Humanitarian crisis at US border (1 Viewer)

[Mohawk]

Ummm.... we are not dogs... we are HUMAN BEINGS! We can reason, or at least we are supposed to be able to reason. Try it! You wanna lower yourself to animal status... go right ahead. Mark your territory. Just don't expect rational people to follow you down that low path. Xenophobia is nothing new.

 

[Pots]

Ummm.... we are not dogs... we are HUMAN BEINGS! We can reason, or at least we are supposed to be able to reason. Try it! You wanna lower yourself to animal status... go right ahead. Mark your territory. Just don't expect rational people to follow you down that low path. Xenophobia is nothing new.

Error - You have exceeded your allotted use of 'Xenophobia' claims for the day.

 

[mr roboto]

Someone just got the 'Word of the Day - Xenophobia' email and was really excited to see a thread on page 1 that had the proper context to use his new word.

 

[Mohawk]

Hey... don't knock my vocab. I worked hard to get it! The word surely applies in this situation. And I won't dumb it down.

 

[jonessed]

Whose alias is Mohawk?

 

[BustedKnuckles]

Ummm.... we are not dogs... we are HUMAN BEINGS! We can reason, or at least we are supposed to be able to reason. Try it! You wanna lower yourself to animal status... go right ahead. Mark your territory. Just don't expect rational people to follow you down that low path. Xenophobia is nothing new.

Error - You have exceeded your allotted use of 'Xenophobia' claims for the day.

Pfffft...he isnt even using it right...xenophobia

A fear of the evil alien from Scientology.
Scientologist: Xenu is coming. He will destroy you. You must remove the souls from your body so he can't eat you! Person: Wow, that's a new one. Xenophobic much?

Scientologist: Xenophobia??? Are you a... noof?

 

[timschochet]

Whose alias is Mohawk?

I wish it were me.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

Whose alias is Mohawk?

I wish it were me.

i hope you`re kidding

 

[Mohawk]

I am not an alias. Why the insult? And if you do not know the definition of xenophobia, look it up smart guy!

 

[BustedKnuckles]

I am not an alias. Why the insult? And if you do not know the definition of xenophobia, look it up smart guy!

ok i was wrong...i found out it was the name of a band

xenophobia
and; incredibly well put together, rockin' 5-piece girl band from vancouver bc, combining a variety of punk rock, and classic rock styles. Arrived on the underground scene around late 2002. Very innovative senses for scene fashion but should not be discredited as they're lyrics are conceptual and very artistic.
Xenophobia is the best band to hit the scene. Better than Human Puke Shield, Marie 43, and Artificial Sugar combined. Amen.

 

[Mohawk]

good job Knuckles!

 

[Sarnoff]

They already have border walls ... built at huge expense. There are tunnels under most of them. The people hired to build the walls put tunnels under it. LOL! You cannot build walls that are impenetrable. Can you say Xenophobia? You guys are ridiculous in your fears.

I’m trying to keep this problem which is already huge and out of control from becoming even worse. Granted there will be complications, but these will seem minor compared to ten years from now if we continue to maintain the status quo. You say the wall won’t work because it won’t stop a determined person from getting into our country. But you're not dealing in reality. Of course, a wall will make it much harder for illegals to get through, and much harder for terrorists to get through. In neither case will it eliminate the possibility, but you seem to suggest we should scrap the whole idea because it’s not one hundred percent perfect? What idea is ever that level of perfect? The wall will do the job for the most part; it will significantly reduce this problem to a more manageable level. Who could ask for more? There has to be a wall.

 

[timschochet]

They already have border walls ... built at huge expense. There are tunnels under most of them. The people hired to build the walls put tunnels under it. LOL! You cannot build walls that are impenetrable. Can you say Xenophobia? You guys are ridiculous in your fears.

I’m trying to keep this problem which is already huge and out of control from becoming even worse. Granted there will be complications, but these will seem minor compared to ten years from now if we continue to maintain the status quo. You say the wall won’t work because it won’t stop a determined person from getting into our country. But you're not dealing in reality. Of course, a wall will make it much harder for illegals to get through, and much harder for terrorists to get through. In neither case will it eliminate the possibility, but you seem to suggest we should scrap the whole idea because it’s not one hundred percent perfect? What idea is ever that level of perfect? The wall will do the job for the most part; it will significantly reduce this problem to a more manageable level. Who could ask for more? There has to be a wall.

Does Joe Arpeio write your posts for you on this subject? I have to ask because they are so entirely predictable and almost a caricature.

Like most of what you write, everything you posted here is 100% wrong. But I also have to point out that while your argument is completely irrelevant with regard to building a wall on our southern border, it does work for certain proposed gun control measures (such as universal background checks.)

 

[Sarnoff]

Your argument mirrors that of La Raza and elements of the far Left.

 

[timschochet]

Your argument mirrors that of La Raza and elements of the far Left.

You keep repeating this. You really have no idea of the libertarian positions on free trade and open immigration do you? You keep accusing me of being a leftist, when in fact I am defending capitalism here, while your position is much more statist and collectivist.

 

[Sarnoff]

Until you can get the law changed, it is what it is, and people have no right to break it. I say that if they do, they’re making a mockery of all of our laws.

 

[StrikeS2k]

Your argument mirrors that of La Raza and elements of the far Left.

You keep repeating this. You really have no idea of the libertarian positions on free trade and open immigration do you? You keep accusing me of being a leftist, when in fact I am defending capitalism here, while your position is much more statist and collectivist.

Find me a link to any credible "Libertarian" who suggests we have wide open borders.

 

[timschochet]

Until you can get the law changed, it is what it is, and people have no right to break it. I say that if they do, theyre making a mockery of all of our laws.

It's a misdemeanor.

 

[Sarnoff]

The analogy I would make is to drunk driving. Theoretically, the act of driving while intoxicated is a victimless crime; it only becomes a serious crime when the drunk driver actually causes harm to someone else. But as a society we can’t wait for that to happen. So we make the act of drunk driving illegal, and rightly so. This same reasoning applies to illegals; we as a society are their collective victims and we cannot afford to wait for them to do harm to us.

 

[timschochet]

The analogy I would make is to drunk driving. Theoretically, the act of driving while intoxicated is a victimless crime; it only becomes a serious crime when the drunk driver actually causes harm to someone else. But as a society we cant wait for that to happen. So we make the act of drunk driving illegal, and rightly so. This same reasoning applies to illegals; we as a society are their collective victims and we cannot afford to wait for them to do harm to us.

IMO, which is backed up by studies and statistics which I have posted here, we as a society are the collective beneficiaries of illegal immigration.

 

[Sarnoff]

The analogy I would make is to drunk driving. Theoretically, the act of driving while intoxicated is a victimless crime; it only becomes a serious crime when the drunk driver actually causes harm to someone else. But as a society we cant wait for that to happen. So we make the act of drunk driving illegal, and rightly so. This same reasoning applies to illegals; we as a society are their collective victims and we cannot afford to wait for them to do harm to us.

IMO, which is backed up by studies and statistics which I have posted here, we as a society are the collective beneficiaries of illegal immigration.

You talk about the great benefit illegals bring to our country, and no one would deny there is certainly a need for low wage workers. I believe there are plenty of Americans willing to do these jobs if given a chance. I’d even be in favor of some sort of involuntary youth program to perform these tasks, say as an alternative to the military draft; this would be healthy for our youth. I am not in favor of any proposed guest worker program, as there is no difference between that and amnesty. One way or another, we need to get these people to leave, not stay. You, of course, completely gloss over the high cost of illegal aliens to our schools, hospitals, and prisons. You don’t really want to discuss these issues, because they don’t fit in with your romantic ideal of hard workers who heroically cross the border in pursuit of the American dream. But our resources are at their breaking point, and I hold that illegals present a much higher cost to us than any benefit they represent, even if you ignore the fact of their illegality, which I can’t.

 

[timschochet]

Actually I'm perfectly willing to discuss all of those issues you claim I want to gloss over. According to the University of Arizona study which I linked to this forum a few years back, while the cost of social services for illegals is especially burdensome in the border states of California, Texas, and Arizona, these costs are largely offset by the economic stimulation produced by these people, in terms of both low wages and spending, in all 50 states, and that the net result is a positive.

My own solution would be some sort of Path to Citizenship in which certain social services are denied for several years. (Though basic public health and public education can't be part of this.)

As for your "solution", there are at least 10-15 million illegals living here- more likely 15-20 million. Do you really believe that we're going to eventually kick them out? That's incredibly unrealistic. They're not going anywhere.

 

[RCon]

The analogy I would make is to drunk driving. Theoretically, the act of driving while intoxicated is a victimless crime; it only becomes a serious crime when the drunk driver actually causes harm to someone else. But as a society we cant wait for that to happen. So we make the act of drunk driving illegal, and rightly so. This same reasoning applies to illegals; we as a society are their collective victims and we cannot afford to wait for them to do harm to us.

IMO, which is backed up by studies and statistics which I have posted here, we as a society are the collective beneficiaries of illegal immigration.

Can you link your studies and stats? Every time I've seen you post one, I find that it's either an opinion piece, or it doesn't show what you claim it shows. Of course, you may well have posted links that I missed.

 

[StrikeS2k]

Actually I'm perfectly willing to discuss all of those issues you claim I want to gloss over. According to the University of Arizona study which I linked to this forum a few years back, while the cost of social services for illegals is especially burdensome in the border states of California, Texas, and Arizona, these costs are largely offset by the economic stimulation produced by these people, in terms of both low wages and spending, in all 50 states, and that the net result is a positive.

My own solution would be some sort of Path to Citizenship in which certain social services are denied for several years. (Though basic public health and public education can't be part of this.)

As for your "solution", there are at least 10-15 million illegals living here- more likely 15-20 million. Do you really believe that we're going to eventually kick them out? That's incredibly unrealistic. They're not going anywhere.

yeah right. A few years ago you posted the same thing. You said "Make a case and I'll discuss it with you." I posted a long, detailed, number list of all the issues I have with illegal immigration. You thanked me for posting it and promised to respond to each point later as "you were busy right now." And then you NEVER responded. You respond to what you want to respond to, that you think you can refute. And you ignore what you don't want to or can't refute. Rinse and repeat. Topic after topic. And you waste everyone's time.

 

[RCon]

My own solution would be some sort of Path to Citizenship in which certain social services are denied for several years. (Though basic public health and public education can't be part of this.)

I don't understand the "path to citizenship" argument. Allow guest workers? I get that. There's an argument that we need workers, and we should make it simpler for workers to come here and work.

But why special privileges for people who have broken a law? A path to citizenship already exists for all potential immigrants. Yes, it's a convoluted path filled with all sorts of (probably extreme and unnecessary) red tape. But the path does exist, and others do follow it. I just don't understand why you insist on choosing option 3 of these three:

1) Punish those who have broken a law. Deny them any chance at citizenship, or make it harder than it is others who have not broken a law.

2) Treat those who have broken a law the same as those who haven't. Allow them to apply for citizenship just like anyone else.

3) Reward those who have broken a law. Give them special treatment that we don't give to those who haven't broken the immigration laws.

It should be self-evident that option 3 will encourage others to break the law in the future.

 

[timschochet]

The analogy I would make is to drunk driving. Theoretically, the act of driving while intoxicated is a victimless crime; it only becomes a serious crime when the drunk driver actually causes harm to someone else. But as a society we cant wait for that to happen. So we make the act of drunk driving illegal, and rightly so. This same reasoning applies to illegals; we as a society are their collective victims and we cannot afford to wait for them to do harm to us.

IMO, which is backed up by studies and statistics which I have posted here, we as a society are the collective beneficiaries of illegal immigration.

Can you link your studies and stats? Every time I've seen you post one, I find that it's either an opinion piece, or it doesn't show what you claim it shows. Of course, you may well have posted links that I missed.

The main person who has studied this issue at length is Professor Judith Gans from the University of Arizona. Over the years she has published several peer reviewed studies on these topics. Here is a link to the latest one: "Economic contributions of immigrants in the United States":

http://udallcenter.arizona.edu/ucpubs/gans_2012a.pdf

I should note that though the title of her study indicates that it deals with ALL immigration, she is particularly focused on illegal immigration.

 

[timschochet]

My own solution would be some sort of Path to Citizenship in which certain social services are denied for several years. (Though basic public health and public education can't be part of this.)

I don't understand the "path to citizenship" argument. Allow guest workers? I get that. There's an argument that we need workers, and we should make it simpler for workers to come here and work.

But why special privileges for people who have broken a law? A path to citizenship already exists for all potential immigrants. Yes, it's a convoluted path filled with all sorts of (probably extreme and unnecessary) red tape. But the path does exist, and others do follow it. I just don't understand why you insist on choosing option 3 of these three:

1) Punish those who have broken a law. Deny them any chance at citizenship, or make it harder than it is others who have not broken a law.

2) Treat those who have broken a law the same as those who haven't. Allow them to apply for citizenship just like anyone else.

3) Reward those who have broken a law. Give them special treatment that we don't give to those who haven't broken the immigration laws.

It should be self-evident that option 3 will encourage others to break the law in the future.

The vast majority of those who come to this country illegally would never have had the opportunity to "wait in line"; they have no legal path to citizenship as the law now exists. THERE IS NO LINE FOR THESE PEOPLE. Either they come here without papers, or they will never come here.

Therefore, there is no lesson to teach them. There is no need to "reward" those who come here legally, because there is no competition between the two groups. And there is no way to discourage illegals from coming here so long as there is a marketplace for their services.

 

[[icon]]

So has Tim proposed subsidized housing, college education with a per-diem, and job placement assistance for all the illegals yet?

 

[timschochet]

So has Tim proposed subsidized housing, college education with a per-diem, and job placement assistance for all the illegals yet?

Glad you're back Icon! I was thinking about how much fun you must have had on Sunday- if not for that last 20 seconds...it's still killing me.

 

[RCon]

My own solution would be some sort of Path to Citizenship in which certain social services are denied for several years. (Though basic public health and public education can't be part of this.)

I don't understand the "path to citizenship" argument. Allow guest workers? I get that. There's an argument that we need workers, and we should make it simpler for workers to come here and work.

But why special privileges for people who have broken a law? A path to citizenship already exists for all potential immigrants. Yes, it's a convoluted path filled with all sorts of (probably extreme and unnecessary) red tape. But the path does exist, and others do follow it. I just don't understand why you insist on choosing option 3 of these three:

1) Punish those who have broken a law. Deny them any chance at citizenship, or make it harder than it is others who have not broken a law.

2) Treat those who have broken a law the same as those who haven't. Allow them to apply for citizenship just like anyone else.

3) Reward those who have broken a law. Give them special treatment that we don't give to those who haven't broken the immigration laws.

It should be self-evident that option 3 will encourage others to break the law in the future.

The vast majority of those who come to this country illegally would never have had the opportunity to "wait in line"; they have no legal path to citizenship as the law now exists. THERE IS NO LINE FOR THESE PEOPLE. Either they come here without papers, or they will never come here.

Therefore, there is no lesson to teach them. There is no need to "reward" those who come here legally, because there is no competition between the two groups. And there is no way to discourage illegals from coming here so long as there is a marketplace for their services.

I don't understand. Can they not apply in the same manner that prospective immigrants from other countries do?

 

[RCon]

The analogy I would make is to drunk driving. Theoretically, the act of driving while intoxicated is a victimless crime; it only becomes a serious crime when the drunk driver actually causes harm to someone else. But as a society we cant wait for that to happen. So we make the act of drunk driving illegal, and rightly so. This same reasoning applies to illegals; we as a society are their collective victims and we cannot afford to wait for them to do harm to us.

IMO, which is backed up by studies and statistics which I have posted here, we as a society are the collective beneficiaries of illegal immigration.

Can you link your studies and stats? Every time I've seen you post one, I find that it's either an opinion piece, or it doesn't show what you claim it shows. Of course, you may well have posted links that I missed.

The main person who has studied this issue at length is Professor Judith Gans from the University of Arizona. Over the years she has published several peer reviewed studies on these topics. Here is a link to the latest one: "Economic contributions of immigrants in the United States":

http://udallcenter.arizona.edu/ucpubs/gans_2012a.pdf

I should note that though the title of her study indicates that it deals with ALL immigration, she is particularly focused on illegal immigration.

I skimmed that, and it doesn't prove what you say it does. Specifically, it doesn't show that illegal immigrants are a net positive to the economy.

1. The paper includes both legal and illegal immigrants, as you noted.

2. The paper ignores costs.

3. The paper freely admits that its data on illegal immigrants is estimates, at best.

4. The paper appears to ignore that some portions of the economic contributions by illegals are displacing potential contributions by citizens, were the illegals not here.

 

[timschochet]

My own solution would be some sort of Path to Citizenship in which certain social services are denied for several years. (Though basic public health and public education can't be part of this.)

I don't understand the "path to citizenship" argument. Allow guest workers? I get that. There's an argument that we need workers, and we should make it simpler for workers to come here and work.

But why special privileges for people who have broken a law? A path to citizenship already exists for all potential immigrants. Yes, it's a convoluted path filled with all sorts of (probably extreme and unnecessary) red tape. But the path does exist, and others do follow it. I just don't understand why you insist on choosing option 3 of these three:

1) Punish those who have broken a law. Deny them any chance at citizenship, or make it harder than it is others who have not broken a law.

2) Treat those who have broken a law the same as those who haven't. Allow them to apply for citizenship just like anyone else.

3) Reward those who have broken a law. Give them special treatment that we don't give to those who haven't broken the immigration laws.

It should be self-evident that option 3 will encourage others to break the law in the future.

The vast majority of those who come to this country illegally would never have had the opportunity to "wait in line"; they have no legal path to citizenship as the law now exists. THERE IS NO LINE FOR THESE PEOPLE. Either they come here without papers, or they will never come here.Therefore, there is no lesson to teach them. There is no need to "reward" those who come here legally, because there is no competition between the two groups. And there is no way to discourage illegals from coming here so long as there is a marketplace for their services.

I don't understand. Can they not apply in the same manner that prospective immigrants from other countries do?

No they can't. If you're in a country south of us, and you want to apply to come to this country, you need to be connected. You probably need to be in the middle or upper class already. And in most cases you better have a very large bribe prepared.

If you are dirt poor and want to come to this country seeking a better life for yourself, either come illegally or win the lottery.

 

[timschochet]

The analogy I would make is to drunk driving. Theoretically, the act of driving while intoxicated is a victimless crime; it only becomes a serious crime when the drunk driver actually causes harm to someone else. But as a society we cant wait for that to happen. So we make the act of drunk driving illegal, and rightly so. This same reasoning applies to illegals; we as a society are their collective victims and we cannot afford to wait for them to do harm to us.

IMO, which is backed up by studies and statistics which I have posted here, we as a society are the collective beneficiaries of illegal immigration.

Can you link your studies and stats? Every time I've seen you post one, I find that it's either an opinion piece, or it doesn't show what you claim it shows. Of course, you may well have posted links that I missed.

The main person who has studied this issue at length is Professor Judith Gans from the University of Arizona. Over the years she has published several peer reviewed studies on these topics. Here is a link to the latest one: "Economic contributions of immigrants in the United States":http://udallcenter.arizona.edu/ucpubs/gans_2012a.pdf

I should note that though the title of her study indicates that it deals with ALL immigration, she is particularly focused on illegal immigration.

I skimmed that, and it doesn't prove what you say it does. Specifically, it doesn't show that illegal immigrants are a net positive to the economy.1. The paper includes both legal and illegal immigrants, as you noted.

2. The paper ignores costs.

3. The paper freely admits that its data on illegal immigrants is estimates, at best.

4. The paper appears to ignore that some portions of the economic contributions by illegals are displacing potential contributions by citizens, were the illegals not here.

Wow. I certainly didn't draw those conclusions.

 

[RCon]

My own solution would be some sort of Path to Citizenship in which certain social services are denied for several years. (Though basic public health and public education can't be part of this.)

I don't understand the "path to citizenship" argument. Allow guest workers? I get that. There's an argument that we need workers, and we should make it simpler for workers to come here and work.

But why special privileges for people who have broken a law? A path to citizenship already exists for all potential immigrants. Yes, it's a convoluted path filled with all sorts of (probably extreme and unnecessary) red tape. But the path does exist, and others do follow it. I just don't understand why you insist on choosing option 3 of these three:

1) Punish those who have broken a law. Deny them any chance at citizenship, or make it harder than it is others who have not broken a law.

2) Treat those who have broken a law the same as those who haven't. Allow them to apply for citizenship just like anyone else.

3) Reward those who have broken a law. Give them special treatment that we don't give to those who haven't broken the immigration laws.

It should be self-evident that option 3 will encourage others to break the law in the future.

The vast majority of those who come to this country illegally would never have had the opportunity to "wait in line"; they have no legal path to citizenship as the law now exists. THERE IS NO LINE FOR THESE PEOPLE. Either they come here without papers, or they will never come here.Therefore, there is no lesson to teach them. There is no need to "reward" those who come here legally, because there is no competition between the two groups. And there is no way to discourage illegals from coming here so long as there is a marketplace for their services.

I don't understand. Can they not apply in the same manner that prospective immigrants from other countries do?

No they can't.If you're in a country south of us, and you want to apply to come to this country, you need to be connected. You probably need to be in the middle or upper class already. And in most cases you better have a very large bribe prepared.

If you are dirt poor and want to come to this country seeking a better life for yourself, either come illegally or win the lottery.

You're suggesting they literally can't apply? Or you're suggesting that their application would be denied? Those are two very different things, and you know it.

 

[RCon]

The analogy I would make is to drunk driving. Theoretically, the act of driving while intoxicated is a victimless crime; it only becomes a serious crime when the drunk driver actually causes harm to someone else. But as a society we cant wait for that to happen. So we make the act of drunk driving illegal, and rightly so. This same reasoning applies to illegals; we as a society are their collective victims and we cannot afford to wait for them to do harm to us.

IMO, which is backed up by studies and statistics which I have posted here, we as a society are the collective beneficiaries of illegal immigration.

Can you link your studies and stats? Every time I've seen you post one, I find that it's either an opinion piece, or it doesn't show what you claim it shows. Of course, you may well have posted links that I missed.

The main person who has studied this issue at length is Professor Judith Gans from the University of Arizona. Over the years she has published several peer reviewed studies on these topics. Here is a link to the latest one: "Economic contributions of immigrants in the United States":http://udallcenter.arizona.edu/ucpubs/gans_2012a.pdf

I should note that though the title of her study indicates that it deals with ALL immigration, she is particularly focused on illegal immigration.

I skimmed that, and it doesn't prove what you say it does. Specifically, it doesn't show that illegal immigrants are a net positive to the economy.1. The paper includes both legal and illegal immigrants, as you noted.

2. The paper ignores costs.

3. The paper freely admits that its data on illegal immigrants is estimates, at best.

4. The paper appears to ignore that some portions of the economic contributions by illegals are displacing potential contributions by citizens, were the illegals not here.

Wow. I certainly didn't draw those conclusions.

They seemed pretty obvious. The point is, that particular paper doesn't even attempt to prove that illegals are a net positive, nor does it claim that illegals are a net positive. For you to suggest that it's proof that illegals are a net positive seems odd, when even the author doesn't do so.

 

[Joe T]

This wasn't too hard to find. A few clicks away really. I won't paste the entire thing, but it is worth the read for more detail. I'm sure Tim will read it "when he has more time."

The Fiscal and Economic Impact of Immigration on the United States

Testimony Prepared for the Joint Economic Committee, May 8, 2013

By Steven A. Camarota May 2013

When considering the economics of immigration, there are three related but distinct issues that should not be confused. First, immigration makes the U.S. economy (GDP) larger. However, by itself a larger economy is not a benefit to native-born Americans. Though the immigrants themselves benefit, there is no body of research indicating that immigration substantially increases the per-capita GDP or income of natives.

Second, there is the fiscal impact — taxes paid by immigrants minus the costs they create for government. There is general agreement that less-educated, lower-income immigrants are a net fiscal drain; and more-educated, higher-income immigrants are a net fiscal benefit.

Third, there is immigration's effect on the wages and employment opportunities of native-born workers. Basic economic theory predicts that immigration should create a net gain for natives, but to do so it redistributes income from workers in competition with immigrants to workers not in competition and to owners of capital. Theory also predicts that the size of the net gain will be tiny relative to the size of the economy and the size of the redistribution. Because the least educated and poorest Americans are the most likely to be in competition with immigrants, they tend to be the biggest losers from immigration.

Putting aside economic theory, the last 13 years have witnessed an extraordinary situation in the U.S. labor market — all of the employment gains have gone to immigrant workers. This is extremely puzzling since the native-born account for about two-thirds of the growth in the working-age population, and should therefore have received roughly two-thirds of the employment growth. Even before the Great Recession, a disproportionate share of employment gains went to immigrants even though natives account for most of the increase in the working-age population.

Key Findings of Research:

Impact on Aggregate Size of Economy

George Borjas , the nation's leading immigration economist estimates that the presence of immigrant workers (legal and illegal) in the labor market makes the U.S. economy (GDP) an estimated 11 percent larger ($1.6 trillion) each year.1

But Borjas cautions, "This contribution to the aggregate economy, however, does not measure the net benefit to the native-born population." This is because 97.8 percent of the increase in GDP goes to the immigrants themselves in the form of wages and benefits.2

Impact on Wages and Employment

Using the standard to textbook model of the economy, Borjas further estimates that the net gain to natives equals just 0.2 percent of the total GDP in the United States — from both legal and illegal immigration. This benefit is referred to as the immigrant surplus.3

To generate the surplus of $35 billion, immigration reduces the wages of natives in competition with immigrants by an estimated $402 billion a year, while increasing profits or the incomes of users of immigrants by an estimated $437 billion.4

The standard model predicts that the redistribution will be much larger than the tiny economic gain. The native-born workers who lose the most from immigration are those without a high school education, who are a significant share of the working poor.

The findings from empirical research that tries to examine what actually happens in response to immigration aligns well with economy theory. By increasing the supply of workers, immigration does reduce the wages for those natives in competition with immigrants.

Economists have focused more on the wage impact of immigration. However, some studies have tried to examine the impact of immigration on the employment of natives. Those that find a negative impact generally find that it reduces employment for the young, the less-educated, and minorities.

Immigrant Gains, Native Losses

Recent trends in the labor market show that, although natives account for the majority of population growth, most of the net gain in employment has gone to immigrants.

In the first quarter of 2013, the number of working-age natives (16 to 65) working was 1.3 million fewer than in the first quarter of 2000, while the number of immigrants working was 5.3 million greater over the same period. Thus, all of the employment growth over the last 13 years went to immigrants even though the native-born accounted for two-thirds of the growth in the working age population.5

The last 13 years have seen very weak employment growth, whether measured by the establishment survey or the household survey. Over the same time period 16 million new immigrants arrived from abroad.6 One can debate the extent to which immigrants displace natives, but the last 13 years make clear that large-scale immigration does not necessarily result in large-scale job growth.

Fiscal Impact

The National Research Council (NRC) estimated in 1996 that immigrant households (legal and illegal) create a net fiscal burden (taxes paid minus services used) on all levels of government of between $11.4 billion and $20.2 billion annually.7

The NRC also found that the fiscal impact of immigration depends heavily on the education level of the immigrant in question.8

At the individual level, excluding any costs for their children, the NRC estimated a net lifetime fiscal drain of -$89,000 (1996 dollars) for an immigrant without a high school diploma, and a net fiscal drain of -$31,000 for an immigrant with only a high school education. However, more educated immigrants create a lifetime net fiscal benefit of +$105,000.9

A just-released study from the Heritage Foundation found that the average household headed by an illegal immigrant used nearly $14,400 more in services than it paid in taxes, for a total fiscal drain of $55 billion.

The Heritage study is absolutely clear that the fiscal costs associated with illegal immigrant households is directly related to their educational attainment. They find that illegal immigrant have on average only 10 years of schooling.

Figure 2 at the end of this testimony illustrates the importance of education. For example, it shows that 59 percent of households headed by an immigrant who has not graduated high school access one or more welfare programs, and 70 percent have no federal income tax liability. In contrast, 16 percent of households headed by an immigrant with bachelor's degree access welfare and only 21 percent had no federal income tax liability.

In a study I authored for the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), we found that if illegal immigrants were legalized and began to pay taxes and use services like households headed by legal immigrants with the same education levels, the annual net fiscal deficit would increase to $29 billion, or $7,700 per household at the federal level.10

Illegal immigrants with little education are a significant fiscal drain, but less-educated immigrants who are legal residents are a much larger fiscal problem because they are eligible for many more programs. For this reason amnesty increases costs in the long run. Heritage's just-released study confirms the finding that amnesty would substantially increase costs over time.

Introduction

In my written testimony I will first briefly discuss the extraordinary developments in the U.S. labor market over the last decade, whereby all or almost all of the net growth in employment went to immigrants. Second, I will discuss the newest research examining the impact on the labor market of immigration. Third I will discuss the fiscal impact of immigration. In the discussion that follows I use the words immigrant and foreign-born synonymously. Following the Census Bureau definition, immigrants or the foreign-born are persons who were not U.S. citizens at birth.

http://cis.org/node/4573

So simple to read and understand.

I'm absolutely positive Tim "won't have time to read it."

 

[[icon]]

I think we should prob give these kids cars too. A lot of american kids get cars for their 16th birthdays, so it's not fair that these kids have to take the bus.

We have to do the right thing, guys.

 

[freakinback]

I am not an alias. Why the insult? And if you do not know the definition of xenophobia, look it up smart guy!

What countries are less xenophobic then the US? What counties are kinder to illegal immigrants? Mexico? Canada? England?

 

[timschochet]

I read it, Joe T, and just like everything else written by the Center for Immigration Studies, it's facts are wrong, and its conclusions are full of xenophobic crap. But I don't expect that to stop you.

 

[timschochet]

What's sad is this- eventually there WILL be amnesty for almost all illegals living here, along with a Path to Citizenship for any who come in the future. It WILL happen, because there's no other way to handle this issue. But the cost will be a Latino population in this country that votes 80% for Democrats for decades to come. Republicans could have changed all that, and kept themselves an important party in terms of future national elections. George W. Bush tried. John McCain tried. Mario Rubio tried. But the xenophobes shot them all down. So congrats to the Sarnoffs and Strikes out there- you have effectively destroyed the GOP. Hope you guys enjoy being a southern based, white person's party without any national influence.

 

[Stinger Ray]

What's sad is this- eventually there WILL be amnesty for almost all illegals living here, along with a Path to Citizenship for any who come in the future. It WILL happen, because there's no other way to handle this issue. But the cost will be a Latino population in this country that votes 80% for Democrats for decades to come. Republicans could have changed all that, and kept themselves an important party in terms of future national elections. George W. Bush tried. John McCain tried. Mario Rubio tried. But the xenophobes shot them all down. So congrats to the Sarnoffs and Strikes out there- you have effectively destroyed the GOP. Hope you guys enjoy being a southern based, white person's party without any national influence.

For once ......just shut up!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Sarnoff]

Always trying to blame racism

 

[timschochet]

What's sad is this- eventually there WILL be amnesty for almost all illegals living here, along with a Path to Citizenship for any who come in the future. It WILL happen, because there's no other way to handle this issue. But the cost will be a Latino population in this country that votes 80% for Democrats for decades to come. Republicans could have changed all that, and kept themselves an important party in terms of future national elections. George W. Bush tried. John McCain tried. Mario Rubio tried. But the xenophobes shot them all down. So congrats to the Sarnoffs and Strikes out there- you have effectively destroyed the GOP. Hope you guys enjoy being a southern based, white person's party without any national influence.

For once ......just shut up!!!!!!!!!!!!!

No. And please stop asking; it's rude.

 

[timschochet]

Always trying to blame racism

I didn't bring up racism. I mentioned xenophobia. The part about the "white man's party" is an accurate representation, and an unfortunate one.

 

[MC Gas Money]

What about the humanitarian crisis on this board?

 

[Stinger Ray]

What's sad is this- eventually there WILL be amnesty for almost all illegals living here, along with a Path to Citizenship for any who come in the future. It WILL happen, because there's no other way to handle this issue. But the cost will be a Latino population in this country that votes 80% for Democrats for decades to come. Republicans could have changed all that, and kept themselves an important party in terms of future national elections. George W. Bush tried. John McCain tried. Mario Rubio tried. But the xenophobes shot them all down. So congrats to the Sarnoffs and Strikes out there- you have effectively destroyed the GOP. Hope you guys enjoy being a southern based, white person's party without any national influence.

For once ......just shut up!!!!!!!!!!!!!

No. And please stop asking; it's rude.

I'm not asking.

 

[Sarnoff]

Tim offers no solutions of his own, preferring to belittle the whole problem. And offers no concrete reason to be against the proposed fence along our southern borders.

 

[MC Gas Money]

Im not in favor of a fence along the border

Punja traps are a better idea

 

[StrikeS2k]

Tim offers no solutions of his own, preferring to belittle the whole problem. And offers no concrete reason to be against the proposed fence along our southern borders.

Tim's solution is to simply let anyone who wants to come here. And he calls others simplistic.

 

[timschochet]

Tim offers no solutions of his own, preferring to belittle the whole problem. And offers no concrete reason to be against the proposed fence along our southern borders.

Tim's solution is to simply let anyone who wants to come here. And he calls others simplistic.

Yes, I'd like to see us return to the days of pre-2920s immigration policies, but I acknowledge that will never happen. So I support the "Path to Citizenship" ideas that were proposed by Bush and now Rubio. And I will reluctantly accept the trade off of tighter controls on our borders (even a fence in some places if we must) in exchange for legal recognition and a road to citizenship for those already here. I am willing to compromise. Are you?