all the rest of FAIR's use of Borjas' research, cherry-picks only (1) the cost side and (2) direct tax impact aspects of his findings and analysis. I cannot find a single instance in which FAIR have comprehensively and with contextual completeness depicted any of Dr. Borjas' research.

The fact of the matter is that Dr. Borjas, along with being recognized as the country's foremost immigration economist, is also a "darling" economist among conservatives. Part of why he is so often cited by conservatives is because he's done very fine work measuring and estimating the costs associated with immigration, legal immigrants, and illegal immigrants. The other part of that is because his work is highly comparmentalizable. That is, he isolates costs and gains in distinct sections of his published work such that never the twain do meet. There's nothing wrong with the fact that he publishes his findings that way. What's wrong is that organizations like FAIR, as well as their liberal opposites, can easily extract just the parts they want to present, in FAIR's case, just the costs.

Providing something as comprehensive and rigorous as the content I linked to in the OP just one time would be sufficient. You have yet to do that.

You want facts from an unbiased source...Just [shared them in the referenced report from the Federation for American Immigration Reform

Actually, you did not. What you did was cite a paper that did little but report Dr. Borjas' cost-side findings published in his book, Immigration Economics. As for the scant credence FAIR's paper gives Borjas' gain-side findings, well, I've addressed that below....keep reading....Just remember that I asked you to "[provide] something as comprehensive and rigorous as the content I linked to in the OP....

Apparently you (and Donald Trump) don't know that figure was discredited almost the instant it was published. That hackneyed piece of detritus posing as a scholarly report has been around for ages, so long that any economist worth merely her/his baccalaureate degree has seen it and long ago stored in it the "round file."​

“The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on United States Taxpayers” (The preceding link is to the full report and the following discussion is with regard to it.) by Jack Martin and Eric A. Ruark, quite frankly, is one of the most amateurish and error filled reports one can find. It's nearly 100 verbose pages of specious puffery that ignores the fiscal benefits of unauthorized immigration and uses dubious numbers and poor methodology to reach its conclusions.​

Every human activity has both costs and benefits. People constantly weigh costs and benefits. If a given action’s benefits outweigh its costs, that action is worth taking -- but one must analyze both the costs and benefits first before one can come to that conclusion. The FAIR report counts the costs and assumes the sole revenue (benefit) impact accrues from direct taxes paid.

FAIR estimates that states and the federal governments spend $52 billion a year to educate unauthorized immigrants and their American-born children. FAIR doesn’t compare that figure with the increase in income that people experience after earning a high school degree or GED, about $7,208 over non-high school graduates. That’s $7,208 more of taxable income. On top of that, between half and three-fourths of all undocumented immigrants file tax returns. The tax revenue gained from increasing education must be compared against the increased cost of public education when determining the net fiscal costs.

FAIR stops counting the tax payments of the children of unauthorized immigrants once they graduate from high school. Most children cost the government before the age of 18 because of the design of the U.S. public education system, so if one stops counting the costs and benefits of students upon their attaining majority, one'll conclude that children are always a fiscal loss for the government. If FAIR’s reasoning were applied to the rest of society, it would never make fiscal sense to have children, and the quicker we stopped procreating the better for the government’s fiscal balance.

Furthermore, FAIR ignores economic activity that produces tax revenue elsewhere. For instance, unauthorized immigrants (remember there are some 11M of them) purchase vast amounts of goods and services. Profits for those businesses, and hence tax revenues, would decrease if unauthorized immigrants were removed. Many unauthorized immigrants also own businesses, so if they were deported, their businesses would either disappear or lie dormant until acquired, or at least managed, by others.

The supply of jobs is not fixed. It depends on prevailing wages, marginal productivity of labor, supply and demand for inputs for goods and services produced, and numerous other factors. FAIR simplistically assumes that native and unauthorized workers are perfectly interchangeable, so, as FAIR’s reasoning goes, more deportations will just shift unemployed native workers into jobs formerly held by unauthorized immigrants. This is wrong for numerous reasons.

Almost all jobs left vacant by deported unauthorized immigrants will not be filled by legal American workers. (watch the video at the link...I don't care if you read the rest of what you'll find there, but feel free to do so if it interests you.) Native-born and immigrant workers have different skills, strengths, and weaknesses that make them complementary rather than interchangeable. Most unauthorized immigrants have fewer skills than most native-born Americans, so the two groups generally work in different segments of the labor market. An unauthorized immigrant with poor English skills and less than a high school degree is not about to compete with a native-born American engineer for the same employment opportunity.

​

While there is some overlap, the most common occupations are different for native and immigrant workers—and that difference might widen in the future. Enchautegui mentions that while the number of U.S. natives without a high school degree is decreasing, the share of such immigrant workers with this level of education has been climbing. By 2022, 4 million more jobs that don’t require high school degrees will be added to the U.S. job market. We’ll need low-skilled immigrants to do those jobs, as native-born workers graduate to higher-skill level positions.

(See also: Immigration Economics: An Interview with Professor Giovanni Peri -- Giovanni Peri)​

Deportations of otherwise peaceful people actually decrease the income of skilled American workers. The income of highly skilled Americans increases when there are more low skilled workers because members of the two groups can work together. A civil engineer can produce more if there are additional lower skilled surveyors for him to work with.

FAIR also gets the numbers wrong. FAIR estimates that the number of undocumented children in Texas in 2005 was 61 percent greater than that estimated by Dr. Jeffrey Passel, the premier immigration demographer in the U.S. and supposed source for FAIR’s claims.

On a national level, FAIR estimates that there are 4.7 million school aged children who would not be in schools without undocumented immigration -- 1.3 million unauthorized children and 3.4 million child citizens of unauthorized immigrants. But counting the 3.4 million child citizens as a cost of undocumented immigration is a methodology rejected by the Texas Comptroller’s Office in estimating the costs of undocumented immigration to Texas schools. (Texas! As "red" as state as any, and even they don't buy FAIR's BS.) After all, if one counts the first born generation of unauthorized immigrants as costs, why not also count all subsequent generations?

Furthermore, the real effect of U.S. deportation policies on families is to split them up, not move all members out of the U.S. As undocumented parents of American citizens are deported, numerous times their children are kept in the U.S. in foster care or with other relatives.

Estimating the fiscal costs and benefits of unauthorized immigration is very difficult. That doesn’t mean it’s not worth trying, but FAIR’s report is not a serious effort. It takes a snapshot in time using dubious methodology without acknowledging that undocumented children grow up to become taxpayers.

Earlier in this thread, in response to my statement that you have responded as though you "know more about the matter than do the economists" who performed the research underpinning the two papers I linked in my OP, you responded, " I clearly do." That cannot possibly be so, for if it were, you would not have cited the FAIR report for you'd have been well aware of all the problems with its so-called reporting of the facts of the matter of illegal immigration's net impact, the primary one being that FAIR's paper doesn't actually report net impact.

I have had detailed discussions with finance professors, economists, think tanks, etc since the early 1980s on this topic - and NO ONE can counter what I wrote above. For the same reason that NO COUNTRY on earth accepts illegals as mentioned above for obvious reasons, the US should not be either.

Dude, blowing your own horn, so to speak, will do you no good, at least not with me. Maybe it works with others? I wouldn't know. Posting well thought through content will make very clear the nature and extent of your competence on the matter. So far, what you've shared gives the lie to everything you've said about yourself and the content you've had to share.

 

[usmbguest5318]

According to this article illegal immigration is a positive 4 trillion dollars to our economy.

I have to be honest, $4T seems a gross overstatement to me. Frankly, I'm content with the net contribution being just that, a net positive economic contribution rather than a net negative one. At the end of the day, what matters to me are two things:

• in terms of economics --> facts and figures that hold water, and
• in terms of the arguments that people present for/against "whatever" --> that they cite facts and figures that hold water.

The key objective of my opening post in this thread is to show credibly, by way of reference to the best existing empirical economic analysis, that illegal immigrants/immigration has a net positive economic impact on the U.S. economy.

Now some folks may elect to attest to being willing to forgo the economic gains. They can do that, but they do so, then I want to see from them equally rigorous empirical economic analysis that shows how they expect to recoup the losses they'd impose on the nation by incurring the costs of combatting illegal immigration and opting to forgo the gains that we would derive by merely ignoring the matter, or at least investing no additional resources in trying to reduce it, which is by far the most cost effective means of reaping the net benefits accruing to the U.S. from the incidence of illegal immigration.

Additionally, I am certain there are scads of legal positivists on USMB -- Why wouldn't there be? It's the simpleton's approach to jurisprudential analysis. -- who aren't at all familiar the long running Hart-Dworkin debate. Be that as it may, the fact remains that individuals taking positions supported with legal positivist arguments cannot rationally and without contradiction do so while also holding and advancing morally based policy positions. That's not to say swarms of conservatives don't; indeed, it's mostly conservatives who do that. The problem, of course, is that the instant they are found to have done so, they show themselves to be fundamentally unprincipled.

At that point, rhetorically and logically, they "dig deeper holes" for themselves and higher hoist themselves by their own petard. I here often will immediately put such folks on my ignore list because though I know instantly how to go about tearing down their argument, I also know I'm not going to take the time to do it...it's a lot of writing to do so comprehensively -- far more than even I will undertake here -- and it's not worth it for me to do here. (It was fine to do for a philosophy final paper, but here, no.) I will only entertain so much wit-battling with effectively unarmed opponents; it'd be a waste of their time and mine. I think this venue is better suited for presentations and discussions of specific proposals and for identifying approaches for implementing them.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Twice in less than 24 hours I've found myself engaged in discussions about something having to do with the net economic impact of illegal immigration. The same topic also came up about ten days ago. I have thus elevated my post on the matter to the OP of a thread because it seems people here just don't do their own research, in this case, into whether illegal immigration yields a net positive or negative economic impact to the U.S.

According to publications from the conservative Center for Immigration Studies and the liberal Migration Policy Institute, illegal immigration yields a very small but nonetheless positive impact on the U.S. economy. Read the documents you'll find linked in the preceding sentence and you'll find the following:

• 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.

Now one can kvetch about the fact that the net gain is very small, but what one cannot do is credibly claim that illegal immigration is a net drain on the U.S. economy, and that's in the current environment whereby we spend whatever we spend to impede, apprehend and deport individuals' making efforts to illegally gain entry to or remain in the U.S.

In other words, the only way illegal immigration/immigrants can become a net drain on the U.S. economy is if U.S. federal, state and local governments spend more money interdicting and deporting illegal immigrants. How much more? Well, something between $395 and $472 billion more.

I'm sorry, but laws on the books or not -- we've had stupid laws before, we clearly do still -- it just doesn't make sense to spend any sum of money to solve a so-called problem that produces for our country a net gain if we just leave it alone.

Haha....I know we often joke around about you people living with your head in your asses and all but your post takes the cake. Not even a tolerant liberal could honestly believe that Mexican illegals yield a positive impact on America in any way whatsoever. Come on man!

I suppose if they don't read the supporting empirical economics documentation, and instead rely only on what they might intuit, no, they wouldn't. That's so about much of economics.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Do they buy American made cars? YES
Do they buy T.V.'s and other electronics? YES
Do they buy food? Yes
Do they buy houses? Yes--in fact 40% own homes in this country.
Do they go to restaurants? Yes
Do they go to the movies? Yes
Do they buy clothes & furniture? Yes

Now remove 11 million of them and see what happens next.

Just go away, please. Your second-grade level talking, meaningless talking points achieve nothing but dumb the thread down.

oreo didn't present the most rigorous or complete exposition of the gain-side economics of illegal immigration's/immigrants' impact, but his "questions" do allude accurately to part of the calculus for quantifying it. The full story is found in Borjas' book that I referred to and linked to earlier. A high level depiction of that part of the equation (the cost side too) is found it the CIS paper I linked to in the OP.

 

[Freewill]

Actually reading that far would have called for you to click on the linked content and read it.

You misread my post. I stopped reading yours after the first sentence that I quoted, and read nothing more.

I do not need to read what your links say, I've ALREADY done the research going back DECADES, starting decades AGO.

What you did was assume you know more about the matter than do the economists

Which I clearly do.

both conservatives and liberals agree is the nations' foremost expert on immigration economics.

These 2 groups do not represent all liberals and conservatives on this topic any more than obama represented all blacks. Their opinions, like many such orgs, are bought and paid for. Unlike them, I am without an agenda - I simply use facts.

Facts such as an illegal family with 2 kids in the NYC public school system that regularly uses local hospitals for basic care and who work at jobs that pay a combined $40K per year CANNOT possibly provide a net positive economic benefit for society at large. For their employers who are able to undercut the market if only americans were available as employees, yes - but for everyone else whose taxes are subsidizing their existence in this country, along with the displaced workers whose jobs they've stolen, no the rest of us are definitely NOT benefitting from them being here.

you raised a point that was addressed qualitatively and quantitatively in the linked documents, yet you've offered nor referred to no comparably rigorous refutation or rebuttal to the findings shown in the linked documents,

Sonny boy, you don't know a ******* thing about me or what I've done or not done. I have had detailed discussions with finance professors, economists, think tanks, etc since the early 1980s on this topic - and NO ONE can counter what I wrote above. For the same reason that NO COUNTRY on earth accepts illegals as mentioned above for obvious reasons, the US should not be either.

you refer to the two organizations as propaganda outlets, yet they have completely different objectives -- the CIS wants to minimize immigration and the MPI wants to maximize it -- and they are still agreeing on the same set of facts and research findings,

Whose "economists" would not last 30 seconds in a debate with me. I've heard all of the bullshit before; when it is pointed out that the illegals who work on the books' whole salaries are less than the total public benefits they use, the proponent of illegals shrivels like a ******* wilted flower.

I have no interest nor desire to read some bought-and-paid for asshole spouting corporate america's script, claiming they know something I don't.

you refer only to costs and ignore gains, thereby focusing on only one side of the picture when clearly the discussion is about the net impact of illegal immigration -- that is, the costs and the gains taken in total and together.

The gains are only delivered to the employers and a handful of people who benefit from them being here; the rest of society has to financially subsidize those few.

Perhaps you and your pet economists there can do the math for us: how does a couple whose father works delivering food from a restaurant on a bike making $20K off the books, whose wife is a hotel maid on the books making $25K a year, possibly pay enough in sales taxes and income tax to cover 2 kids in public school that costs $30K annually for each child? Starting to become clearer to you now? How many more ******* times do I need to spell it out for you?

The biggest cost of illegal immigration is education. They are not eligible for WELFARE benefits. Nor can they VOTE. Walking into a voting precinct or a Welfare office, is the ultimate equivalent of a "here I am come and get me moment." Education--we're talking about public schools meaning kids.

They do work, many pay taxes, and they are typically working in low end jobs, that most Americans are not interested in doing.

They tried this in Alabama, and it didn't work. Farmers lost their workers, hotels could find anyone, one chicken place couldn't find workers etc.etc. etc. All you need to do is READ this article and the two above to understand the impact of chasing out all illegals in this country. It would be devasting to this economy.
Alabama law drives out illegal immigrants but also has unexpected consequences

They couldn't find people, if this is even true, at the wage they are wanting to pay. That's the part always left out. These people want people who will work for virtually nothing. Yeah you can find those people but it used to be called slavery.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Actually reading that far would have called for you to click on the linked content and read it.

You misread my post. I stopped reading yours after the first sentence that I quoted, and read nothing more.

I do not need to read what your links say, I've ALREADY done the research going back DECADES, starting decades AGO.

What you did was assume you know more about the matter than do the economists

Which I clearly do.

both conservatives and liberals agree is the nations' foremost expert on immigration economics.

These 2 groups do not represent all liberals and conservatives on this topic any more than obama represented all blacks. Their opinions, like many such orgs, are bought and paid for. Unlike them, I am without an agenda - I simply use facts.

Facts such as an illegal family with 2 kids in the NYC public school system that regularly uses local hospitals for basic care and who work at jobs that pay a combined $40K per year CANNOT possibly provide a net positive economic benefit for society at large. For their employers who are able to undercut the market if only americans were available as employees, yes - but for everyone else whose taxes are subsidizing their existence in this country, along with the displaced workers whose jobs they've stolen, no the rest of us are definitely NOT benefitting from them being here.

you raised a point that was addressed qualitatively and quantitatively in the linked documents, yet you've offered nor referred to no comparably rigorous refutation or rebuttal to the findings shown in the linked documents,

Sonny boy, you don't know a ******* thing about me or what I've done or not done. I have had detailed discussions with finance professors, economists, think tanks, etc since the early 1980s on this topic - and NO ONE can counter what I wrote above. For the same reason that NO COUNTRY on earth accepts illegals as mentioned above for obvious reasons, the US should not be either.

you refer to the two organizations as propaganda outlets, yet they have completely different objectives -- the CIS wants to minimize immigration and the MPI wants to maximize it -- and they are still agreeing on the same set of facts and research findings,

Whose "economists" would not last 30 seconds in a debate with me. I've heard all of the bullshit before; when it is pointed out that the illegals who work on the books' whole salaries are less than the total public benefits they use, the proponent of illegals shrivels like a ******* wilted flower.

I have no interest nor desire to read some bought-and-paid for asshole spouting corporate america's script, claiming they know something I don't.

you refer only to costs and ignore gains, thereby focusing on only one side of the picture when clearly the discussion is about the net impact of illegal immigration -- that is, the costs and the gains taken in total and together.

The gains are only delivered to the employers and a handful of people who benefit from them being here; the rest of society has to financially subsidize those few.

Perhaps you and your pet economists there can do the math for us: how does a couple whose father works delivering food from a restaurant on a bike making $20K off the books, whose wife is a hotel maid on the books making $25K a year, possibly pay enough in sales taxes and income tax to cover 2 kids in public school that costs $30K annually for each child? Starting to become clearer to you now? How many more ******* times do I need to spell it out for you?

The biggest cost of illegal immigration is education. They are not eligible for WELFARE benefits. Nor can they VOTE. Walking into a voting precinct or a Welfare office, is the ultimate equivalent of a "here I am come and get me moment." Education--we're talking about public schools meaning kids.

They do work, many pay taxes, and they are typically working in low end jobs, that most Americans are not interested in doing.

They tried this in Alabama, and it didn't work. Farmers lost their workers, hotels could find anyone, one chicken place couldn't find workers etc.etc. etc. All you need to do is READ this article and the two above to understand the impact of chasing out all illegals in this country. It would be devasting to this economy.
Alabama law drives out illegal immigrants but also has unexpected consequences

They couldn't find people, if this is even true, at the wage they are wanting to pay. That's the part always left out. These people want people who will work for virtually nothing. Yeah you can find those people but it used to be called slavery.

it used to be called slavery.

Actually, in the context of U.S. slavery, it wasn't that at all. Slaves weren't paid a wage for their primary slave labor. Olmstead reported that occasionally slave owners paid their slaves a wage when the slaves performed what was considered overtime labor.

Be that as it may, wage earning, low or otherwise, was not the norm among the slave labor force. Accordingly, while it happened, it wasn't prevalent enough to make a case of the mere fact that it did on occasion happen. I mentioned it merely for the sake of discursive completeness and integrity and because I suspect that if I didn't, some "smart aleck" puerile pedant here would surely have noted as much as though it was existentially frequent and material enough that one might thus legitimately be able to equate today's illegal immigrant low wage workers with U.S. slaves and their circumstances. The fact is there was far more to the institution of U.S. slavery than people working absent waged compensation.

 

[danielpalos]

Twice in less than 24 hours I've found myself engaged in discussions about something having to do with the net economic impact of illegal immigration. The same topic also came up about ten days ago. I have thus elevated my post on the matter to the OP of a thread because it seems people here just don't do their own research, in this case, into whether illegal immigration yields a net positive or negative economic impact to the U.S.

According to publications from the conservative Center for Immigration Studies and the liberal Migration Policy Institute, illegal immigration yields a very small but nonetheless positive impact on the U.S. economy. Read the documents you'll find linked in the preceding sentence and you'll find the following:

• 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.

Now one can kvetch about the fact that the net gain is very small, but what one cannot do is credibly claim that illegal immigration is a net drain on the U.S. economy, and that's in the current environment whereby we spend whatever we spend to impede, apprehend and deport individuals' efforts to illegally gain entry to or remain in the U.S.

In other words, the only way illegal immigration/immigrants can become a net drain on the U.S. economy is if U.S. federal, state and local governments spend more money interdicting and deporting illegal immigrants. How much more? Well, something between $395 and $472 billion more.

I'm sorry, but laws on the books or not -- we've had stupid laws before, we clearly do still -- it just doesn't make sense to spend any sum of money to solve a so-called problem that produces for our country a net gain if we just leave it alone.

Dear Xelor
And CANCER is a big business that makes more money.
And drug addiction yields tons of money for people profiting off drug
wars as well as drug abuse.

Does that mean we want to ENCOURAGE these things?

How much MORE money could we make off
SOLUTIONS to
* cancer
* drug abuse and addiction
* illegal drug and human trafficking
* curing criminal illness, teaching respect for law and order,
and PREVENTING crime, abuse, violence, etc .
that MAKES SO MUCH MONEY OFF CRIME AND DRUGS.

Couldn't the billions we spend on crime and incarceration
ALREADY pay for health care and medical education for
doctors and nurses for the same cost as warehousing people in prisons?

Schwarzenegger: Build prisons in Mexico
^ While Schwarzenegger was Gov of CA, he advocated
alternatives instead of imprisoning Mexican Nationals that
cost the state of CA alone an est. $1 billion annually.

In HOUSTON used as a hub, human trafficking is also
est. to be a BILLION dollar industry.

it makes a lot of money flow through the economy
and pays a lot of police and feds to keep jobs that feed off this demand.

Why can't we take restitution owed for criminal violations and invest those resources in building factories, schools, military teaching hospitals and prisons that correct the problems not make money off them?

Example: www.paceuniversal.com
or www.campusplan.org

What if we developed sustainable campus jobs, services and housing
along the border. Wouldn't THAT generate more sustainable revenue than promoting illegal immigration and criminals that take advantage?

www.earnedamnesty.org

because the right wight has no use for capitalism, when they can get social on a national basis.

 

[Disir]

Economics is the softest science there is. Good to know the Democrats are head deep into worshiping at the economics alter as well.

 

[danielpalos]

Economics is the softest science there is. Good to know the Democrats are head deep into worshiping at the economics alter as well.

the right wing is willing to "ditch Capitalism" for their socialism on a national basis.

 

[rhodescholar]

Just how many anchor babies are delivered every year.

Illegal Immigrant Births - At Your Expense

"Eliot is one of an estimated 300,000 children of illegal immigrants born in the United States every year, according to the Pew Hispanic Center. They're given instant citizenship because they are born on U.S. soil, which makes it easier for their parents to become U.S. citizens."

Even worse:

Retreating on illegal immigration

"With lower incomes, illegals rely more on welfare programs. CIS says in Texas, "58 percent of illegal households collect some sort of welfare," with "49 percent using food assistance and 41 percent using Medicaid." In California and Illinois, reports CIS, "55 percent use welfare." California, which has the largest number of illegal aliens, predictably has the greatest burden. In Los Angeles County alone, according to a CBS Los Angeles report, welfare and other benefits by the end of last year cost an estimated $650 million just for the native-born children of illegal immigrant parents. L.A. County Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich told CBS Los Angeles: "When you add the $550 million for public safety and nearly $500 million for health care, the total cost for illegal immigrants to county taxpayers exceeds $1.6 billion a year. Hospital closings in California remain a major concern. As Examiner.com reported recently in a story about the economic burden to taxpayers posed by illegal immigrants, "In 2003, the American Southwest saw 77 hospitals enter bankruptcy due to unpaid medical bills incurred by illegal aliens.""

Most of the illegals I have come to know WORK, and do NOT receive any benefits of any kind.

So you base your conclusions on those that you know personally? Now THAT'S really strong "evidence".....

Many have been here for decades.

Which is worse, because it means they have been collecting more years of my taxes.

We have a case study already and it's called ALABAMA--of the impact of kicking out all undocumented workers.

And there is a case study in Australia where they improved their technology so lots of low wage, illegal labor would not be needed.

========================

Since when did liberals like you start advocating for a permanent underclass of poor immigrants? Liberals used to be for the poor, now you hypocrites propose that the US import an endless supply of brown, impoverished, poorly educated slave labor from central/south america to pick your strawberries at poverty-level wages - wow, that's some real moral position you liberals have there, you should be proud of yourselves for displaying such lofty values.

 

[sakinago]

Twice in less than 24 hours I've found myself engaged in discussions about something having to do with the net economic impact of illegal immigration. The same topic also came up about ten days ago. I have thus elevated my post on the matter to the OP of a thread because it seems people here just don't do their own research, in this case, into whether illegal immigration yields a net positive or negative economic impact to the U.S.

According to publications from the conservative Center for Immigration Studies and the liberal Migration Policy Institute, illegal immigration yields a very small but nonetheless positive impact on the U.S. economy. Read the documents you'll find linked in the preceding sentence and you'll find the following:

• 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.

Now one can kvetch about the fact that the net gain is very small, but what one cannot do is credibly claim that illegal immigration is a net drain on the U.S. economy, and that's in the current environment whereby we spend whatever we spend to impede, apprehend and deport individuals' making efforts to illegally gain entry to or remain in the U.S.

In other words, the only way illegal immigration/immigrants can become a net drain on the U.S. economy is if U.S. federal, state and local governments spend more money interdicting and deporting illegal immigrants. How much more? Well, something between $395 and $472 billion more.

I'm sorry, but laws on the books or not -- we've had stupid laws before, we clearly do still -- it just doesn't make sense to spend any sum of money to solve a so-called problem that produces for our country a net gain if we just leave it alone.

Everything you sited is just stating the GDP gain from illegal immigrants vs the cost of deporting them. It's not siting other areas they effect.

One being education of illegal immigrants, which roughly comes out to 39 billion a year...and this is coming from a population that largely does not pay taxes. That number is solely based on the actual education of migrant children, not the extra cost that schools have when it comes to adding more space, feeding them, and programs for the special needs kids. This number is from one area alone...education. And is overburdening our already failing educational system.

Other area is that yes, illegal immigrants are receiving government welfare. They are actually the largest group receiving welfare.
Most Illegal Immigrant Families Collect Welfare - Judicial Watch

And yes hospitals do treat people, including illegal immigrants, despite not having insurance, and hospitals eat those huge cost all the time. Despite the lefts efforts to equate actual healthcare with health insurance, no these are not the same, stop talking about them like they are. And the Mexican population is being ravaged by diabetes, they've actually passed us as the fattest nation on earth. This cost comes out to about 12 billion a year, again an already overburdened system forced to take on more, from a population that's largely not paying taxes.

And the cost would not be as high to deport them all, if we actually were enforcing laws already on the book in the first place. The Bush and Obama ignored these laws (Obamas much more so than bush) and we got huge waves of migrants of which, we don't know who they really (are they a criminal giving a fake name), we do not know what diseases they have, or giving proper screenings as security risks. Yes we do have to take into account that not having a secure boarder, leads to higher drug crime. Americans are dying in record numbers from ODing from the heroine coming over the boarder.

 

[rhodescholar]

You cited a FAIR report and attempted to discredit George Borjas.

Blah blah blah, lots of BS and nonsense.

That FAIR quoted borjas for a sliver of one of their reports does not mean they support his conclusions. You keep whining about "mentioning the costs but not the 'benefits'" - all you do is cite borjas and refuse to address:

1) my example of a typical illegal family's income and their usage of public services while not earning ANYWHERE near enough to cover the taxes for them
2) what are the so-called benefits they offer for ALL americans - only SOME people like employers benefit from their presence - but NOT anyone else, especially taxpayers or labor illegals compete with for jobs does
3) how NO OTHER COUNTRY ON EARTH accepts illegals
4) their presence alone in the US is a violation of the law

When you are willing to actually step up and address those core issues, THEN I'll be interested in sifting through some cut-n-paste, off the web nonsense you have to offer.

Almost all jobs left vacant by deported unauthorized immigrants will not be filled by legal American workers.

​

​

As your chart above shows - the vast majority of illegals are TAKING JOBS from americans in positions that many of which such as carpenters used to pay a good living wage. And when you claim absolute ******* nonsense like "americans won't do those jobs" - I can only laugh at crap like that. You think america did not exist before the ******* 1970s? Who the **** do you think did those jobs before the illegal mass horde came in?​

On a national level, FAIR estimates that there are 4.7 million school aged children who would not be in schools without undocumented immigration -- 1.3 million unauthorized children and 3.4 million child citizens of unauthorized immigrants. But counting the 3.4 million child citizens as a cost of undocumented immigration is a methodology rejected by the Texas Comptroller’s Office

You're really beginning to waste my time, because you do NOT know what the **** you are talking about, and keep posting web BS that is easily de-bunked.

In NYC when children register at a new school they must identify their status, so NYC/NYS knows EXACTLY how many illegals are in the school system. EVERY ******* ONE OF THEM is using (wasting) resources that should be going towards american children.

Estimating the fiscal costs and benefits of unauthorized immigration is very difficult. That doesn’t mean it’s not worth trying, but FAIR’s report is not a serious effort. It takes a snapshot in time using dubious methodology without acknowledging that undocumented children grow up to become taxpayers.

Sure it does. When you can come up with some major-league level debate points, let me know. Right now all you can offer is borjas, some website cut-n-paste drivel, and claims that "FAIR'S report is wrong." Not convincing anyone here, rookie.

 

[rhodescholar]

I have to be honest, $4T seems a gross overstatement to me.

No more accurate than your ludicrous claims.

Frankly, I'm content with the net contribution being just that, a net positive economic contribution rather than a net negative one.

Which only occurs in your delusional mind.

The key objective of my opening post in this thread is to show credibly, by way of reference to the best existing empirical economic analysis, that illegal immigrants/immigration has a net positive economic impact on the U.S. economy.

Sure, people who make $20K off the books but use $50K/year in benefits will certainly have a "net positive impact" on the economy...******* hilarious.

Now some folks may elect to attest to being willing to forgo the economic gains.

You keep repeating this crap - WHAT POSITIVE GAINS ARE THEY PROVIDING? Cite them.

I deleted your boatload of hot air below; I must admit it is rare to encounter somone on this forum so dedicated to posting tons of crap with so little meaning. I'll bet you stand in front of the mirror 3x a day and pontificate like Plato, admiring your big-sounding words.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Everything you sited is just stating the GDP gain from illegal immigrants vs the cost of deporting them. It's not siting other areas they effect.

1. You left out a qualitative verb, specifically the one that belongs between the words "from" and "illegal," that would make your statement parallel and specific and that would thus allow me to know precisely what you mean and in turn address it.
2. You clearly didn't read the linked documents, or you did and didn't understand what you read. I don't know which, but I know it's one of the two that because your depiction of the nature of the costs isn't accurate. (Unlike some people who post on USMB, I do actually read the documents to which I link.)

Given #2, there's no point in your now dealing with #1.

 

[rhodescholar]

Everything you sited is just stating the GDP gain from illegal immigrants vs the cost of deporting them. It's not siting other areas they effect.

1. You left out a qualitative verb, specifically the one that belongs between the words "from" and "illegal," that would make your statement parallel and specific and that would thus allow me to know precisely what you mean and in turn address it.
2. You clearly didn't read the linked documents, or you did and didn't understand what you read. I don't know which, but I know it's one of the two that because your depiction of the nature of the costs isn't accurate. (Unlike some people who post on USMB, I do actually read the documents to which I link.)

Given #2, there's no point in your now dealing with #1.

This poster has got to be one of THE biggest ******* trolling morons I've seen here LOL. Language corrections?

Go away, fool.

 

[danielpalos]

Just how many anchor babies are delivered every year.

Illegal Immigrant Births - At Your Expense

"Eliot is one of an estimated 300,000 children of illegal immigrants born in the United States every year, according to the Pew Hispanic Center. They're given instant citizenship because they are born on U.S. soil, which makes it easier for their parents to become U.S. citizens."

Even worse:

Retreating on illegal immigration

"With lower incomes, illegals rely more on welfare programs. CIS says in Texas, "58 percent of illegal households collect some sort of welfare," with "49 percent using food assistance and 41 percent using Medicaid." In California and Illinois, reports CIS, "55 percent use welfare." California, which has the largest number of illegal aliens, predictably has the greatest burden. In Los Angeles County alone, according to a CBS Los Angeles report, welfare and other benefits by the end of last year cost an estimated $650 million just for the native-born children of illegal immigrant parents. L.A. County Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich told CBS Los Angeles: "When you add the $550 million for public safety and nearly $500 million for health care, the total cost for illegal immigrants to county taxpayers exceeds $1.6 billion a year. Hospital closings in California remain a major concern. As Examiner.com reported recently in a story about the economic burden to taxpayers posed by illegal immigrants, "In 2003, the American Southwest saw 77 hospitals enter bankruptcy due to unpaid medical bills incurred by illegal aliens.""

Most of the illegals I have come to know WORK, and do NOT receive any benefits of any kind.

So you base your conclusions on those that you know personally? Now THAT'S really strong "evidence".....

Many have been here for decades.

Which is worse, because it means they have been collecting more years of my taxes.

We have a case study already and it's called ALABAMA--of the impact of kicking out all undocumented workers.

And there is a case study in Australia where they improved their technology so lots of low wage, illegal labor would not be needed.

========================

Since when did liberals like you start advocating for a permanent underclass of poor immigrants? Liberals used to be for the poor, now you hypocrites propose that the US import an endless supply of brown, impoverished, poorly educated slave labor from central/south america to pick your strawberries at poverty-level wages - wow, that's some real moral position you liberals have there, you should be proud of yourselves for displaying such lofty values.

a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage could solve several problems at once.

 

[danielpalos]

Twice in less than 24 hours I've found myself engaged in discussions about something having to do with the net economic impact of illegal immigration. The same topic also came up about ten days ago. I have thus elevated my post on the matter to the OP of a thread because it seems people here just don't do their own research, in this case, into whether illegal immigration yields a net positive or negative economic impact to the U.S.

According to publications from the conservative Center for Immigration Studies and the liberal Migration Policy Institute, illegal immigration yields a very small but nonetheless positive impact on the U.S. economy. Read the documents you'll find linked in the preceding sentence and you'll find the following:

• 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.

Now one can kvetch about the fact that the net gain is very small, but what one cannot do is credibly claim that illegal immigration is a net drain on the U.S. economy, and that's in the current environment whereby we spend whatever we spend to impede, apprehend and deport individuals' making efforts to illegally gain entry to or remain in the U.S.

In other words, the only way illegal immigration/immigrants can become a net drain on the U.S. economy is if U.S. federal, state and local governments spend more money interdicting and deporting illegal immigrants. How much more? Well, something between $395 and $472 billion more.

I'm sorry, but laws on the books or not -- we've had stupid laws before, we clearly do still -- it just doesn't make sense to spend any sum of money to solve a so-called problem that produces for our country a net gain if we just leave it alone.

Everything you sited is just stating the GDP gain from illegal immigrants vs the cost of deporting them. It's not siting other areas they effect.

One being education of illegal immigrants, which roughly comes out to 39 billion a year...and this is coming from a population that largely does not pay taxes. That number is solely based on the actual education of migrant children, not the extra cost that schools have when it comes to adding more space, feeding them, and programs for the special needs kids. This number is from one area alone...education. And is overburdening our already failing educational system.

Other area is that yes, illegal immigrants are receiving government welfare. They are actually the largest group receiving welfare.
Most Illegal Immigrant Families Collect Welfare - Judicial Watch

And yes hospitals do treat people, including illegal immigrants, despite not having insurance, and hospitals eat those huge cost all the time. Despite the lefts efforts to equate actual healthcare with health insurance, no these are not the same, stop talking about them like they are. And the Mexican population is being ravaged by diabetes, they've actually passed us as the fattest nation on earth. This cost comes out to about 12 billion a year, again an already overburdened system forced to take on more, from a population that's largely not paying taxes.

And the cost would not be as high to deport them all, if we actually were enforcing laws already on the book in the first place. The Bush and Obama ignored these laws (Obamas much more so than bush) and we got huge waves of migrants of which, we don't know who they really (are they a criminal giving a fake name), we do not know what diseases they have, or giving proper screenings as security risks. Yes we do have to take into account that not having a secure boarder, leads to higher drug crime. Americans are dying in record numbers from ODing from the heroine coming over the boarder.

You need to study our federal form of government better.

Local taxes pay for schools and infrastructure, not federal income taxes.

 

[danielpalos]

You cited a FAIR report and attempted to discredit George Borjas.

Blah blah blah, lots of BS and nonsense.

That FAIR quoted borjas for a sliver of one of their reports does not mean they support his conclusions. You keep whining about "mentioning the costs but not the 'benefits'" - all you do is cite borjas and refuse to address:

1) my example of a typical illegal family's income and their usage of public services while not earning ANYWHERE near enough to cover the taxes for them
2) what are the so-called benefits they offer for ALL americans - only SOME people like employers benefit from their presence - but NOT anyone else, especially taxpayers or labor illegals compete with for jobs does
3) how NO OTHER COUNTRY ON EARTH accepts illegals
4) their presence alone in the US is a violation of the law

When you are willing to actually step up and address those core issues, THEN I'll be interested in sifting through some cut-n-paste, off the web nonsense you have to offer.

Almost all jobs left vacant by deported unauthorized immigrants will not be filled by legal American workers.

​

​

As your chart above shows - the vast majority of illegals are TAKING JOBS from americans in positions that many of which such as carpenters used to pay a good living wage. And when you claim absolute ******* nonsense like "americans won't do those jobs" - I can only laugh at crap like that. You think america did not exist before the ******* 1970s? Who the **** do you think did those jobs before the illegal mass horde came in?​

On a national level, FAIR estimates that there are 4.7 million school aged children who would not be in schools without undocumented immigration -- 1.3 million unauthorized children and 3.4 million child citizens of unauthorized immigrants. But counting the 3.4 million child citizens as a cost of undocumented immigration is a methodology rejected by the Texas Comptroller’s Office

You're really beginning to waste my time, because you do NOT know what the **** you are talking about, and keep posting web BS that is easily de-bunked.

In NYC when children register at a new school they must identify their status, so NYC/NYS knows EXACTLY how many illegals are in the school system. EVERY ******* ONE OF THEM is using (wasting) resources that should be going towards american children.

Estimating the fiscal costs and benefits of unauthorized immigration is very difficult. That doesn’t mean it’s not worth trying, but FAIR’s report is not a serious effort. It takes a snapshot in time using dubious methodology without acknowledging that undocumented children grow up to become taxpayers.

Sure it does. When you can come up with some major-league level debate points, let me know. Right now all you can offer is borjas, some website cut-n-paste drivel, and claims that "FAIR'S report is wrong." Not convincing anyone here, rookie.

We have a Commerce Clause. This federal problem should be solved at the federal borders, via that Clause.