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

[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.

so what; at one time, corporate America was giving advice to their employees on how to fill out food stamp forms.

 

[rhodescholar]

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

How so? You have an economy that is heavily built/sustained by illegals and their employers using stolen social security numbers, you think they are suddenly going to start following statutes like minimum wage laws?

The reality is that until you reduce the illegals out of the competition for millions of jobs, having such a wage floor is pointless - employers can just hire off the books. The ONLY way to lift the wages of labor is to reduce the size of the labor pool, and that means mass deporting the illegals.

If strawberries become $20 per pound, so be it - that's what it will cost until some inventor comes up with a machine (cotton gin, anyone?) that can make the process more efficient.

 

[rhodescholar]

so what; at one time, corporate America was giving advice to their employees on how to fill out food stamp forms.

Yes, like McDonald's and Walmart a few years ago. Why do you think they can get away with paying poverty-leve wages, and still attract employees? Becuse there ARE SO MANY OF THEM.

Again, reduce the number of available workers, wages will rise - its called economics 101.

 

[danielpalos]

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

How so? You have an economy that is heavily built/sustained by illegals and their employers using stolen social security numbers, you think they are suddenly going to start following statutes like minimum wage laws?

The reality is that until you reduce the illegals out of the competition for millions of jobs, having such a wage floor is pointless - employers can just hire off the books. The ONLY way to lift the wages of labor is to reduce the size of the labor pool, and that means mass deporting the illegals.

If strawberries become $20 per pound, so be it - that's what it will cost until some inventor comes up with a machine (cotton gin, anyone?) that can make the process more efficient.

Why hire illegal labor at fifteen dollars an hour? Or, why hire part-time for that amount?

 

[danielpalos]

so what; at one time, corporate America was giving advice to their employees on how to fill out food stamp forms.

Yes, like McDonald's and Walmart a few years ago. Why do you think they can get away with paying poverty-leve wages, and still attract employees? Becuse there ARE SO MANY OF THEM.

Again, reduce the number of available workers, wages will rise - its called economics 101.

socializing costs so the rich can get richer faster; while the right wing, insists on a "work or die" ethic from the Age of Iron; coincidence or conspiracy?

 

[rhodescholar]

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

How much money does our school district receive from federal, state, and local sources? – Data First

Finance ~ How Do We Fund Our Schools? - Where We Stand

"It’s a little known fact that when it comes to the funding of our schools, the U.S. Government contributes about 10 cents to every dollar spent on K-12 education – less than the majority of countries in the world. And it wasn’t until 1965, when President Lyndon Johnson passed the Elementary and Secondary Education Act as part of his War on Poverty, that the federal government created a lasting program to fund K-12 education."

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

On your other point, do not conflate True Conservatives like myself with the corporate wing of the republican party; if it was up to me I'd eject them out of the party in a nanosecond - my hatred of the corporate wing is no less than that of illegals, public union employees, leftists, etc. True Conservatives DESPISE the corporate wing, because they act solely in their best interests - and not those of the country as a whole. I do not support corporate america or large companies in any way, shape or form.

 

[sakinago]

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.

You're still operating on the assumption that illegal immigration is a victimless crime. Does immigration (legal or otherwise) stimulate the economy and add to GDP, yes. More people working and purchasing does that. Your argument simply is, is that they add to the GDP. Not whether or not it is right for them to do so. And not the negative effects of illegal immigration. Which there are many.

Yes this country was built on immigrants, but they came here legally. They were able to be screened for diseases. They went through the process to become citizens and property contribute back to society. They also chose to learn English as quickly as possible, in order to better advance in our society. We also did not have a huge welfare state as we do now to take advantage of. This system was put into place for our taxpaying citizens, who are following the law.

Illegal immigration is not a victimless crime, especially not with the numbers I have posted. If they were to come here legally, the burdens on these systems would be much less. No country in the world allows this type of immigration to go on without check, and for a very good reason. Boarders need to be secure, especially in a welfare state. That's not hate, that's not in-compassionate. The position that illegal immigration is a victimless crime is in-compassionate to the citizens who need welfare, to the taxpayers, to our students education, to the hospitals, to the people forced to buy a healthcare plan that's subsidizing the cost of illegals healthcare, to all American workers who haven't seen a wage increase in the past 15 years despite inflation and taxes still going up, and most of all to the people who immigrated here legally, spent 10,000 and waited years to come here the right way.

If you want to open up our legal immigration system to allow more in that's another issue, that I happen to agree with. That will help our GDP much better than the illegal variety (especially since a majority of migrant workers are actually sending much of their pay back home and living like kings when they get back). Allowing more Illegal immigration and open boarders is not the answer to the immigration problem. It's the solution that the left wants because it will equal more votes for expanding the welfare state. And the solution that some on the right want because they can get cheap labor for their business. Neither of these are good for the our nation as a whole. Not to mention we are actually hurting the countries that were taking these immigrants from and perpetuating the problem.

 

[rhodescholar]

Does immigration (legal or otherwise) stimulate the economy and add to GDP, yes. More people working and purchasing does that. Your argument simply is, is that they add to the GDP.

Even this is questionable since if the illegals were in their own countries, the US economy could still benefit from their purchases of US exports, hence a net balance of zero effect on GDP. And since they'd be living in their own countries, we taxpayers would not need to financially subsidize their existence here in the US, so in actuality, it would be a net gain if we simply exported to them.

What the idiot OP refused to acknowledge is that while the GDP increases on one side from their purchases of US-made goods, the increase in taxes to support them REDUCES GDP, because that pulls money OUT of the economy by increasing taxes paid.

 

[Tresha91203]

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.

Now take this miniscule net gain and factor in remittances, education, medical care, increased prison loads and restitutions. Net loss.

Also, our minimum wage would be higher without illegals. Americans would be paid the "fair wage" the left claims to want. The left doesn't mind higher prices as a result of living wages for Americans but higher prices as a result of NOT exploiting illegals is bad?

 

[oreo]

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.

Again you're looking at this one sided. If you impose a $15.00 minimum wage on farmers what do you think your groceries, (fruit, vegi's, milk, eggs, chicken, will go up too?) So do you think seniors living on a fixed income would be able to afford to eat?

 

[oreo]

None of you are considering Social Security/Medicare: We are an aging population. Back in the 50's average family size was 4 kids. Over the last several decades kid size per family has been reduced to 2 or less.

Today baby-boomers are entering these funds at 10K per day and this rate will continue for the next 10 years adding an additional 84 TRILLION in unfunded liabilities. So your choices are, to let these funds go bankrupt, cut benefits to the bone, raise the age requirement to 90 years old, or bring in younger workers to support these funds. This is why we are always having to raising the debt ceiling. Right now 1 working person, is supporting 3 retirees on borrowed money.

What you refer to as undoctumented workers aka illegals have contributed 300 BILLION dollars to these funds over the last 2 decades, and they are not eligible for any benefits.

This is why we need immigration REFORM NOW, to insure that those that are working in this country are paying their share into these funds to support them.

 

[oreo]

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.

Get your crayons and coloring books out, turn on your FOX News--and you can listen to all the bullshit you want too. But you can't get away from facts. No one could possibly imagine what would happen to the States in the Southwest of this country, Texas, Colorado, Arizona, Nevada, California, and the entire farming and produce agregate in this country, if all illegals were kicked out of this country.
Illegal immigrants benefit the U.S. economy
The Economic Benefits of Immigration | Manhattan Institute
Benefits Of Illegal Immigration in the United States



As far as the WALL you might want to watch this entire video--and at the end it will tell you how much we have already spent on useless fences and WALLS.

 

[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.

Now take this miniscule net gain and factor in remittances, education, medical care, increased prison loads and restitutions. Net loss.

Also, our minimum wage would be higher without illegals. Americans would be paid the "fair wage" the left claims to want. The left doesn't mind higher prices as a result of living wages for Americans but higher prices as a result of NOT exploiting illegals is bad?

Now take this miniscule net gain and factor in remittances, education, medical care, increased prison loads and restitutions. Net loss.

Yet another person who read only the thread rubric and not the actual documents that contain the details.....

 

[usmbguest5318]

Would you people just look at and listen to yourselves. Would you just think for a moment. Where is your discursive, intellectual, political or even human probity?

It's no wonder that "grass roots" citizens find themselves bereft of a voice in addressing the gravamen of our nation's political discontents. Assuming you are they, the "grass roots," you treat our national ideas as though they are but a superficial mantle manifested at opportune moments in order to commercially and unctuously justify whatever noxious rhetorical experiment you engage at the moment. To wit, elsewhere on the forum, likely in spite of but certainly after my having pointed out the the exact same set of facts, citing the very same original research and reports as found in this thread's OP, one member unequivocally averred a procrustean preference to jettison the benefits we currently enjoy, selfishly seeking to sate his animus over the illicitousness of some immigrants' arrival within our borders.

Unless someone whom I have on ignore has done so, each of you has shown little but your consumption with your own (your party's) articulated positions that not one of you has noticed and expounded upon the fact that in the thread title is found not allusion to, but rather the explicit attestation of the fact that there is, on the topic of illegal immigration, agreement between political polar opposites, thus there is opportunity for arriving at a bipartisan resolution.

And you people appear here on this forum presumably to discuss politics. You people don't want to discuss politics. You are just so overcome with competing in and winning a rhetorical tug-of-war, ostensibly on behalf of your party's righteousness, that you overlooked that two major organizations,seemingly opposed ideologically, actually agree on something. Nary one of you noticed that and in turn exploited that concurrence as the basis for fomenting/discussing the matter so as to advance a win-win outcome.

Some of you may have noticed that I've remarked upon some members who've attempted to engage with me on this topic and that I have castigated them for not having read the two topically germane documents linked in the OP. Why did I do that? Because I would hope that individuals who actually take the time read them would be prescient enough to observe the nature and extent of concurrence among keen thinkers in both camps and see that there is actually real opportunity for building consensus. That chance and seeds of opportunity for productive discussion is the promise this thread offers. And yet who's stepped up to take it? Nobody as best as I can tell.

And you people purport to care about politics? You do not. Politics is about eclipsing that which divides us, not about demonstrating one's trenchant intransigence. That's also what leadership is about. Yet neither you nor most of the people whom Americans have elected to lead them seems to be aware of it. Well, I can say only that about the only thing that may be worse than having to suffer Donald Trump as our leader is having one of you in his place...Though admittedly it's not uncertain that there's actually any material difference. For shame....

 

[rhodescholar]

Get your crayons and coloring books out, turn on your FOX....

Sorry, but I just can't take you seriously as a poster.

 

[rhodescholar]

Would you people just look at and listen to yourselves. Would you just think for a moment. Where is your discursive, intellectual, political or even human probity?

Who the **** are you to lecture anyone? Why don't you answer the questions posed in that earlier post, and stop posting nonsensical fluff and BS like this over and over?

 

[sakinago]

Would you people just look at and listen to yourselves. Would you just think for a moment. Where is your discursive, intellectual, political or even human probity?

It's no wonder that "grass roots" citizens find themselves bereft of a voice in addressing the gravamen of our nation's political discontents. Assuming you are they, the "grass roots," you treat our national ideas as though they are but a superficial mantle manifested at opportune moments in order to commercially and unctuously justify whatever noxious rhetorical experiment you engage at the moment. To wit, elsewhere on the forum, likely in spite of but certainly after my having pointed out the the exact same set of facts, citing the very same original research and reports as found in this thread's OP, one member unequivocally averred a procrustean preference to jettison the benefits we currently enjoy, selfishly seeking to sate his animus over the illicitousness of some immigrants' arrival within our borders.

Unless someone whom I have on ignore has done so, each of you has shown little but your consumption with your own (your party's) articulated positions that not one of you has noticed and expounded upon the fact that in the thread title is found not allusion to, but rather the explicit attestation of the fact that there is, on the topic of illegal immigration, agreement between political polar opposites, thus there is opportunity for arriving at a bipartisan resolution.

And you people appear here on this forum presumably to discuss politics. You people don't want to discuss politics. You are just so overcome with competing in and winning a rhetorical tug-of-war, ostensibly on behalf of your party's righteousness, that you overlooked that two major organizations,seemingly opposed ideologically, actually agree on something. Nary one of you noticed that and in turn exploited that concurrence as the basis for fomenting/discussing the matter so as to advance a win-win outcome.

And you purport to care about politics? You do not. Politics is about eclipsing that which divides us, not about demonstrating one's trenchant intransigence. That's also what leadership is about. Yet neither you nor most of the people whom Americans have elected to lead them seems to be aware of it. Well, I can say only that about the only thing that may be worse than having to suffer Donald Trump as our leader is having one of you in his place...Though admittedly it's not uncertain that there's actually any material difference. For shame....

Your premise on politics is totally biased. It implies a need for continual progress of government, expansion of its role, and that it's place is to find the middle ground of whatever popular demand is at the time. That may be your idea of what politics should be, but it certainly is not what the founders intended. One of my biggest problems in Washington (and governments at the state and local) is that lawmakers feel the need to continually make new laws. Laws giving the government more and more power and control. A government made up of flawed human beings, who like most, have self serving tendencies. And when more power and control is given to people with self serving tendencies, many problems seem to arise. To fight this our government was designed to be very limited, and very much not centralized. So that those in power with self serving tendencies, would have little effect on the citizens, and little means and incentive to fulfill the self serving tendencies.

A problem with finding the middle ground is when one party or group continues to move in one direction, and demanding the middle ground of their current position...then moving further and demanding compromise on that position. At which comprise becomes always a bad decision for one side. A mere 10 years ago both left and right agreed there needs to be a secure boarder. There was discussion on what should be done about the immigrants already here, but both sides agreed on securing a boarder...now what has changed? Now one side dare not utter the phrase illegal, and that all who cross are merely dreamers, without any wrong doing.

And again what you have not addressed is that you're argument is based on net gain. Not on wether or not it's right. Not that they actually are hurting our welfare, educational, and hospital systems, which they clearly are...in the billions of dollars. Money that the US does not have to spend since we're borrowing a million dollars a minute of money we do not have. Placing that burden on our children's shoulders. We all would be pissed at our parents if they racked up a ridiculous amount of debt and left it for us when they died, it's completely irresponsible, and in Obamas words morally wrong.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Would you people just look at and listen to yourselves. Would you just think for a moment. Where is your discursive, intellectual, political or even human probity?

It's no wonder that "grass roots" citizens find themselves bereft of a voice in addressing the gravamen of our nation's political discontents. Assuming you are they, the "grass roots," you treat our national ideas as though they are but a superficial mantle manifested at opportune moments in order to commercially and unctuously justify whatever noxious rhetorical experiment you engage at the moment. To wit, elsewhere on the forum, likely in spite of but certainly after my having pointed out the the exact same set of facts, citing the very same original research and reports as found in this thread's OP, one member unequivocally averred a procrustean preference to jettison the benefits we currently enjoy, selfishly seeking to sate his animus over the illicitousness of some immigrants' arrival within our borders.

Unless someone whom I have on ignore has done so, each of you has shown little but your consumption with your own (your party's) articulated positions that not one of you has noticed and expounded upon the fact that in the thread title is found not allusion to, but rather the explicit attestation of the fact that there is, on the topic of illegal immigration, agreement between political polar opposites, thus there is opportunity for arriving at a bipartisan resolution.

And you people appear here on this forum presumably to discuss politics. You people don't want to discuss politics. You are just so overcome with competing in and winning a rhetorical tug-of-war, ostensibly on behalf of your party's righteousness, that you overlooked that two major organizations,seemingly opposed ideologically, actually agree on something. Nary one of you noticed that and in turn exploited that concurrence as the basis for fomenting/discussing the matter so as to advance a win-win outcome.

And you purport to care about politics? You do not. Politics is about eclipsing that which divides us, not about demonstrating one's trenchant intransigence. That's also what leadership is about. Yet neither you nor most of the people whom Americans have elected to lead them seems to be aware of it. Well, I can say only that about the only thing that may be worse than having to suffer Donald Trump as our leader is having one of you in his place...Though admittedly it's not uncertain that there's actually any material difference. For shame....

Your premise on politics is totally biased. It implies a need for continual progress of government, expansion of its role, and that it's place is to find the middle ground of whatever popular demand is at the time. That may be your idea of what politics should be, but it certainly is not what the founders intended. One of my biggest problems in Washington (and governments at the state and local) is that lawmakers feel the need to continually make new laws. Laws giving the government more and more power and control. A government made up of flawed human beings, who like most, have self serving tendencies. And when more power and control is given to people with self serving tendencies, many problems seem to arise. To fight this our government was designed to be very limited, and very much not centralized. So that those in power with self serving tendencies, would have little effect on the citizens, and little means and incentive to fulfill the self serving tendencies.

A problem with finding the middle ground is when one party or group continues to move in one direction, and demanding the middle ground of their current position...then moving further and demanding compromise on that position. At which comprise becomes always a bad decision for one side. A mere 10 years ago both left and right agreed there needs to be a secure boarder. There was discussion on what should be done about the immigrants already here, but both sides agreed on securing a boarder...now what has changed? Now one side dare not utter the phrase illegal, and that all who cross are merely dreamers, without any wrong doing.

And again what you have not addressed is that you're argument is based on net gain. Not on wether or not it's right. Not that they actually are hurting our welfare, educational, and hospital systems, which they clearly are...in the billions of dollars. Money that the US does not have to spend since we're borrowing a million dollars a minute of money we do not have. Placing that burden on our children's shoulders. We all would be pissed at our parents if they racked up a ridiculous amount of debt and left it for us when they died, it's completely irresponsible, and in Obamas words morally wrong.

Your premise on politics is totally biased. It implies a need for continual progress of government, expansion of its role, and that it's place is to find the middle ground of whatever popular demand is at the time.

ROTFL at you!!!

 

[sakinago]

None of you are considering Social Security/Medicare: We are an aging population. Back in the 50's average family size was 4 kids. Over the last several decades kid size per family has been reduced to 2 or less.

Today baby-boomers are entering these funds at 10K per day and this rate will continue for the next 10 years adding an additional 84 TRILLION in unfunded liabilities. So your choices are, to let these funds go bankrupt, cut benefits to the bone, raise the age requirement to 90 years old, or bring in younger workers to support these funds. This is why we are always having to raising the debt ceiling. Right now 1 working person, is supporting 3 retirees on borrowed money.

What you refer to as undoctumented workers aka illegals have contributed 300 BILLION dollars to these funds over the last 2 decades, and they are not eligible for any benefits.

This is why we need immigration REFORM NOW, to insure that those that are working in this country are paying their share into these funds to support them.

Spoken like a true Ponzi scheme con man. Social security is nothing more than a Ponzi scheme ran by the government. Social security was and is always going to fail. Because like any Ponzi scheme, you always need a bigger batch of new investors to cover the old, and eventually you run out of those investors. Or in the USGs case continually promise more and more to investors.

So in order to continue an unstable Ponzi scheme we have to continue to add to the problem?

 

[oreo]

None of you are considering Social Security/Medicare: We are an aging population. Back in the 50's average family size was 4 kids. Over the last several decades kid size per family has been reduced to 2 or less.

Today baby-boomers are entering these funds at 10K per day and this rate will continue for the next 10 years adding an additional 84 TRILLION in unfunded liabilities. So your choices are, to let these funds go bankrupt, cut benefits to the bone, raise the age requirement to 90 years old, or bring in younger workers to support these funds. This is why we are always having to raising the debt ceiling. Right now 1 working person, is supporting 3 retirees on borrowed money.

What you refer to as undoctumented workers aka illegals have contributed 300 BILLION dollars to these funds over the last 2 decades, and they are not eligible for any benefits.

This is why we need immigration REFORM NOW, to insure that those that are working in this country are paying their share into these funds to support them.

Spoken like a true Ponzi scheme con man. Social security is nothing more than a Ponzi scheme ran by the government. Social security was and is always going to fail. Because like any Ponzi scheme, you always need a bigger batch of new investors to cover the old, and eventually you run out of those investors. Or in the USGs case continually promise more and more to investors.

So in order to continue an unstable Ponzi scheme we have to continue to add to the problem?

Then convince those millions of baby boomers that have paid into these funds all of their lives that it's just a ponzi scheme that they can do without now--so they won't be getting their checks. See how far you get with anyone that is receiving Social Securiy, and Medicare is paying for their medical bills that they're both ponzi schemes.--LOL