Let's talk about illegal immigration (2 Viewers)

[IvanKaramazov]

Tim, I agree with you on this issue very strongly, but sometimes your attempts to persuade others are counterproductive. This is one of those times.

 

[timschochet]

Tim, I agree with you on this issue very strongly, but sometimes your attempts to persuade others are counterproductive. This is one of those times.

Maybe. But I'm so sick of the ignorance on this issue. Granted, Rich isn't ignorant, he just disagrees with me, and that's fine. But the rhetoric coming from the right is driving me ####### nuts.

 

[timschochet]

Actually I am going to change my mind about deportation. As I'm typing this, my daughter is watching Twilight. She's been watching it all day.

I would be in favor of deporting the entire cast of these movies, along with the director, writers, crew. And my daughter.

 

[cubd8]

Let's cut right to the two central points here:

1. Illegal immigrants, once in this country, are not violent criminals. The vast majority actually obey the law at a higher rate than the average citizen does.

2. Illegal immigrants are a net economic boon for this country.

These two facts are the exact opposite of what Donald Trump has been saying and what most conservatives believe.

Do most conservatives believe that illegal immigrants are violent?

 

[cubd8]

On the issue itself, I have no idea why Democrats and Republicans alike don't just enforce the last law they agreed upon. Democrats voted for this, Republicans voted for it, just enforce what Democrats voted for. This situation is so mind numbingly dysfunctional it' hard to even begin.

Recap it, if you can.

 

[RBM]

So excited for the mass deportation. This board will definitely be the place to be.

 

[Ratbert]

The 1990 law - by Ted Kennedy - bumped up the amount of legal immigration from ~530K per year to 675K per year.

Say you pass a law that bumps that up to 1 million per year.

So what are you going to do to ensure that number is enforced?

He'll grant amnesty to anyone who runs afoul of that law. Problem solved in his mind.

 

[Ratbert]

Actually I am going to change my mind about deportation. As I'm typing this, my daughter is watching Twilight. She's been watching it all day.

I would be in favor of deporting the entire cast of these movies, along with the director, writers, crew. And my daughter.

Its official. Tim now hates BOTH the first AND second amendments.

 

[timschochet]

Actually I am going to change my mind about deportation. As I'm typing this, my daughter is watching Twilight. She's been watching it all day.

I would be in favor of deporting the entire cast of these movies, along with the director, writers, crew. And my daughter.

Its official. Tim now hates BOTH the first AND second amendments.

If James Madison had been forced to sit through Twilight he might have changed the wording.

 

[RCon]

Here's more for you Rich:

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-policy/203984-illegal-immigrants-benefit-the-us-economy

Illegal Immigrants benefit the economy

There are few subjects that evoke as much emotion as immigration reform, especially since future laws could result in a path to citizenship for over 11 million illegal immigrants.

When analyzed from the vantage point of information derived from reputable, nonpartisan sources (the Pew Research Center, USDA, United States Department of Labor, and leading economists and researchers) then one can obtain a clearer view of this muddled discussion. The truth of the matter is that illegal immigrants are important to the U.S. economy, as well as vital to certain industries like agriculture.

According to the Pew Research Hispanic Trends Project, there were 8.4 million unauthorized immigrants employed in the U.S.; representing 5.2 percent of the U.S. labor force (an increase from 3.8 percent in 2000). Their importance was highlighted in a report by Texas Comptroller Susan Combs that stated, “Without the undocumented population, Texas’ work force would decrease by 6.3 percent” and Texas’ gross state product would decrease by 2.1 percent. Furthermore, certain segments of the U.S. economy, like agriculture, are entirely dependent upon illegal immigrants.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture states that, “about half of the hired workers employed in U.S. crop agriculture were unauthorized, with the overwhelming majority of these workers coming from Mexico.” The USDA has also warned that, “any potential immigration reform could have significant impacts on the U.S. fruit and vegetable industry.” From the perspective of National Milk Producers Federation in 2009, retail milk prices would increase by 61 percent if its immigrant labor force were to be eliminated.

Echoing the Department of Labor, the USDA, and the National Milk Producers Federation, agricultural labor economist James S. Holt made the following statement to Congress in 2007: “The reality, however, is that if we deported a substantial number of undocumented farm workers, there would be a tremendous labor shortage.”

In terms of overall numbers, The Department of Labor reports that of the 2.5 million farm workers in the U.S., over half (53 percent) are illegal immigrants. Growers and labor unions put this figure at 70 percent.

But what about the immense strain on social services and money spent on welfare for these law breakers? The Congressional Budget Office in 2007 answered this question in the following manner: “Over the past two decades, most efforts to estimate the fiscal impact of immigration in the United States have concluded that, in aggregate and over the long term, tax revenues of all types generated by immigrants—both legal and unauthorized—exceed the cost of the services they use.” According to the New York Times, the chief actuary of the Social Security Administration claims that undocumented workers have contributed close to 10% ($300 billion) of the Social Security Trust Fund.

Finally, the aggregate economic impact of illegal immigration is debatable, but any claim that they’ve ruined the country doesn’t correlate to the views of any notable economist. An open letter to President George W. Bush in 2006, signed by around five hundred economists (including five Nobel laureates) stated the following: “While a small percentage of native-born Americans may be harmed by immigration, vastly more Americans benefit from the contributions that immigrants make to our economy, including lower consumer prices.”

Although Harvard economist Jorge Borjas has stated that illegal immigrants from 1980-2000 have reduced the wages of high school dropouts in the U.S, he also states that the average American’s wealth has increased by 1 percent because of illegal immigration. In an op-ed published in the Los Angeles Times, UC Davis economist Giovanni Peri stated that new laws are needed to meet demands within industries like construction, agriculture, and hospitality: “In recent decades, the high demand for these services and the pressure for keeping their cost low and prices competitive have generated incentives to hire undocumented workers.”

Some people claim that illegal immigrants represent an assault on our sovereignty. If this is true, then it might be the first time in world history that a country has employed its invaders. When illegal immigrants cross the border, there’s a citizen waiting to hire them and benefit in some manner from their labor. The sooner our country realizes that immigration reform should be based upon the views of economists and nonpartisan academic researchers, rather than think tanks and radio show hosts, then Congress will finally be able to help solve this national dilemma.

I refer you to the bolded of your own article. Specifically, your own article does not come to conclusion you believe it does.

 

[Ratbert]

Actually I am going to change my mind about deportation. As I'm typing this, my daughter is watching Twilight. She's been watching it all day.

I would be in favor of deporting the entire cast of these movies, along with the director, writers, crew. And my daughter.

Its official. Tim now hates BOTH the first AND second amendments.

If James Madison had been forced to sit through Twilight he might have changed the wording.

Sounds like your fourth amendment rights were infringed. Pro tip: take the 5th.

 

[RCon]

You are aware that all the statistics in your original post refer to immigrants, rather than illegal immigrants, right?

You've posted hundreds of times that illegal immigrants are a net positive to the economy, yet you've never once been able to show support for that notion. Sometimes you've posted stats showing immigrants are a net positive (which I've never analyzed, since that's not the question), sometimes you've posted stats showing the exact opposite of what you claim, but you have yet to post a serious analysis showing that illegal immigration is a net positive. Until you can do that, why should the rest of us continue to waste our time pointing out the flaws in the same statistics you keep posting? Similarly, why should the rest of us waste our time debating you when you refuse to acknowledge the articles, proof, and statistics that others bring to the table?

That said, it's also useless for anyone to actually propose a compromise solution here, as you've already stated you would never agree to any compromise that isn't complete amnesty and open borders for the future. Why should anyone talk about this with you again?

First off, while the ACLU prefers not to differentiate overall, the fact is that they do within the fact sheet. If you read it, you will note that they discuss the undocumented (illegal immigrants) in every point they make, and in fact they report that illegals are not less of a net positive on the economy than legal immigrants, but actually more so, for a variety of reasons. They are also less likely to be violent criminals, as I've pointed out. Illegals are a net positive, economically, socially, culturally. I don't ignore statistics to the contrary; there simply aren't any. But you're welcome to try to produce some.

As to your last point, I'm not any kind of decision maker, but yeah despite my convictions on this matter I'm willing to compromise. Are you?

I'll be honest, I had to skim the OP, what with the Hippling going on. It hurts my eyes trying to read it carefully. I did notice that their Myth/Fact headlines refer to immigration, not illegal immigration.

Re: compromising, I've posted policies I would endorse multiple times, each of which were more than fair, but you reject them each time because you aren't willing to compromise.

 

[Fennis]

I've started threads on this topic before (though not for a few years). But it's important to talk about it again, since let's face it, the main reason for Donald Trump's popularity is that the vast majority of the base of the Republican party agree with him on this topic, and that fact is sad and pathetic. Most of the information that the conservative base believes about illegal immigration is false, based on fear, ignorance, misinformation, and yes in some cases, bigotry. Here, from the American Civil Liberties Union, (2008) is a pretty good summary of the truth about this issue:

https://www.aclu.org/immigration-myths-and-facts

MYTH: Immigrants are a drain on our social services.

FACT: By paying taxes and Social Security, immigrants contribute far more to government coffers than they use in social services.

In its landmark report published in 1997 arguably the most thorough national study to date of immigration's fiscal impactsthe National Research Council (NRC) of the National Academy of Sciences concluded that on average, immigrants generate public revenue that exceeds their public costs over timeapproximately $80,000 more in taxes than they receive in state, federal and local benefits over their life times.1This same conclusion was reached in 2007 by the Council of Economic Advisers in their report to the Executive Office of the President where they state that "the long-run impact of immigration on public budgets is likely to be positive," and agree with the NRC report's view that "only a forward-looking projection of taxes and government spending can offer an accurate picture of the long-run fiscal consequences of admitting new immigrants."2

Indeed, most non-citizens are not even eligible for the majority of welfare programs unless they are legal permanent residents and have resided in the United States legally for at least five years. This includes benefits such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), SSI, Medicaid, and the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP).

Moreover, according to government reports, noncitizens are much less likely than citizens to use the benefits for which they are eligible. For example, immigrants, especially the undocumented, tend to use medical services much less than the average American.3 In fact, the average immigrant uses less than half the dollar amount of health care services as the average native-born citizen.4 Moreover, the claim that immigrants account for high rates of emergency room (ER) visits is refuted by research; in fact, communities with high rates of ER usage tend to have relatively small percentages of immigrant residents.

Likewise, according to Department of Agriculture reports, noncitizens who are eligible for food stamps are significantly less likely to use them than are all other individuals who are eligible for the program. For example, about 45 percent of eligible noncitizens received food stamps in 2002, compared to almost 60 percent of eligible individuals overall.5

Most of the fiscal impact from immigration is felt at the state and local levels. The Council of Economic Advisors points out in its report to the Executive Office of the President that "the positive fiscal impact tends to accrue at the federal level, but the net costs tend to be concentrated at the state and local level," which bear primary responsibility for providing not only health care but education.6

Still, according to recent studies from a number of cities and statesincluding the states of Arizona, Texas, Minnesota, California, New York, North Carolina and Arkansas, and cities or counties of Chicago and Santa Clarawhile the cost of educating the children of immigrants may be high, the overall economic benefits of immigrants to the states remain positive.7 A University of Illinois study found that undocumented immigrants in the Chicago metropolitan area alone spent $2.89 billion in 2001, stimulating an additional $5.45 billion in total local spending and sustaining 31,908 jobs in the local economy.8

The Udall Center at the University of Arizona found that the fiscal costs of immigrants, starting with education, totaled $1.41 billion in 2004, which, balanced against $1.64 billion in state tax revenue attributable to immigrants as workers, resulted in a fiscal gain of $222.6 million.9 Similarly, in its Special Report about undocumented immigrants in Texas, the Comptroller of Public Accounts found that in 2005, even counting the costs associated with education, "the state revenues collected from undocumented immigrants exceed what the state spent on services, with the difference being $424.7 million."10

MYTH: Immigrants have a negative impact on the economy and the wages of citizens and take jobs away from citizens.

FACT: Immigration has a positive effect on the American economy as a whole and on the income of native-born workers.

In June 2007, the President's Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) issued a report on "Immigration's Economic Impact." Based on a thorough review of the literature, the Council concluded that "immigrants not only help fuel the Nation's economic growth, but also have an overall positive effect on the American economy as a whole and on the income of native-born American workers."11Among the report's key findings were that, on average, U.S. natives benefit from immigration in that immigrants tend to complement natives, not substitute for them.

Immigrants have different skills, which allow higher-skilled native workers to increase productivity and thus increase their incomes. Also, as the native-born U.S. population becomes older and better educated, young immigrant workers fill gaps in the low-skilled labor markets.12

With respect to wages, in a 1997 study, the National Research Council estimated the annual wage gain due to immigration for U.S. workers to be $10 billion each year13 in 2007 CEA estimated the gain at over $30 billion per year.14 The CEA acknowledges that an increase in immigrant workers is likely to have some negative impact on the wages of low-skilled native workers, but they found this impact to be relatively small and went on to conclude that reducing immigration "would be a poorly-targeted and inefficient way to assist low-wage Americans."15

In addition to having an overall positive affect on the average wages of American workers, an increase in immigrant workers also tends to increase employment rates among the native-born. According to a Pew Hispanic Center study, between 2000 and 2004 "there was a positive correlation between the increase in the foreign-born population and the employment of native-born workers in 27 states and the District of Columbia." These states included all the major destination states for immigrants and together they accounted for 67% of all native-born workers.16 California, for example, saw an increase in wages of natives by about four percent from 1990 to 2004a period of large influx of immigrants to the statedue to the complimentary skills of immigrant workers and an increase in the demand for tasks performed by native workers.17

MYTH: Immigrants, particularly Latino immigrants, don't want to learn English.

FACT: Immigrants, including Latino immigrants, believe they need to learn English in order to succeed in the United States, and the majority uses at least some English at work.

Throughout our country's history, critics of immigration have accused new immigrants of refusing to learn English and to otherwise assimilate. These charges are no truer today than they were then. As with prior waves of immigrants, there is a marked increase in English-language skills from one immigrant generation to the next.18 In the first ever major longitudinal study of the children of immigrants, in 1992 Rambaut and Portes found that "the pattern of linguistic assimilation prevails across nationalities." The authors go on to report that "the linguistic outcomes for the third generationthe grandchildren of the present wave of immigrantswill be little different than what has been the age-old pattern in American immigration history."19

While many first-generation Latino immigrants are unable to speak English, 88 percent of their U.S.-born adult children report that they speak English very well.20 And studies show that the number rises dramatically for each subsequent generation. Furthermore, similar to other immigrants, Latinos believe that they need to learn English in order to succeed in the United States, and believe they will be discriminated against if they don't.21 Most Latino immigrants (67%) report that they use at least some English at work.22

California's second-generation immigrants experience a large drop in "low levels of English proficiency" compared to first generation immigrants, from 27% to 6%, and the proportion of immigrants with high levels of English proficiency rises from 49% in the first generation to 79% in the second generation. The proportion of both Asian and Latino immigrants, who speak English exclusively rises from 10% in the first generation to 29% in the second and 94% in the third.23

Notwithstanding the current levels of English language acquisition for the newest wave of immigrants, there is a demand for English language classes that far exceeds the supply and which, if met, would greatly advance immigrants' integration into American social and cultural life.

MYTH: Immigrants don't want to become citizens.

FACT: Many immigrants to the United States seek citizenship, even in the face of difficult requirements and huge backlogs that can delay the process for years.

Most immigrants are ineligible to apply for citizenship until they have resided in the U.S. with lawful permanent resident status for five years, have passed background checks, have shown that they have paid their taxes, are of "good moral character, demonstrate knowledge of U.S. history and civics, and have the ability to understand, speak and write English." In addition, people applying for naturalization have to pay a fee, which increased by 69% in 2007 from $400 to $675, making it much harder for low-income immigrants to reach their dream of becoming Americans.24

Despite these barriers, The Pew Hispanic Center's report on U.S. Census data shows that the proportion of eligible immigrants who have acquired citizenship rose to 52% in 2005, "the highest level in a quarter of a century."15 In the 2007 fiscal year, DHS received 1.4 million citizenship applicationsnearly double from last fiscal year 26and between June and July of 2007, naturalization applications increased 350% compared to last year.27 In his testimony to Congress, US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) Director, Emilio Gonzalez, referred to this increase as "unprecedented in the history of immigration services in our nation."28

Yet, despite the promise by USCIS that backlogs would be eliminated, applications for naturalization can take a year and half to adjudicate and of the 1.4 applications it received in 2007, less than 660,000 have been decided.29

MYTH: Immigrants don't pay taxes.

FACT: Almost all immigrants pay income taxes even though they can't benefit from most federal and state local assistance programs and all immigrants pay sales and property taxes.

According to the 2005 Economic Report of the President, "more than half of all undocumented immigrants are believed to be working ‘on the books'…[and]… contribute to the tax rolls but are ineligible for almost all Federal public assistance programs and most major Federal-state programs." According to the report, undocumented immigrants also "contribute money to public coffers by paying sales and property taxes (the latter are implicit in apartment rentals)."30

All immigrants (legal and undocumented) pay the same real estate taxes and the same sales and other consumption taxes as everyone else. The University of Illinois at Chicago found in 2002 that undocumented immigrants in the Chicago metro area spent $2.89 billion annually from their earnings and these expenditures generated $2.56 billion additional spending for the local economy.31

Legal immigrants pay income taxes and indeed many undocumented immigrants also pay income taxes or have taxes automatically withheld from their paycheckseven though they are unable to claim a tax refund, Social Security benefits or other welfare benefits that these taxes support. In the Chicago metro area for example, approximately seventy percent of undocumented workers paid payroll taxes, according to the University of Illinois study from 2002.32 In the Washington Metro Region, immigrants paid the same share of the region's overall taxes (18 percent) as the rest of the population (17.4 percent), according to a 2006 Urban Institute study.33 This study also points to the fact that immigrants' tax payments support both local and state services in addition to the federal government.

The Social Security Administration (SSA) holds that undocumented immigrants "account for a major portion" of the billions of dollars paid into the Social Security systeman estimated $520 billion as of October 2005.34 The SSA keeps a file called the "earnings suspense file" on all earnings with incorrect or fictitious Social Security numbers and the SSA's chief actuary stated in 2005 that "three quarters of other-than-legal immigrants pay payroll taxes."35 Their figures show that the suspense file is growing by more than $50 billion a year, generating $6 to 7 billion in Social Security tax revenue and about $1.5 billion in Medicare taxes.

MYTH: Immigrants send all their money back to their home countries instead of spending money here.

FACT: Immigrants do send money to family members, making it possible for more people to stay in their home countries rather than migrating to the United States. Importantly, sending remittances home does not keep immigrants from spending money in the United States.

It's true that remittances are the biggest sources of foreign currency for most Latin American countries and surpass any amount of foreign aid sent by the U.S. The money sent by immigrants to their family members allows many people to stay in their home countries who might otherwise feel compelled to migrate to the U.S.

And while 51 percent of Latino immigrants send remittances home,36 they are spending their money in the United States as well. In fact, a 1998 study found that immigrants become net economic contributors after 10 to 15 years in the U.S.37

In addition to paying taxes and Social Security, immigrants spend money on goods and services in the United States. A study of Latino immigrants in California found significant gains in home ownership between those who had been in this country for ten years (16.4 percent are homeowners) and those who had been here for over thirty years (64.6 percent).38 Furthermore, a 2002 Harvard University study of U.S. Census data found that there were more than 5.7 million foreign- born homeowners in the United States.39 The study found that foreign-born new homeowners are buying their homes by saving more than native-born homebuyers and stretching their incomes more.

While homeownership nationally was approximately 69% in 2006, it was 60% for Asians and 50% for Latinoseach group with large immigrant populations and therefore greater impediments to obtaining bank loans.40 Although homeownership is largely correlated with legal status in the U.S., undocumented immigrants are also buying into the "American Dream" of homeownership in some of the most expensive housing markets in the country.41

MYTH: Immigrants bring crime to our cities and towns.

FACT: Immigrants are actually far less likely to commit crimes than their native-born counterparts. Even as the undocumented population has increased in the United States, crime rates have decreased significantly.

According to a 2000 report prepared for the U.S. Department of Justice, immigrants maintain low crime rates even when faced with adverse social conditions such as low income and low levels of education.42

Although incarceration rates are highest among young low-income men and many immigrants arriving in the U.S. are young men with low levels of education, incarceration rates among young men are invariably lower for immigrants than for their native-born counterparts. This is true across every ethnic group but the differences are especially noticeable among Mexicans, Salvadorans and Guatemalans, who constitute the majority of undocumented immigrants in the United States. Even in cities with the largest immigrant populations, such as New York, Los Angeles, Chicago and Miami, violent and non-violent crime rates have continued to decline.43

Even after taking into account higher deportation rates since the mid 1990's, and reviewing the 1980 and 1990 censuses, the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) ascertained that, "18-40 year-old male immigrants have lower institutionalization rates than the native born each year…and by 2000, immigrants have institutionalization rates that are one-fifth those of the native born."44 In fact, according to the NBAR study, the newly arrived immigrants are particularly unlikely to be involved in crime.

Cities like Hazleton, Pennsylvania have tried to blame a new wave of immigrants for a supposed rise in crime. Yet, Hazleton's own crime statistics taken from the Pennsylvania State Police show that overall crime in the city has decreased and is now less than half of the national average.45

MYTH: Most immigrants are undocumented and have crossed the border illegally.

FACT: Two thirds of immigrants are here lawfullyeither as naturalized citizens or in some other lawful status. Moreover, almost half of all undocumented immigrants entered the United States legally.

According to the Pew Hispanic Center, one third of all immigrants are undocumented, one third have some form of legal status and one third are naturalized citizens. This applies to immigrants from Latin America as well as others.46

Almost half of all undocumented immigrants entered the United States on visas that allowed them to reside here temporarilyeither as tourists, students, or temporary workers. This means they were subject to inspection by immigration officials before entering the country,47 and became undocumented only when their visas expired and they didn't leave the country.

MYTH: Weak border enforcement has led to high rates of undocumented immigration. We should increase enforcement and build a wall around our border.

FACT: Increased border security and the construction of border fences have done little to curb the flow of immigrants across the United States border. Instead, these policies have only succeeded in pushing border crossers into dangerous and less-patrolled regions, and increased the undocumented population by creating an incentive for immigrants not to leave.

Building a wall along the entire 2000-mile southern U.S. border would be prohibitively expensive. According to a study by the Cato Institute, rather than acting as a deterrent to those attempting to cross the border, increased enforcement has only succeeded in pushing immigration flows into more remote, less patrolled regions, resulting in a tripling of the death rate at the border and decreased apprehensions, and creating a dramatic increase in taxpayer money spent on making arrests along the border (from $300 per arrest in 1992 to $1,200 per arrest in 2002).48

Furthermore, increased border enforcement has actually increased the number of undocumented immigrants in the U.S. at any one time. The increased risk and cost to immigrants of crossing the border has resulted in fewer undocumented immigrants returning to their home countries for periods of time as part of the decades-long circular migration patterns that characterize undocumented immigration from Mexico up until the 1990s. Instead, immigrants stay in the United States for longer periods of time, often choosing to immigrate their families to avoid longer periods of separation.49

The Secure Fence Act of 2006 directed the Department of Homeland Security to construct 850 miles of additional border fencing. According to a report by Congressional Research Services, the San Diego fence, combined with increased border patrol agents in the area, succeeded in decreasing border crossing in that region, but at the same time there is considerable evidence that the flow of illegal immigration has shifted to the more remote areas of the Arizona desert, decreasing the number of apprehensions and increasing the cost.50

Interesting

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

I'm not clear that incarceration rates are indicative of crime rates. Perhaps those who move back and forth across borders, and who have less documentation and less attachment to social institutions are harder to locate and convict.

My personal experience, limited though it may be, is that illegal immagrants who are in nuclear families are very law abiding. (Excepting of course that their very presence here is a crime.) My experience with single male illegals would be otherwise.

As for net economic impact I find it unsettling that the negative impact falls locally and regionally while the benefit seems to inure to the federal government.

I am fine with revisiting our immigration laws and policies. I am not fine with doing so because we lack the will to enforce the law. I do not believe that non-citizens should be able to dictate outcomes in our laws by overwhelming lawlessness.

As for the studies which you insist are facts, I would characterize them as hypothesis that have some empirical support, but which need critical examination. They are far from established.

Myself, I am in favor of allowing greater access to our country and our economy to a larger number of law abiding foreign born persons.

 

[Ratbert]

I've started threads on this topic before (though not for a few years). But it's important to talk about it again, since let's face it, the main reason for Donald Trump's popularity is that the vast majority of the base of the Republican party agree with him on this topic, and that fact is sad and pathetic. Most of the information that the conservative base believes about illegal immigration is false, based on fear, ignorance, misinformation, and yes in some cases, bigotry. Here, from the American Civil Liberties Union, (2008) is a pretty good summary of the truth about this issue:

https://www.aclu.org/immigration-myths-and-facts

MYTH: Immigrants are a drain on our social services.

FACT: By paying taxes and Social Security, immigrants contribute far more to government coffers than they use in social services.

In its landmark report published in 1997 arguably the most thorough national study to date of immigration's fiscal impactsthe National Research Council (NRC) of the National Academy of Sciences concluded that on average, immigrants generate public revenue that exceeds their public costs over timeapproximately $80,000 more in taxes than they receive in state, federal and local benefits over their life times.1This same conclusion was reached in 2007 by the Council of Economic Advisers in their report to the Executive Office of the President where they state that "the long-run impact of immigration on public budgets is likely to be positive," and agree with the NRC report's view that "only a forward-looking projection of taxes and government spending can offer an accurate picture of the long-run fiscal consequences of admitting new immigrants."2

Indeed, most non-citizens are not even eligible for the majority of welfare programs unless they are legal permanent residents and have resided in the United States legally for at least five years. This includes benefits such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), SSI, Medicaid, and the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP).

Moreover, according to government reports, noncitizens are much less likely than citizens to use the benefits for which they are eligible. For example, immigrants, especially the undocumented, tend to use medical services much less than the average American.3 In fact, the average immigrant uses less than half the dollar amount of health care services as the average native-born citizen.4 Moreover, the claim that immigrants account for high rates of emergency room (ER) visits is refuted by research; in fact, communities with high rates of ER usage tend to have relatively small percentages of immigrant residents.

Likewise, according to Department of Agriculture reports, noncitizens who are eligible for food stamps are significantly less likely to use them than are all other individuals who are eligible for the program. For example, about 45 percent of eligible noncitizens received food stamps in 2002, compared to almost 60 percent of eligible individuals overall.5

Most of the fiscal impact from immigration is felt at the state and local levels. The Council of Economic Advisors points out in its report to the Executive Office of the President that "the positive fiscal impact tends to accrue at the federal level, but the net costs tend to be concentrated at the state and local level," which bear primary responsibility for providing not only health care but education.6

Still, according to recent studies from a number of cities and statesincluding the states of Arizona, Texas, Minnesota, California, New York, North Carolina and Arkansas, and cities or counties of Chicago and Santa Clarawhile the cost of educating the children of immigrants may be high, the overall economic benefits of immigrants to the states remain positive.7 A University of Illinois study found that undocumented immigrants in the Chicago metropolitan area alone spent $2.89 billion in 2001, stimulating an additional $5.45 billion in total local spending and sustaining 31,908 jobs in the local economy.8

The Udall Center at the University of Arizona found that the fiscal costs of immigrants, starting with education, totaled $1.41 billion in 2004, which, balanced against $1.64 billion in state tax revenue attributable to immigrants as workers, resulted in a fiscal gain of $222.6 million.9 Similarly, in its Special Report about undocumented immigrants in Texas, the Comptroller of Public Accounts found that in 2005, even counting the costs associated with education, "the state revenues collected from undocumented immigrants exceed what the state spent on services, with the difference being $424.7 million."10

MYTH: Immigrants have a negative impact on the economy and the wages of citizens and take jobs away from citizens.

FACT: Immigration has a positive effect on the American economy as a whole and on the income of native-born workers.

In June 2007, the President's Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) issued a report on "Immigration's Economic Impact." Based on a thorough review of the literature, the Council concluded that "immigrants not only help fuel the Nation's economic growth, but also have an overall positive effect on the American economy as a whole and on the income of native-born American workers."11Among the report's key findings were that, on average, U.S. natives benefit from immigration in that immigrants tend to complement natives, not substitute for them.

Immigrants have different skills, which allow higher-skilled native workers to increase productivity and thus increase their incomes. Also, as the native-born U.S. population becomes older and better educated, young immigrant workers fill gaps in the low-skilled labor markets.12

With respect to wages, in a 1997 study, the National Research Council estimated the annual wage gain due to immigration for U.S. workers to be $10 billion each year13 in 2007 CEA estimated the gain at over $30 billion per year.14 The CEA acknowledges that an increase in immigrant workers is likely to have some negative impact on the wages of low-skilled native workers, but they found this impact to be relatively small and went on to conclude that reducing immigration "would be a poorly-targeted and inefficient way to assist low-wage Americans."15

In addition to having an overall positive affect on the average wages of American workers, an increase in immigrant workers also tends to increase employment rates among the native-born. According to a Pew Hispanic Center study, between 2000 and 2004 "there was a positive correlation between the increase in the foreign-born population and the employment of native-born workers in 27 states and the District of Columbia." These states included all the major destination states for immigrants and together they accounted for 67% of all native-born workers.16 California, for example, saw an increase in wages of natives by about four percent from 1990 to 2004a period of large influx of immigrants to the statedue to the complimentary skills of immigrant workers and an increase in the demand for tasks performed by native workers.17

MYTH: Immigrants, particularly Latino immigrants, don't want to learn English.

FACT: Immigrants, including Latino immigrants, believe they need to learn English in order to succeed in the United States, and the majority uses at least some English at work.

Throughout our country's history, critics of immigration have accused new immigrants of refusing to learn English and to otherwise assimilate. These charges are no truer today than they were then. As with prior waves of immigrants, there is a marked increase in English-language skills from one immigrant generation to the next.18 In the first ever major longitudinal study of the children of immigrants, in 1992 Rambaut and Portes found that "the pattern of linguistic assimilation prevails across nationalities." The authors go on to report that "the linguistic outcomes for the third generationthe grandchildren of the present wave of immigrantswill be little different than what has been the age-old pattern in American immigration history."19

While many first-generation Latino immigrants are unable to speak English, 88 percent of their U.S.-born adult children report that they speak English very well.20 And studies show that the number rises dramatically for each subsequent generation. Furthermore, similar to other immigrants, Latinos believe that they need to learn English in order to succeed in the United States, and believe they will be discriminated against if they don't.21 Most Latino immigrants (67%) report that they use at least some English at work.22

California's second-generation immigrants experience a large drop in "low levels of English proficiency" compared to first generation immigrants, from 27% to 6%, and the proportion of immigrants with high levels of English proficiency rises from 49% in the first generation to 79% in the second generation. The proportion of both Asian and Latino immigrants, who speak English exclusively rises from 10% in the first generation to 29% in the second and 94% in the third.23

Notwithstanding the current levels of English language acquisition for the newest wave of immigrants, there is a demand for English language classes that far exceeds the supply and which, if met, would greatly advance immigrants' integration into American social and cultural life.

MYTH: Immigrants don't want to become citizens.

FACT: Many immigrants to the United States seek citizenship, even in the face of difficult requirements and huge backlogs that can delay the process for years.

Most immigrants are ineligible to apply for citizenship until they have resided in the U.S. with lawful permanent resident status for five years, have passed background checks, have shown that they have paid their taxes, are of "good moral character, demonstrate knowledge of U.S. history and civics, and have the ability to understand, speak and write English." In addition, people applying for naturalization have to pay a fee, which increased by 69% in 2007 from $400 to $675, making it much harder for low-income immigrants to reach their dream of becoming Americans.24

Despite these barriers, The Pew Hispanic Center's report on U.S. Census data shows that the proportion of eligible immigrants who have acquired citizenship rose to 52% in 2005, "the highest level in a quarter of a century."15 In the 2007 fiscal year, DHS received 1.4 million citizenship applicationsnearly double from last fiscal year 26and between June and July of 2007, naturalization applications increased 350% compared to last year.27 In his testimony to Congress, US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) Director, Emilio Gonzalez, referred to this increase as "unprecedented in the history of immigration services in our nation."28

Yet, despite the promise by USCIS that backlogs would be eliminated, applications for naturalization can take a year and half to adjudicate and of the 1.4 applications it received in 2007, less than 660,000 have been decided.29

MYTH: Immigrants don't pay taxes.

FACT: Almost all immigrants pay income taxes even though they can't benefit from most federal and state local assistance programs and all immigrants pay sales and property taxes.

According to the 2005 Economic Report of the President, "more than half of all undocumented immigrants are believed to be working ‘on the books'…[and]… contribute to the tax rolls but are ineligible for almost all Federal public assistance programs and most major Federal-state programs." According to the report, undocumented immigrants also "contribute money to public coffers by paying sales and property taxes (the latter are implicit in apartment rentals)."30

All immigrants (legal and undocumented) pay the same real estate taxes and the same sales and other consumption taxes as everyone else. The University of Illinois at Chicago found in 2002 that undocumented immigrants in the Chicago metro area spent $2.89 billion annually from their earnings and these expenditures generated $2.56 billion additional spending for the local economy.31

Legal immigrants pay income taxes and indeed many undocumented immigrants also pay income taxes or have taxes automatically withheld from their paycheckseven though they are unable to claim a tax refund, Social Security benefits or other welfare benefits that these taxes support. In the Chicago metro area for example, approximately seventy percent of undocumented workers paid payroll taxes, according to the University of Illinois study from 2002.32 In the Washington Metro Region, immigrants paid the same share of the region's overall taxes (18 percent) as the rest of the population (17.4 percent), according to a 2006 Urban Institute study.33 This study also points to the fact that immigrants' tax payments support both local and state services in addition to the federal government.

The Social Security Administration (SSA) holds that undocumented immigrants "account for a major portion" of the billions of dollars paid into the Social Security systeman estimated $520 billion as of October 2005.34 The SSA keeps a file called the "earnings suspense file" on all earnings with incorrect or fictitious Social Security numbers and the SSA's chief actuary stated in 2005 that "three quarters of other-than-legal immigrants pay payroll taxes."35 Their figures show that the suspense file is growing by more than $50 billion a year, generating $6 to 7 billion in Social Security tax revenue and about $1.5 billion in Medicare taxes.

MYTH: Immigrants send all their money back to their home countries instead of spending money here.

FACT: Immigrants do send money to family members, making it possible for more people to stay in their home countries rather than migrating to the United States. Importantly, sending remittances home does not keep immigrants from spending money in the United States.

It's true that remittances are the biggest sources of foreign currency for most Latin American countries and surpass any amount of foreign aid sent by the U.S. The money sent by immigrants to their family members allows many people to stay in their home countries who might otherwise feel compelled to migrate to the U.S.

And while 51 percent of Latino immigrants send remittances home,36 they are spending their money in the United States as well. In fact, a 1998 study found that immigrants become net economic contributors after 10 to 15 years in the U.S.37

In addition to paying taxes and Social Security, immigrants spend money on goods and services in the United States. A study of Latino immigrants in California found significant gains in home ownership between those who had been in this country for ten years (16.4 percent are homeowners) and those who had been here for over thirty years (64.6 percent).38 Furthermore, a 2002 Harvard University study of U.S. Census data found that there were more than 5.7 million foreign- born homeowners in the United States.39 The study found that foreign-born new homeowners are buying their homes by saving more than native-born homebuyers and stretching their incomes more.

While homeownership nationally was approximately 69% in 2006, it was 60% for Asians and 50% for Latinoseach group with large immigrant populations and therefore greater impediments to obtaining bank loans.40 Although homeownership is largely correlated with legal status in the U.S., undocumented immigrants are also buying into the "American Dream" of homeownership in some of the most expensive housing markets in the country.41

MYTH: Immigrants bring crime to our cities and towns.

FACT: Immigrants are actually far less likely to commit crimes than their native-born counterparts. Even as the undocumented population has increased in the United States, crime rates have decreased significantly.

According to a 2000 report prepared for the U.S. Department of Justice, immigrants maintain low crime rates even when faced with adverse social conditions such as low income and low levels of education.42

Although incarceration rates are highest among young low-income men and many immigrants arriving in the U.S. are young men with low levels of education, incarceration rates among young men are invariably lower for immigrants than for their native-born counterparts. This is true across every ethnic group but the differences are especially noticeable among Mexicans, Salvadorans and Guatemalans, who constitute the majority of undocumented immigrants in the United States. Even in cities with the largest immigrant populations, such as New York, Los Angeles, Chicago and Miami, violent and non-violent crime rates have continued to decline.43

Even after taking into account higher deportation rates since the mid 1990's, and reviewing the 1980 and 1990 censuses, the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) ascertained that, "18-40 year-old male immigrants have lower institutionalization rates than the native born each year…and by 2000, immigrants have institutionalization rates that are one-fifth those of the native born."44 In fact, according to the NBAR study, the newly arrived immigrants are particularly unlikely to be involved in crime.

Cities like Hazleton, Pennsylvania have tried to blame a new wave of immigrants for a supposed rise in crime. Yet, Hazleton's own crime statistics taken from the Pennsylvania State Police show that overall crime in the city has decreased and is now less than half of the national average.45

MYTH: Most immigrants are undocumented and have crossed the border illegally.

FACT: Two thirds of immigrants are here lawfullyeither as naturalized citizens or in some other lawful status. Moreover, almost half of all undocumented immigrants entered the United States legally.

According to the Pew Hispanic Center, one third of all immigrants are undocumented, one third have some form of legal status and one third are naturalized citizens. This applies to immigrants from Latin America as well as others.46

Almost half of all undocumented immigrants entered the United States on visas that allowed them to reside here temporarilyeither as tourists, students, or temporary workers. This means they were subject to inspection by immigration officials before entering the country,47 and became undocumented only when their visas expired and they didn't leave the country.

MYTH: Weak border enforcement has led to high rates of undocumented immigration. We should increase enforcement and build a wall around our border.

FACT: Increased border security and the construction of border fences have done little to curb the flow of immigrants across the United States border. Instead, these policies have only succeeded in pushing border crossers into dangerous and less-patrolled regions, and increased the undocumented population by creating an incentive for immigrants not to leave.

Building a wall along the entire 2000-mile southern U.S. border would be prohibitively expensive. According to a study by the Cato Institute, rather than acting as a deterrent to those attempting to cross the border, increased enforcement has only succeeded in pushing immigration flows into more remote, less patrolled regions, resulting in a tripling of the death rate at the border and decreased apprehensions, and creating a dramatic increase in taxpayer money spent on making arrests along the border (from $300 per arrest in 1992 to $1,200 per arrest in 2002).48

Furthermore, increased border enforcement has actually increased the number of undocumented immigrants in the U.S. at any one time. The increased risk and cost to immigrants of crossing the border has resulted in fewer undocumented immigrants returning to their home countries for periods of time as part of the decades-long circular migration patterns that characterize undocumented immigration from Mexico up until the 1990s. Instead, immigrants stay in the United States for longer periods of time, often choosing to immigrate their families to avoid longer periods of separation.49

The Secure Fence Act of 2006 directed the Department of Homeland Security to construct 850 miles of additional border fencing. According to a report by Congressional Research Services, the San Diego fence, combined with increased border patrol agents in the area, succeeded in decreasing border crossing in that region, but at the same time there is considerable evidence that the flow of illegal immigration has shifted to the more remote areas of the Arizona desert, decreasing the number of apprehensions and increasing the cost.50

Interesting

posts like this make me miss ol yeller

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

I've started threads on this topic before (though not for a few years). But it's important to talk about it again, since let's face it, the main reason for Donald Trump's popularity is that the vast majority of the base of the Republican party agree with him on this topic, and that fact is sad and pathetic. Most of the information that the conservative base believes about illegal immigration is false, based on fear, ignorance, misinformation, and yes in some cases, bigotry. Here, from the American Civil Liberties Union, (2008) is a pretty good summary of the truth about this issue:

https://www.aclu.org/immigration-myths-and-facts

MYTH: Immigrants are a drain on our social services.

FACT: By paying taxes and Social Security, immigrants contribute far more to government coffers than they use in social services.

In its landmark report published in 1997 arguably the most thorough national study to date of immigration's fiscal impactsthe National Research Council (NRC) of the National Academy of Sciences concluded that on average, immigrants generate public revenue that exceeds their public costs over timeapproximately $80,000 more in taxes than they receive in state, federal and local benefits over their life times.1This same conclusion was reached in 2007 by the Council of Economic Advisers in their report to the Executive Office of the President where they state that "the long-run impact of immigration on public budgets is likely to be positive," and agree with the NRC report's view that "only a forward-looking projection of taxes and government spending can offer an accurate picture of the long-run fiscal consequences of admitting new immigrants."2

Indeed, most non-citizens are not even eligible for the majority of welfare programs unless they are legal permanent residents and have resided in the United States legally for at least five years. This includes benefits such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), SSI, Medicaid, and the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP).

Moreover, according to government reports, noncitizens are much less likely than citizens to use the benefits for which they are eligible. For example, immigrants, especially the undocumented, tend to use medical services much less than the average American.3 In fact, the average immigrant uses less than half the dollar amount of health care services as the average native-born citizen.4 Moreover, the claim that immigrants account for high rates of emergency room (ER) visits is refuted by research; in fact, communities with high rates of ER usage tend to have relatively small percentages of immigrant residents.

Likewise, according to Department of Agriculture reports, noncitizens who are eligible for food stamps are significantly less likely to use them than are all other individuals who are eligible for the program. For example, about 45 percent of eligible noncitizens received food stamps in 2002, compared to almost 60 percent of eligible individuals overall.5

Most of the fiscal impact from immigration is felt at the state and local levels. The Council of Economic Advisors points out in its report to the Executive Office of the President that "the positive fiscal impact tends to accrue at the federal level, but the net costs tend to be concentrated at the state and local level," which bear primary responsibility for providing not only health care but education.6

Still, according to recent studies from a number of cities and statesincluding the states of Arizona, Texas, Minnesota, California, New York, North Carolina and Arkansas, and cities or counties of Chicago and Santa Clarawhile the cost of educating the children of immigrants may be high, the overall economic benefits of immigrants to the states remain positive.7 A University of Illinois study found that undocumented immigrants in the Chicago metropolitan area alone spent $2.89 billion in 2001, stimulating an additional $5.45 billion in total local spending and sustaining 31,908 jobs in the local economy.8

The Udall Center at the University of Arizona found that the fiscal costs of immigrants, starting with education, totaled $1.41 billion in 2004, which, balanced against $1.64 billion in state tax revenue attributable to immigrants as workers, resulted in a fiscal gain of $222.6 million.9 Similarly, in its Special Report about undocumented immigrants in Texas, the Comptroller of Public Accounts found that in 2005, even counting the costs associated with education, "the state revenues collected from undocumented immigrants exceed what the state spent on services, with the difference being $424.7 million."10

MYTH: Immigrants have a negative impact on the economy and the wages of citizens and take jobs away from citizens.

FACT: Immigration has a positive effect on the American economy as a whole and on the income of native-born workers.

In June 2007, the President's Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) issued a report on "Immigration's Economic Impact." Based on a thorough review of the literature, the Council concluded that "immigrants not only help fuel the Nation's economic growth, but also have an overall positive effect on the American economy as a whole and on the income of native-born American workers."11Among the report's key findings were that, on average, U.S. natives benefit from immigration in that immigrants tend to complement natives, not substitute for them.

Immigrants have different skills, which allow higher-skilled native workers to increase productivity and thus increase their incomes. Also, as the native-born U.S. population becomes older and better educated, young immigrant workers fill gaps in the low-skilled labor markets.12

With respect to wages, in a 1997 study, the National Research Council estimated the annual wage gain due to immigration for U.S. workers to be $10 billion each year13 in 2007 CEA estimated the gain at over $30 billion per year.14 The CEA acknowledges that an increase in immigrant workers is likely to have some negative impact on the wages of low-skilled native workers, but they found this impact to be relatively small and went on to conclude that reducing immigration "would be a poorly-targeted and inefficient way to assist low-wage Americans."15

In addition to having an overall positive affect on the average wages of American workers, an increase in immigrant workers also tends to increase employment rates among the native-born. According to a Pew Hispanic Center study, between 2000 and 2004 "there was a positive correlation between the increase in the foreign-born population and the employment of native-born workers in 27 states and the District of Columbia." These states included all the major destination states for immigrants and together they accounted for 67% of all native-born workers.16 California, for example, saw an increase in wages of natives by about four percent from 1990 to 2004a period of large influx of immigrants to the statedue to the complimentary skills of immigrant workers and an increase in the demand for tasks performed by native workers.17

MYTH: Immigrants, particularly Latino immigrants, don't want to learn English.

FACT: Immigrants, including Latino immigrants, believe they need to learn English in order to succeed in the United States, and the majority uses at least some English at work.

Throughout our country's history, critics of immigration have accused new immigrants of refusing to learn English and to otherwise assimilate. These charges are no truer today than they were then. As with prior waves of immigrants, there is a marked increase in English-language skills from one immigrant generation to the next.18 In the first ever major longitudinal study of the children of immigrants, in 1992 Rambaut and Portes found that "the pattern of linguistic assimilation prevails across nationalities." The authors go on to report that "the linguistic outcomes for the third generationthe grandchildren of the present wave of immigrantswill be little different than what has been the age-old pattern in American immigration history."19

While many first-generation Latino immigrants are unable to speak English, 88 percent of their U.S.-born adult children report that they speak English very well.20 And studies show that the number rises dramatically for each subsequent generation. Furthermore, similar to other immigrants, Latinos believe that they need to learn English in order to succeed in the United States, and believe they will be discriminated against if they don't.21 Most Latino immigrants (67%) report that they use at least some English at work.22

California's second-generation immigrants experience a large drop in "low levels of English proficiency" compared to first generation immigrants, from 27% to 6%, and the proportion of immigrants with high levels of English proficiency rises from 49% in the first generation to 79% in the second generation. The proportion of both Asian and Latino immigrants, who speak English exclusively rises from 10% in the first generation to 29% in the second and 94% in the third.23

Notwithstanding the current levels of English language acquisition for the newest wave of immigrants, there is a demand for English language classes that far exceeds the supply and which, if met, would greatly advance immigrants' integration into American social and cultural life.

MYTH: Immigrants don't want to become citizens.

FACT: Many immigrants to the United States seek citizenship, even in the face of difficult requirements and huge backlogs that can delay the process for years.

Most immigrants are ineligible to apply for citizenship until they have resided in the U.S. with lawful permanent resident status for five years, have passed background checks, have shown that they have paid their taxes, are of "good moral character, demonstrate knowledge of U.S. history and civics, and have the ability to understand, speak and write English." In addition, people applying for naturalization have to pay a fee, which increased by 69% in 2007 from $400 to $675, making it much harder for low-income immigrants to reach their dream of becoming Americans.24

Despite these barriers, The Pew Hispanic Center's report on U.S. Census data shows that the proportion of eligible immigrants who have acquired citizenship rose to 52% in 2005, "the highest level in a quarter of a century."15 In the 2007 fiscal year, DHS received 1.4 million citizenship applicationsnearly double from last fiscal year 26and between June and July of 2007, naturalization applications increased 350% compared to last year.27 In his testimony to Congress, US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) Director, Emilio Gonzalez, referred to this increase as "unprecedented in the history of immigration services in our nation."28

Yet, despite the promise by USCIS that backlogs would be eliminated, applications for naturalization can take a year and half to adjudicate and of the 1.4 applications it received in 2007, less than 660,000 have been decided.29

MYTH: Immigrants don't pay taxes.

FACT: Almost all immigrants pay income taxes even though they can't benefit from most federal and state local assistance programs and all immigrants pay sales and property taxes.

According to the 2005 Economic Report of the President, "more than half of all undocumented immigrants are believed to be working ‘on the books'…[and]… contribute to the tax rolls but are ineligible for almost all Federal public assistance programs and most major Federal-state programs." According to the report, undocumented immigrants also "contribute money to public coffers by paying sales and property taxes (the latter are implicit in apartment rentals)."30

All immigrants (legal and undocumented) pay the same real estate taxes and the same sales and other consumption taxes as everyone else. The University of Illinois at Chicago found in 2002 that undocumented immigrants in the Chicago metro area spent $2.89 billion annually from their earnings and these expenditures generated $2.56 billion additional spending for the local economy.31

Legal immigrants pay income taxes and indeed many undocumented immigrants also pay income taxes or have taxes automatically withheld from their paycheckseven though they are unable to claim a tax refund, Social Security benefits or other welfare benefits that these taxes support. In the Chicago metro area for example, approximately seventy percent of undocumented workers paid payroll taxes, according to the University of Illinois study from 2002.32 In the Washington Metro Region, immigrants paid the same share of the region's overall taxes (18 percent) as the rest of the population (17.4 percent), according to a 2006 Urban Institute study.33 This study also points to the fact that immigrants' tax payments support both local and state services in addition to the federal government.

The Social Security Administration (SSA) holds that undocumented immigrants "account for a major portion" of the billions of dollars paid into the Social Security systeman estimated $520 billion as of October 2005.34 The SSA keeps a file called the "earnings suspense file" on all earnings with incorrect or fictitious Social Security numbers and the SSA's chief actuary stated in 2005 that "three quarters of other-than-legal immigrants pay payroll taxes."35 Their figures show that the suspense file is growing by more than $50 billion a year, generating $6 to 7 billion in Social Security tax revenue and about $1.5 billion in Medicare taxes.

MYTH: Immigrants send all their money back to their home countries instead of spending money here.

FACT: Immigrants do send money to family members, making it possible for more people to stay in their home countries rather than migrating to the United States. Importantly, sending remittances home does not keep immigrants from spending money in the United States.

It's true that remittances are the biggest sources of foreign currency for most Latin American countries and surpass any amount of foreign aid sent by the U.S. The money sent by immigrants to their family members allows many people to stay in their home countries who might otherwise feel compelled to migrate to the U.S.

And while 51 percent of Latino immigrants send remittances home,36 they are spending their money in the United States as well. In fact, a 1998 study found that immigrants become net economic contributors after 10 to 15 years in the U.S.37

In addition to paying taxes and Social Security, immigrants spend money on goods and services in the United States. A study of Latino immigrants in California found significant gains in home ownership between those who had been in this country for ten years (16.4 percent are homeowners) and those who had been here for over thirty years (64.6 percent).38 Furthermore, a 2002 Harvard University study of U.S. Census data found that there were more than 5.7 million foreign- born homeowners in the United States.39 The study found that foreign-born new homeowners are buying their homes by saving more than native-born homebuyers and stretching their incomes more.

While homeownership nationally was approximately 69% in 2006, it was 60% for Asians and 50% for Latinoseach group with large immigrant populations and therefore greater impediments to obtaining bank loans.40 Although homeownership is largely correlated with legal status in the U.S., undocumented immigrants are also buying into the "American Dream" of homeownership in some of the most expensive housing markets in the country.41

MYTH: Immigrants bring crime to our cities and towns.

FACT: Immigrants are actually far less likely to commit crimes than their native-born counterparts. Even as the undocumented population has increased in the United States, crime rates have decreased significantly.

According to a 2000 report prepared for the U.S. Department of Justice, immigrants maintain low crime rates even when faced with adverse social conditions such as low income and low levels of education.42

Although incarceration rates are highest among young low-income men and many immigrants arriving in the U.S. are young men with low levels of education, incarceration rates among young men are invariably lower for immigrants than for their native-born counterparts. This is true across every ethnic group but the differences are especially noticeable among Mexicans, Salvadorans and Guatemalans, who constitute the majority of undocumented immigrants in the United States. Even in cities with the largest immigrant populations, such as New York, Los Angeles, Chicago and Miami, violent and non-violent crime rates have continued to decline.43

Even after taking into account higher deportation rates since the mid 1990's, and reviewing the 1980 and 1990 censuses, the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) ascertained that, "18-40 year-old male immigrants have lower institutionalization rates than the native born each year…and by 2000, immigrants have institutionalization rates that are one-fifth those of the native born."44 In fact, according to the NBAR study, the newly arrived immigrants are particularly unlikely to be involved in crime.

Cities like Hazleton, Pennsylvania have tried to blame a new wave of immigrants for a supposed rise in crime. Yet, Hazleton's own crime statistics taken from the Pennsylvania State Police show that overall crime in the city has decreased and is now less than half of the national average.45

MYTH: Most immigrants are undocumented and have crossed the border illegally.

FACT: Two thirds of immigrants are here lawfullyeither as naturalized citizens or in some other lawful status. Moreover, almost half of all undocumented immigrants entered the United States legally.

According to the Pew Hispanic Center, one third of all immigrants are undocumented, one third have some form of legal status and one third are naturalized citizens. This applies to immigrants from Latin America as well as others.46

Almost half of all undocumented immigrants entered the United States on visas that allowed them to reside here temporarilyeither as tourists, students, or temporary workers. This means they were subject to inspection by immigration officials before entering the country,47 and became undocumented only when their visas expired and they didn't leave the country.

MYTH: Weak border enforcement has led to high rates of undocumented immigration. We should increase enforcement and build a wall around our border.

FACT: Increased border security and the construction of border fences have done little to curb the flow of immigrants across the United States border. Instead, these policies have only succeeded in pushing border crossers into dangerous and less-patrolled regions, and increased the undocumented population by creating an incentive for immigrants not to leave.

Building a wall along the entire 2000-mile southern U.S. border would be prohibitively expensive. According to a study by the Cato Institute, rather than acting as a deterrent to those attempting to cross the border, increased enforcement has only succeeded in pushing immigration flows into more remote, less patrolled regions, resulting in a tripling of the death rate at the border and decreased apprehensions, and creating a dramatic increase in taxpayer money spent on making arrests along the border (from $300 per arrest in 1992 to $1,200 per arrest in 2002).48

Furthermore, increased border enforcement has actually increased the number of undocumented immigrants in the U.S. at any one time. The increased risk and cost to immigrants of crossing the border has resulted in fewer undocumented immigrants returning to their home countries for periods of time as part of the decades-long circular migration patterns that characterize undocumented immigration from Mexico up until the 1990s. Instead, immigrants stay in the United States for longer periods of time, often choosing to immigrate their families to avoid longer periods of separation.49

The Secure Fence Act of 2006 directed the Department of Homeland Security to construct 850 miles of additional border fencing. According to a report by Congressional Research Services, the San Diego fence, combined with increased border patrol agents in the area, succeeded in decreasing border crossing in that region, but at the same time there is considerable evidence that the flow of illegal immigration has shifted to the more remote areas of the Arizona desert, decreasing the number of apprehensions and increasing the cost.50

Interesting

posts like this make me miss ol yeller

Whether the Board or the dog, their ending was the same, a bullet to the head. I hope my own demise will involve less splatter.

 

[bud29]

I've started threads on this topic before (though not for a few years). But it's important to talk about it again, since let's face it, the main reason for Donald Trump's popularity is that the vast majority of the base of the Republican party agree with him on this topic, and that fact is sad and pathetic. Most of the information that the conservative base believes about illegal immigration is false, based on fear, ignorance, misinformation, and yes in some cases, bigotry. Here, from the American Civil Liberties Union, (2008) is a pretty good summary of the truth about this issue:

https://www.aclu.org/immigration-myths-and-facts

MYTH: Immigrants are a drain on our social services.

FACT: By paying taxes and Social Security, immigrants contribute far more to government coffers than they use in social services.

In its landmark report published in 1997 arguably the most thorough national study to date of immigration's fiscal impactsthe National Research Council (NRC) of the National Academy of Sciences concluded that on average, immigrants generate public revenue that exceeds their public costs over timeapproximately $80,000 more in taxes than they receive in state, federal and local benefits over their life times.1This same conclusion was reached in 2007 by the Council of Economic Advisers in their report to the Executive Office of the President where they state that "the long-run impact of immigration on public budgets is likely to be positive," and agree with the NRC report's view that "only a forward-looking projection of taxes and government spending can offer an accurate picture of the long-run fiscal consequences of admitting new immigrants."2

Indeed, most non-citizens are not even eligible for the majority of welfare programs unless they are legal permanent residents and have resided in the United States legally for at least five years. This includes benefits such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), SSI, Medicaid, and the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP).

Moreover, according to government reports, noncitizens are much less likely than citizens to use the benefits for which they are eligible. For example, immigrants, especially the undocumented, tend to use medical services much less than the average American.3 In fact, the average immigrant uses less than half the dollar amount of health care services as the average native-born citizen.4 Moreover, the claim that immigrants account for high rates of emergency room (ER) visits is refuted by research; in fact, communities with high rates of ER usage tend to have relatively small percentages of immigrant residents.

Likewise, according to Department of Agriculture reports, noncitizens who are eligible for food stamps are significantly less likely to use them than are all other individuals who are eligible for the program. For example, about 45 percent of eligible noncitizens received food stamps in 2002, compared to almost 60 percent of eligible individuals overall.5

Most of the fiscal impact from immigration is felt at the state and local levels. The Council of Economic Advisors points out in its report to the Executive Office of the President that "the positive fiscal impact tends to accrue at the federal level, but the net costs tend to be concentrated at the state and local level," which bear primary responsibility for providing not only health care but education.6

Still, according to recent studies from a number of cities and statesincluding the states of Arizona, Texas, Minnesota, California, New York, North Carolina and Arkansas, and cities or counties of Chicago and Santa Clarawhile the cost of educating the children of immigrants may be high, the overall economic benefits of immigrants to the states remain positive.7 A University of Illinois study found that undocumented immigrants in the Chicago metropolitan area alone spent $2.89 billion in 2001, stimulating an additional $5.45 billion in total local spending and sustaining 31,908 jobs in the local economy.8

The Udall Center at the University of Arizona found that the fiscal costs of immigrants, starting with education, totaled $1.41 billion in 2004, which, balanced against $1.64 billion in state tax revenue attributable to immigrants as workers, resulted in a fiscal gain of $222.6 million.9 Similarly, in its Special Report about undocumented immigrants in Texas, the Comptroller of Public Accounts found that in 2005, even counting the costs associated with education, "the state revenues collected from undocumented immigrants exceed what the state spent on services, with the difference being $424.7 million."10

MYTH: Immigrants have a negative impact on the economy and the wages of citizens and take jobs away from citizens.

FACT: Immigration has a positive effect on the American economy as a whole and on the income of native-born workers.

In June 2007, the President's Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) issued a report on "Immigration's Economic Impact." Based on a thorough review of the literature, the Council concluded that "immigrants not only help fuel the Nation's economic growth, but also have an overall positive effect on the American economy as a whole and on the income of native-born American workers."11Among the report's key findings were that, on average, U.S. natives benefit from immigration in that immigrants tend to complement natives, not substitute for them.

Immigrants have different skills, which allow higher-skilled native workers to increase productivity and thus increase their incomes. Also, as the native-born U.S. population becomes older and better educated, young immigrant workers fill gaps in the low-skilled labor markets.12

With respect to wages, in a 1997 study, the National Research Council estimated the annual wage gain due to immigration for U.S. workers to be $10 billion each year13 in 2007 CEA estimated the gain at over $30 billion per year.14 The CEA acknowledges that an increase in immigrant workers is likely to have some negative impact on the wages of low-skilled native workers, but they found this impact to be relatively small and went on to conclude that reducing immigration "would be a poorly-targeted and inefficient way to assist low-wage Americans."15

In addition to having an overall positive affect on the average wages of American workers, an increase in immigrant workers also tends to increase employment rates among the native-born. According to a Pew Hispanic Center study, between 2000 and 2004 "there was a positive correlation between the increase in the foreign-born population and the employment of native-born workers in 27 states and the District of Columbia." These states included all the major destination states for immigrants and together they accounted for 67% of all native-born workers.16 California, for example, saw an increase in wages of natives by about four percent from 1990 to 2004a period of large influx of immigrants to the statedue to the complimentary skills of immigrant workers and an increase in the demand for tasks performed by native workers.17

MYTH: Immigrants, particularly Latino immigrants, don't want to learn English.

FACT: Immigrants, including Latino immigrants, believe they need to learn English in order to succeed in the United States, and the majority uses at least some English at work.

Throughout our country's history, critics of immigration have accused new immigrants of refusing to learn English and to otherwise assimilate. These charges are no truer today than they were then. As with prior waves of immigrants, there is a marked increase in English-language skills from one immigrant generation to the next.18 In the first ever major longitudinal study of the children of immigrants, in 1992 Rambaut and Portes found that "the pattern of linguistic assimilation prevails across nationalities." The authors go on to report that "the linguistic outcomes for the third generationthe grandchildren of the present wave of immigrantswill be little different than what has been the age-old pattern in American immigration history."19

While many first-generation Latino immigrants are unable to speak English, 88 percent of their U.S.-born adult children report that they speak English very well.20 And studies show that the number rises dramatically for each subsequent generation. Furthermore, similar to other immigrants, Latinos believe that they need to learn English in order to succeed in the United States, and believe they will be discriminated against if they don't.21 Most Latino immigrants (67%) report that they use at least some English at work.22

California's second-generation immigrants experience a large drop in "low levels of English proficiency" compared to first generation immigrants, from 27% to 6%, and the proportion of immigrants with high levels of English proficiency rises from 49% in the first generation to 79% in the second generation. The proportion of both Asian and Latino immigrants, who speak English exclusively rises from 10% in the first generation to 29% in the second and 94% in the third.23

Notwithstanding the current levels of English language acquisition for the newest wave of immigrants, there is a demand for English language classes that far exceeds the supply and which, if met, would greatly advance immigrants' integration into American social and cultural life.

MYTH: Immigrants don't want to become citizens.

FACT: Many immigrants to the United States seek citizenship, even in the face of difficult requirements and huge backlogs that can delay the process for years.

Most immigrants are ineligible to apply for citizenship until they have resided in the U.S. with lawful permanent resident status for five years, have passed background checks, have shown that they have paid their taxes, are of "good moral character, demonstrate knowledge of U.S. history and civics, and have the ability to understand, speak and write English." In addition, people applying for naturalization have to pay a fee, which increased by 69% in 2007 from $400 to $675, making it much harder for low-income immigrants to reach their dream of becoming Americans.24

Despite these barriers, The Pew Hispanic Center's report on U.S. Census data shows that the proportion of eligible immigrants who have acquired citizenship rose to 52% in 2005, "the highest level in a quarter of a century."15 In the 2007 fiscal year, DHS received 1.4 million citizenship applicationsnearly double from last fiscal year 26and between June and July of 2007, naturalization applications increased 350% compared to last year.27 In his testimony to Congress, US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) Director, Emilio Gonzalez, referred to this increase as "unprecedented in the history of immigration services in our nation."28

Yet, despite the promise by USCIS that backlogs would be eliminated, applications for naturalization can take a year and half to adjudicate and of the 1.4 applications it received in 2007, less than 660,000 have been decided.29

MYTH: Immigrants don't pay taxes.

FACT: Almost all immigrants pay income taxes even though they can't benefit from most federal and state local assistance programs and all immigrants pay sales and property taxes.

According to the 2005 Economic Report of the President, "more than half of all undocumented immigrants are believed to be working ‘on the books'…[and]… contribute to the tax rolls but are ineligible for almost all Federal public assistance programs and most major Federal-state programs." According to the report, undocumented immigrants also "contribute money to public coffers by paying sales and property taxes (the latter are implicit in apartment rentals)."30

All immigrants (legal and undocumented) pay the same real estate taxes and the same sales and other consumption taxes as everyone else. The University of Illinois at Chicago found in 2002 that undocumented immigrants in the Chicago metro area spent $2.89 billion annually from their earnings and these expenditures generated $2.56 billion additional spending for the local economy.31

Legal immigrants pay income taxes and indeed many undocumented immigrants also pay income taxes or have taxes automatically withheld from their paycheckseven though they are unable to claim a tax refund, Social Security benefits or other welfare benefits that these taxes support. In the Chicago metro area for example, approximately seventy percent of undocumented workers paid payroll taxes, according to the University of Illinois study from 2002.32 In the Washington Metro Region, immigrants paid the same share of the region's overall taxes (18 percent) as the rest of the population (17.4 percent), according to a 2006 Urban Institute study.33 This study also points to the fact that immigrants' tax payments support both local and state services in addition to the federal government.

The Social Security Administration (SSA) holds that undocumented immigrants "account for a major portion" of the billions of dollars paid into the Social Security systeman estimated $520 billion as of October 2005.34 The SSA keeps a file called the "earnings suspense file" on all earnings with incorrect or fictitious Social Security numbers and the SSA's chief actuary stated in 2005 that "three quarters of other-than-legal immigrants pay payroll taxes."35 Their figures show that the suspense file is growing by more than $50 billion a year, generating $6 to 7 billion in Social Security tax revenue and about $1.5 billion in Medicare taxes.

MYTH: Immigrants send all their money back to their home countries instead of spending money here.

FACT: Immigrants do send money to family members, making it possible for more people to stay in their home countries rather than migrating to the United States. Importantly, sending remittances home does not keep immigrants from spending money in the United States.

It's true that remittances are the biggest sources of foreign currency for most Latin American countries and surpass any amount of foreign aid sent by the U.S. The money sent by immigrants to their family members allows many people to stay in their home countries who might otherwise feel compelled to migrate to the U.S.

And while 51 percent of Latino immigrants send remittances home,36 they are spending their money in the United States as well. In fact, a 1998 study found that immigrants become net economic contributors after 10 to 15 years in the U.S.37

In addition to paying taxes and Social Security, immigrants spend money on goods and services in the United States. A study of Latino immigrants in California found significant gains in home ownership between those who had been in this country for ten years (16.4 percent are homeowners) and those who had been here for over thirty years (64.6 percent).38 Furthermore, a 2002 Harvard University study of U.S. Census data found that there were more than 5.7 million foreign- born homeowners in the United States.39 The study found that foreign-born new homeowners are buying their homes by saving more than native-born homebuyers and stretching their incomes more.

While homeownership nationally was approximately 69% in 2006, it was 60% for Asians and 50% for Latinoseach group with large immigrant populations and therefore greater impediments to obtaining bank loans.40 Although homeownership is largely correlated with legal status in the U.S., undocumented immigrants are also buying into the "American Dream" of homeownership in some of the most expensive housing markets in the country.41

MYTH: Immigrants bring crime to our cities and towns.

FACT: Immigrants are actually far less likely to commit crimes than their native-born counterparts. Even as the undocumented population has increased in the United States, crime rates have decreased significantly.

According to a 2000 report prepared for the U.S. Department of Justice, immigrants maintain low crime rates even when faced with adverse social conditions such as low income and low levels of education.42

Although incarceration rates are highest among young low-income men and many immigrants arriving in the U.S. are young men with low levels of education, incarceration rates among young men are invariably lower for immigrants than for their native-born counterparts. This is true across every ethnic group but the differences are especially noticeable among Mexicans, Salvadorans and Guatemalans, who constitute the majority of undocumented immigrants in the United States. Even in cities with the largest immigrant populations, such as New York, Los Angeles, Chicago and Miami, violent and non-violent crime rates have continued to decline.43

Even after taking into account higher deportation rates since the mid 1990's, and reviewing the 1980 and 1990 censuses, the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) ascertained that, "18-40 year-old male immigrants have lower institutionalization rates than the native born each year…and by 2000, immigrants have institutionalization rates that are one-fifth those of the native born."44 In fact, according to the NBAR study, the newly arrived immigrants are particularly unlikely to be involved in crime.

Cities like Hazleton, Pennsylvania have tried to blame a new wave of immigrants for a supposed rise in crime. Yet, Hazleton's own crime statistics taken from the Pennsylvania State Police show that overall crime in the city has decreased and is now less than half of the national average.45

MYTH: Most immigrants are undocumented and have crossed the border illegally.

FACT: Two thirds of immigrants are here lawfullyeither as naturalized citizens or in some other lawful status. Moreover, almost half of all undocumented immigrants entered the United States legally.

According to the Pew Hispanic Center, one third of all immigrants are undocumented, one third have some form of legal status and one third are naturalized citizens. This applies to immigrants from Latin America as well as others.46

Almost half of all undocumented immigrants entered the United States on visas that allowed them to reside here temporarilyeither as tourists, students, or temporary workers. This means they were subject to inspection by immigration officials before entering the country,47 and became undocumented only when their visas expired and they didn't leave the country.

MYTH: Weak border enforcement has led to high rates of undocumented immigration. We should increase enforcement and build a wall around our border.

FACT: Increased border security and the construction of border fences have done little to curb the flow of immigrants across the United States border. Instead, these policies have only succeeded in pushing border crossers into dangerous and less-patrolled regions, and increased the undocumented population by creating an incentive for immigrants not to leave.

Building a wall along the entire 2000-mile southern U.S. border would be prohibitively expensive. According to a study by the Cato Institute, rather than acting as a deterrent to those attempting to cross the border, increased enforcement has only succeeded in pushing immigration flows into more remote, less patrolled regions, resulting in a tripling of the death rate at the border and decreased apprehensions, and creating a dramatic increase in taxpayer money spent on making arrests along the border (from $300 per arrest in 1992 to $1,200 per arrest in 2002).48

Furthermore, increased border enforcement has actually increased the number of undocumented immigrants in the U.S. at any one time. The increased risk and cost to immigrants of crossing the border has resulted in fewer undocumented immigrants returning to their home countries for periods of time as part of the decades-long circular migration patterns that characterize undocumented immigration from Mexico up until the 1990s. Instead, immigrants stay in the United States for longer periods of time, often choosing to immigrate their families to avoid longer periods of separation.49

The Secure Fence Act of 2006 directed the Department of Homeland Security to construct 850 miles of additional border fencing. According to a report by Congressional Research Services, the San Diego fence, combined with increased border patrol agents in the area, succeeded in decreasing border crossing in that region, but at the same time there is considerable evidence that the flow of illegal immigration has shifted to the more remote areas of the Arizona desert, decreasing the number of apprehensions and increasing the cost.50

Interesting

Cut that out.

 

[Ratbert]

I've started threads on this topic before (though not for a few years). But it's important to talk about it again, since let's face it, the main reason for Donald Trump's popularity is that the vast majority of the base of the Republican party agree with him on this topic, and that fact is sad and pathetic. Most of the information that the conservative base believes about illegal immigration is false, based on fear, ignorance, misinformation, and yes in some cases, bigotry. Here, from the American Civil Liberties Union, (2008) is a pretty good summary of the truth about this issue:

https://www.aclu.org/immigration-myths-and-facts

MYTH: Immigrants are a drain on our social services.

FACT: By paying taxes and Social Security, immigrants contribute far more to government coffers than they use in social services.

In its landmark report published in 1997 arguably the most thorough national study to date of immigration's fiscal impactsthe National Research Council (NRC) of the National Academy of Sciences concluded that on average, immigrants generate public revenue that exceeds their public costs over timeapproximately $80,000 more in taxes than they receive in state, federal and local benefits over their life times.1This same conclusion was reached in 2007 by the Council of Economic Advisers in their report to the Executive Office of the President where they state that "the long-run impact of immigration on public budgets is likely to be positive," and agree with the NRC report's view that "only a forward-looking projection of taxes and government spending can offer an accurate picture of the long-run fiscal consequences of admitting new immigrants."2

Indeed, most non-citizens are not even eligible for the majority of welfare programs unless they are legal permanent residents and have resided in the United States legally for at least five years. This includes benefits such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), SSI, Medicaid, and the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP).

Moreover, according to government reports, noncitizens are much less likely than citizens to use the benefits for which they are eligible. For example, immigrants, especially the undocumented, tend to use medical services much less than the average American.3 In fact, the average immigrant uses less than half the dollar amount of health care services as the average native-born citizen.4 Moreover, the claim that immigrants account for high rates of emergency room (ER) visits is refuted by research; in fact, communities with high rates of ER usage tend to have relatively small percentages of immigrant residents.

Likewise, according to Department of Agriculture reports, noncitizens who are eligible for food stamps are significantly less likely to use them than are all other individuals who are eligible for the program. For example, about 45 percent of eligible noncitizens received food stamps in 2002, compared to almost 60 percent of eligible individuals overall.5

Most of the fiscal impact from immigration is felt at the state and local levels. The Council of Economic Advisors points out in its report to the Executive Office of the President that "the positive fiscal impact tends to accrue at the federal level, but the net costs tend to be concentrated at the state and local level," which bear primary responsibility for providing not only health care but education.6

Still, according to recent studies from a number of cities and statesincluding the states of Arizona, Texas, Minnesota, California, New York, North Carolina and Arkansas, and cities or counties of Chicago and Santa Clarawhile the cost of educating the children of immigrants may be high, the overall economic benefits of immigrants to the states remain positive.7 A University of Illinois study found that undocumented immigrants in the Chicago metropolitan area alone spent $2.89 billion in 2001, stimulating an additional $5.45 billion in total local spending and sustaining 31,908 jobs in the local economy.8

The Udall Center at the University of Arizona found that the fiscal costs of immigrants, starting with education, totaled $1.41 billion in 2004, which, balanced against $1.64 billion in state tax revenue attributable to immigrants as workers, resulted in a fiscal gain of $222.6 million.9 Similarly, in its Special Report about undocumented immigrants in Texas, the Comptroller of Public Accounts found that in 2005, even counting the costs associated with education, "the state revenues collected from undocumented immigrants exceed what the state spent on services, with the difference being $424.7 million."10

MYTH: Immigrants have a negative impact on the economy and the wages of citizens and take jobs away from citizens.

FACT: Immigration has a positive effect on the American economy as a whole and on the income of native-born workers.

In June 2007, the President's Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) issued a report on "Immigration's Economic Impact." Based on a thorough review of the literature, the Council concluded that "immigrants not only help fuel the Nation's economic growth, but also have an overall positive effect on the American economy as a whole and on the income of native-born American workers."11Among the report's key findings were that, on average, U.S. natives benefit from immigration in that immigrants tend to complement natives, not substitute for them.

Immigrants have different skills, which allow higher-skilled native workers to increase productivity and thus increase their incomes. Also, as the native-born U.S. population becomes older and better educated, young immigrant workers fill gaps in the low-skilled labor markets.12

With respect to wages, in a 1997 study, the National Research Council estimated the annual wage gain due to immigration for U.S. workers to be $10 billion each year13 in 2007 CEA estimated the gain at over $30 billion per year.14 The CEA acknowledges that an increase in immigrant workers is likely to have some negative impact on the wages of low-skilled native workers, but they found this impact to be relatively small and went on to conclude that reducing immigration "would be a poorly-targeted and inefficient way to assist low-wage Americans."15

In addition to having an overall positive affect on the average wages of American workers, an increase in immigrant workers also tends to increase employment rates among the native-born. According to a Pew Hispanic Center study, between 2000 and 2004 "there was a positive correlation between the increase in the foreign-born population and the employment of native-born workers in 27 states and the District of Columbia." These states included all the major destination states for immigrants and together they accounted for 67% of all native-born workers.16 California, for example, saw an increase in wages of natives by about four percent from 1990 to 2004a period of large influx of immigrants to the statedue to the complimentary skills of immigrant workers and an increase in the demand for tasks performed by native workers.17

MYTH: Immigrants, particularly Latino immigrants, don't want to learn English.

FACT: Immigrants, including Latino immigrants, believe they need to learn English in order to succeed in the United States, and the majority uses at least some English at work.

Throughout our country's history, critics of immigration have accused new immigrants of refusing to learn English and to otherwise assimilate. These charges are no truer today than they were then. As with prior waves of immigrants, there is a marked increase in English-language skills from one immigrant generation to the next.18 In the first ever major longitudinal study of the children of immigrants, in 1992 Rambaut and Portes found that "the pattern of linguistic assimilation prevails across nationalities." The authors go on to report that "the linguistic outcomes for the third generationthe grandchildren of the present wave of immigrantswill be little different than what has been the age-old pattern in American immigration history."19

While many first-generation Latino immigrants are unable to speak English, 88 percent of their U.S.-born adult children report that they speak English very well.20 And studies show that the number rises dramatically for each subsequent generation. Furthermore, similar to other immigrants, Latinos believe that they need to learn English in order to succeed in the United States, and believe they will be discriminated against if they don't.21 Most Latino immigrants (67%) report that they use at least some English at work.22

California's second-generation immigrants experience a large drop in "low levels of English proficiency" compared to first generation immigrants, from 27% to 6%, and the proportion of immigrants with high levels of English proficiency rises from 49% in the first generation to 79% in the second generation. The proportion of both Asian and Latino immigrants, who speak English exclusively rises from 10% in the first generation to 29% in the second and 94% in the third.23

Notwithstanding the current levels of English language acquisition for the newest wave of immigrants, there is a demand for English language classes that far exceeds the supply and which, if met, would greatly advance immigrants' integration into American social and cultural life.

MYTH: Immigrants don't want to become citizens.

FACT: Many immigrants to the United States seek citizenship, even in the face of difficult requirements and huge backlogs that can delay the process for years.

Most immigrants are ineligible to apply for citizenship until they have resided in the U.S. with lawful permanent resident status for five years, have passed background checks, have shown that they have paid their taxes, are of "good moral character, demonstrate knowledge of U.S. history and civics, and have the ability to understand, speak and write English." In addition, people applying for naturalization have to pay a fee, which increased by 69% in 2007 from $400 to $675, making it much harder for low-income immigrants to reach their dream of becoming Americans.24

Despite these barriers, The Pew Hispanic Center's report on U.S. Census data shows that the proportion of eligible immigrants who have acquired citizenship rose to 52% in 2005, "the highest level in a quarter of a century."15 In the 2007 fiscal year, DHS received 1.4 million citizenship applicationsnearly double from last fiscal year 26and between June and July of 2007, naturalization applications increased 350% compared to last year.27 In his testimony to Congress, US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) Director, Emilio Gonzalez, referred to this increase as "unprecedented in the history of immigration services in our nation."28

Yet, despite the promise by USCIS that backlogs would be eliminated, applications for naturalization can take a year and half to adjudicate and of the 1.4 applications it received in 2007, less than 660,000 have been decided.29

MYTH: Immigrants don't pay taxes.

FACT: Almost all immigrants pay income taxes even though they can't benefit from most federal and state local assistance programs and all immigrants pay sales and property taxes.

According to the 2005 Economic Report of the President, "more than half of all undocumented immigrants are believed to be working ‘on the books'…[and]… contribute to the tax rolls but are ineligible for almost all Federal public assistance programs and most major Federal-state programs." According to the report, undocumented immigrants also "contribute money to public coffers by paying sales and property taxes (the latter are implicit in apartment rentals)."30

All immigrants (legal and undocumented) pay the same real estate taxes and the same sales and other consumption taxes as everyone else. The University of Illinois at Chicago found in 2002 that undocumented immigrants in the Chicago metro area spent $2.89 billion annually from their earnings and these expenditures generated $2.56 billion additional spending for the local economy.31

Legal immigrants pay income taxes and indeed many undocumented immigrants also pay income taxes or have taxes automatically withheld from their paycheckseven though they are unable to claim a tax refund, Social Security benefits or other welfare benefits that these taxes support. In the Chicago metro area for example, approximately seventy percent of undocumented workers paid payroll taxes, according to the University of Illinois study from 2002.32 In the Washington Metro Region, immigrants paid the same share of the region's overall taxes (18 percent) as the rest of the population (17.4 percent), according to a 2006 Urban Institute study.33 This study also points to the fact that immigrants' tax payments support both local and state services in addition to the federal government.

The Social Security Administration (SSA) holds that undocumented immigrants "account for a major portion" of the billions of dollars paid into the Social Security systeman estimated $520 billion as of October 2005.34 The SSA keeps a file called the "earnings suspense file" on all earnings with incorrect or fictitious Social Security numbers and the SSA's chief actuary stated in 2005 that "three quarters of other-than-legal immigrants pay payroll taxes."35 Their figures show that the suspense file is growing by more than $50 billion a year, generating $6 to 7 billion in Social Security tax revenue and about $1.5 billion in Medicare taxes.

MYTH: Immigrants send all their money back to their home countries instead of spending money here.

FACT: Immigrants do send money to family members, making it possible for more people to stay in their home countries rather than migrating to the United States. Importantly, sending remittances home does not keep immigrants from spending money in the United States.

It's true that remittances are the biggest sources of foreign currency for most Latin American countries and surpass any amount of foreign aid sent by the U.S. The money sent by immigrants to their family members allows many people to stay in their home countries who might otherwise feel compelled to migrate to the U.S.

And while 51 percent of Latino immigrants send remittances home,36 they are spending their money in the United States as well. In fact, a 1998 study found that immigrants become net economic contributors after 10 to 15 years in the U.S.37

In addition to paying taxes and Social Security, immigrants spend money on goods and services in the United States. A study of Latino immigrants in California found significant gains in home ownership between those who had been in this country for ten years (16.4 percent are homeowners) and those who had been here for over thirty years (64.6 percent).38 Furthermore, a 2002 Harvard University study of U.S. Census data found that there were more than 5.7 million foreign- born homeowners in the United States.39 The study found that foreign-born new homeowners are buying their homes by saving more than native-born homebuyers and stretching their incomes more.

While homeownership nationally was approximately 69% in 2006, it was 60% for Asians and 50% for Latinoseach group with large immigrant populations and therefore greater impediments to obtaining bank loans.40 Although homeownership is largely correlated with legal status in the U.S., undocumented immigrants are also buying into the "American Dream" of homeownership in some of the most expensive housing markets in the country.41

MYTH: Immigrants bring crime to our cities and towns.

FACT: Immigrants are actually far less likely to commit crimes than their native-born counterparts. Even as the undocumented population has increased in the United States, crime rates have decreased significantly.

According to a 2000 report prepared for the U.S. Department of Justice, immigrants maintain low crime rates even when faced with adverse social conditions such as low income and low levels of education.42

Although incarceration rates are highest among young low-income men and many immigrants arriving in the U.S. are young men with low levels of education, incarceration rates among young men are invariably lower for immigrants than for their native-born counterparts. This is true across every ethnic group but the differences are especially noticeable among Mexicans, Salvadorans and Guatemalans, who constitute the majority of undocumented immigrants in the United States. Even in cities with the largest immigrant populations, such as New York, Los Angeles, Chicago and Miami, violent and non-violent crime rates have continued to decline.43

Even after taking into account higher deportation rates since the mid 1990's, and reviewing the 1980 and 1990 censuses, the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) ascertained that, "18-40 year-old male immigrants have lower institutionalization rates than the native born each year…and by 2000, immigrants have institutionalization rates that are one-fifth those of the native born."44 In fact, according to the NBAR study, the newly arrived immigrants are particularly unlikely to be involved in crime.

Cities like Hazleton, Pennsylvania have tried to blame a new wave of immigrants for a supposed rise in crime. Yet, Hazleton's own crime statistics taken from the Pennsylvania State Police show that overall crime in the city has decreased and is now less than half of the national average.45

MYTH: Most immigrants are undocumented and have crossed the border illegally.

FACT: Two thirds of immigrants are here lawfullyeither as naturalized citizens or in some other lawful status. Moreover, almost half of all undocumented immigrants entered the United States legally.

According to the Pew Hispanic Center, one third of all immigrants are undocumented, one third have some form of legal status and one third are naturalized citizens. This applies to immigrants from Latin America as well as others.46

Almost half of all undocumented immigrants entered the United States on visas that allowed them to reside here temporarilyeither as tourists, students, or temporary workers. This means they were subject to inspection by immigration officials before entering the country,47 and became undocumented only when their visas expired and they didn't leave the country.

MYTH: Weak border enforcement has led to high rates of undocumented immigration. We should increase enforcement and build a wall around our border.

FACT: Increased border security and the construction of border fences have done little to curb the flow of immigrants across the United States border. Instead, these policies have only succeeded in pushing border crossers into dangerous and less-patrolled regions, and increased the undocumented population by creating an incentive for immigrants not to leave.

Building a wall along the entire 2000-mile southern U.S. border would be prohibitively expensive. According to a study by the Cato Institute, rather than acting as a deterrent to those attempting to cross the border, increased enforcement has only succeeded in pushing immigration flows into more remote, less patrolled regions, resulting in a tripling of the death rate at the border and decreased apprehensions, and creating a dramatic increase in taxpayer money spent on making arrests along the border (from $300 per arrest in 1992 to $1,200 per arrest in 2002).48

Furthermore, increased border enforcement has actually increased the number of undocumented immigrants in the U.S. at any one time. The increased risk and cost to immigrants of crossing the border has resulted in fewer undocumented immigrants returning to their home countries for periods of time as part of the decades-long circular migration patterns that characterize undocumented immigration from Mexico up until the 1990s. Instead, immigrants stay in the United States for longer periods of time, often choosing to immigrate their families to avoid longer periods of separation.49

The Secure Fence Act of 2006 directed the Department of Homeland Security to construct 850 miles of additional border fencing. According to a report by Congressional Research Services, the San Diego fence, combined with increased border patrol agents in the area, succeeded in decreasing border crossing in that region, but at the same time there is considerable evidence that the flow of illegal immigration has shifted to the more remote areas of the Arizona desert, decreasing the number of apprehensions and increasing the cost.50

Interesting

posts like this make me miss ol yeller

Whether the Board or the dog, their ending was the same, a bullet to the head. I hope my own demise will involve less splatter.

Quick & painless sounds good to me. Let someone else (an illegal perhaps?) clean up the mess

 

[timschochet]

I'm not clear that incarceration rates are indicative of crime rates. Perhaps those who move back and forth across borders, and who have less documentation and less attachment to social institutions are harder to locate and convict.

My personal experience, limited though it may be, is that illegal immagrants who are in nuclear families are very law abiding. (Excepting of course that their very presence here is a crime.) My experience with single male illegals would be otherwise.

As for net economic impact I find it unsettling that the negative impact falls locally and regionally while the benefit seems to inure to the federal government.

I am fine with revisiting our immigration laws and policies. I am not fine with doing so because we lack the will to enforce the law. I do not believe that non-citizens should be able to dictate outcomes in our laws by overwhelming lawlessness.

As for the studies which you insist are facts, I would characterize them as hypothesis that have some empirical support, but which need critical examination. They are far from established.

Myself, I am in favor of allowing greater access to our country and our economy to a larger number of law abiding foreign born persons.

This is a reasonable response.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

I'm hoping to go out from a massive stroke and heart attack caused from an embolism brought on through cocaine abuse and over exersion with young nymphos (plural). I hope for a Winston Wolfe type of cleaner to cover matters so that it appears to my family I went out volunteering for the poor. Whether Winston Wolfe is a citizen or illegal would not matter to my final wishes.

 

[matuski]

On the issue itself, I have no idea why Democrats and Republicans alike don't just enforce the last law they agreed upon. Democrats voted for this, Republicans voted for it, just enforce what Democrats voted for. This situation is so mind numbingly dysfunctional it' hard to even begin.

The second you enforce the laws, the real kicking and screaming starts.

Suddenly the people crying for them to be enforced are the first ones saying "hold on, wait a minute now..."

 

[RCon]

Let's see who is willing to compromise here...

From a thread nearly two years ago:

New plan for immigration reform:

Open borders for anyone who wants to work here (subject to intense background check for security purposes). No welfare, no government payments or subsidies of any kind. Guest workers would pay property taxes, sales taxes, and income taxes, but not SS or Medicare, since they would receive no benefits from those. They could take advantage of 401K, 529, and similar plans. They must abide by all laws, including minimum wage and other work rules, as well as requirements for auto insurance and such. No separate path to citizenship, although they could apply for citizenship like anyone else, but no threat of deportation. No voting rights, of course.

Re: health care/insurance, they could purchase group or individual insurance, unsubsidized. On the individual market, insurers would have no restrictions re: pre-existing condition bans/costs.

I would agree to this- under three conditions, and one thought:

1. We have to be able to treat these people for public health concerns- i.e., tuberculosis.

2. Their children must be allowed to attend public schools.

3. After a certain period of time (10 years?) they would receive automatic citizenship, so long as they obey these rules and commit no felonies.

My thought, Rich, is that if you make them abide by minimum wage requirements you're still going to have millions of illegals. Minimum wage creates a black market for illegal immigration. It would be better simply to do away with minimum wage, or failing that, to allow illegals to receive less than minimum wage for certain jobs.

No problem on #1.

I'd consider #2, although I'd prefer a tax/fee, such as $2000 per year per child.

Absolutely not on #3. That's not compromise, that's blanket amnesty.

Oh, and the rule about children born here being automatic citizens would have to be revoked, obviously.

Re: abandoning minimum wage, that simply creates a black market for labor, not specifically for illegals. I'd love to get rid of minimum wage. But you absolutely can't allow guest workers to receive less than citizens, or they would price citizens out of jobs. Failing removal of minimum wage, just institute a penalty of $100K per incident of businesses paying less than minimum wage, citizen or guest worker.

We are closer than we've ever been Rich, but we're still worlds apart. I have to have Jerusalem as my capital.

So, who is willing to compromise and who is not, now?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

The 1990 law - by Ted Kennedy - bumped up the amount of legal immigration from ~530K per year to 675K per year.

Say you pass a law that bumps that up to 1 million per year.

So what are you going to do to ensure that number is enforced?

Me? Nothing.

No kidding, it will be men who risk their lives doing it.

I don't want to see anyone risking their lives over this.

Ok you're living in a dream world, pun intended I guess.

Border duty is dangerous work. Men are already risking their lives. Hell immigrants risk their lives crossing because the border is not secure. If it was regulated it would be like crossing any normal border.

I'm not living in a dream world. There's no way to make our borders secure enough to prevent illegal immigration unless you want to live in East Germany. And I don't.

If you want to reduce illegal immigration, there are only two ways to do it: either make legal immigration much more accessible (particularly to poor people from latin America), or have a sucky economy. I like the former better than the latter.

Ok so you propose unlimited immigration.

NO ONE, except the most extreme extremists would be on board with this. You are the extremist here.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

On the issue itself, I have no idea why Democrats and Republicans alike don't just enforce the last law they agreed upon. Democrats voted for this, Republicans voted for it, just enforce what Democrats voted for. This situation is so mind numbingly dysfunctional it' hard to even begin.

The second you enforce the laws, the real kicking and screaming starts.

Suddenly the people crying for them to be enforced are the first ones saying "hold on, wait a minute now..."

Fine. Set it at at whatever it has to be, just act like a democracy, craft a law and then do that.

 

[Rohn Jambo]

I skipped the opening with the blah, blah, blah in big fonts, but in light of my NY resolution, will give tim a chance to make me smarter...

Let's step back a little. I think we need to agree on the final state that we want to achieve before we talk about how we can get there.

Tim, please explain why we need national borders and immigration quotas in the first place? What can possibly go wrong if we get rid of all of that?

 

[timschochet]

I skipped the opening with the blah, blah, blah in big fonts, but in light of my NY resolution, will give tim a chance to make me smarter...

Let's step back a little. I think we need to agree on the final state that we want to achieve before we talk about how we can get there.

Tim, please explain why we need national borders and immigration quotas in the first place? What can possibly go wrong if we get rid of all of that?

Good question. We need borders to prevent public health threats and terrorism. That's about it We don't need quotas.

 

[timschochet]

Let's see who is willing to compromise here...

From a thread nearly two years ago:

New plan for immigration reform:

Open borders for anyone who wants to work here (subject to intense background check for security purposes). No welfare, no government payments or subsidies of any kind. Guest workers would pay property taxes, sales taxes, and income taxes, but not SS or Medicare, since they would receive no benefits from those. They could take advantage of 401K, 529, and similar plans. They must abide by all laws, including minimum wage and other work rules, as well as requirements for auto insurance and such. No separate path to citizenship, although they could apply for citizenship like anyone else, but no threat of deportation. No voting rights, of course.

Re: health care/insurance, they could purchase group or individual insurance, unsubsidized. On the individual market, insurers would have no restrictions re: pre-existing condition bans/costs.

I would agree to this- under three conditions, and one thought:1. We have to be able to treat these people for public health concerns- i.e., tuberculosis.

2. Their children must be allowed to attend public schools.

3. After a certain period of time (10 years?) they would receive automatic citizenship, so long as they obey these rules and commit no felonies.

My thought, Rich, is that if you make them abide by minimum wage requirements you're still going to have millions of illegals. Minimum wage creates a black market for illegal immigration. It would be better simply to do away with minimum wage, or failing that, to allow illegals to receive less than minimum wage for certain jobs.

No problem on #1.

I'd consider #2, although I'd prefer a tax/fee, such as $2000 per year per child.

Absolutely not on #3. That's not compromise, that's blanket amnesty.

Oh, and the rule about children born here being automatic citizens would have to be revoked, obviously.

Re: abandoning minimum wage, that simply creates a black market for labor, not specifically for illegals. I'd love to get rid of minimum wage. But you absolutely can't allow guest workers to receive less than citizens, or they would price citizens out of jobs. Failing removal of minimum wage, just institute a penalty of $100K per incident of businesses paying less than minimum wage, citizen or guest worker.

We are closer than we've ever been Rich, but we're still worlds apart. I have to have Jerusalem as my capital.

So, who is willing to compromise and who is not, now?

Me. You wouldn't allow them to become citizens, ever, no matter how long they stay or what they do, and you insist on revoking the right of their children to be citizens. That's not compromise. That's Trump.

 

[RCon]

Not true in the slightest. I would allow them to become citizens. They, and their children, could apply just like anyone else. I would even expand the number of citizenship applications we accept each year.

What I would not do is grant preferential treatment (as in, someone who enters illegally should not have an easier "path to citizenship" than someone applying without first coming here illegally), thus rewarding them for breaking the law.

 

[DallasDMac]

But it's important to talk about it again, since let's face it, the main reason for Donald Trump's popularity is that the vast majority of the base of the Republican party agree with him on this topic, and that fact is sad and pathetic. Most of the information that the conservative base believes about illegal immigration is false, based on fear, ignorance, misinformation, and yes in some cases, bigotry.

This is not the tone of someone looking for an actual discussion. This is the rhetoric of someone that has their mind made up or has an agenda.

 

[Valjean]

We should not enforce that law, because it would involve deporting undocumented people who are already here. Since that is somewhere in the range of 10-15 million, such enforcement would be impossible.

We need to change that law to allow for a path to citizenship for undocumented people.

Fine, don't deport them - agree on amnesty or legalization or split the baby somehow, I don't care - but no matter what you have to pick a Day 1 where you start enforcing this law. Agreed?

No. Once we give the ones here amnesty, what about the millions who come illegally after that?

I am never going to be for forced deportation of millions of people. Never. So I will never agree to enforcing such a law.

What a great concept.

I guess it is OK to ignore any law on the books. Thanks for setting a precedent of ignoring laws and giving me the freedom to do whatever I

want to do without fear of prosecution. Lets empty all the prisons since laws don't need to be followed.

New gun laws can be ignore.

Obamacare can be ignored.

Tax laws can be ignored.

Fire Codes can be ignored.

No need for a passport.

What other laws can we choose to ignore?

Imagine how great it will be without lawyers in this country.

 

[jon_mx]

Not true in the slightest. I would allow them to become citizens. They, and their children, could apply just like anyone else. I would even expand the number of citizenship applications we accept each year.

What I would not do is grant preferential treatment (as in, someone who enters illegally would not have an easier time becoming a citizen than someone applying without first coming here illegally), thus rewarding them for breaking the law.

Would you please stop using such harsh words as breaking the law? They just lack proper documentation.

 

[Rohn Jambo]

I skipped the opening with the blah, blah, blah in big fonts, but in light of my NY resolution, will give tim a chance to make me smarter...

Let's step back a little. I think we need to agree on the final state that we want to achieve before we talk about how we can get there.

Tim, please explain why we need national borders and immigration quotas in the first place? What can possibly go wrong if we get rid of all of that?

Good question. We need borders to prevent public health threats and terrorism. That's about it We don't need quotas.

The US does not track foreign visitors who stay when their Visas expire. Does this mean we should get rid of passports too? I don't see why I should pay to keep my passport valid. It seems redundant when I have other proof of citizenship.

 

[jon_mx]

But it's important to talk about it again, since let's face it, the main reason for Donald Trump's popularity is that the vast majority of the base of the Republican party agree with him on this topic, and that fact is sad and pathetic. Most of the information that the conservative base believes about illegal immigration is false, based on fear, ignorance, misinformation, and yes in some cases, bigotry.

This is not the tone of someone looking for an actual discussion. This is the rhetoric of someone that has their mind made up or has an agenda.

Tim is not worth talking to on the subjects of race, immigration, Hillary, and global warming. He has become such a head-in-the-sand wingnut on each of those topics. Really a major shift for him becoming so hardened and unreasoning in his rhetoric.

 

[timschochet]

But it's important to talk about it again, since let's face it, the main reason for Donald Trump's popularity is that the vast majority of the base of the Republican party agree with him on this topic, and that fact is sad and pathetic. Most of the information that the conservative base believes about illegal immigration is false, based on fear, ignorance, misinformation, and yes in some cases, bigotry.

This is not the tone of someone looking for an actual discussion. This is the rhetoric of someone that has their mind made up or has an agenda.

I was writing specifically about those who agree with Donald Trump on this subject, and yes I've made my mind up about them.

 

[DallasDMac]

But it's important to talk about it again, since let's face it, the main reason for Donald Trump's popularity is that the vast majority of the base of the Republican party agree with him on this topic, and that fact is sad and pathetic. Most of the information that the conservative base believes about illegal immigration is false, based on fear, ignorance, misinformation, and yes in some cases, bigotry.

This is not the tone of someone looking for an actual discussion. This is the rhetoric of someone that has their mind made up or has an agenda.

Tim is not worth talking to on the subjects of race, immigration, Hillary, and global warming. He has become such a head-in-the-sand wingnut on each of those topics. Really a major shift for him becoming so hardened and unreasoning in his rhetoric.

I didn't get past this initial paragraph before realizing it wasn't worth the time or effort to continue on. As I said, not the words of a rational person looking to have a rational discussion. At least he was upfront about it so I knew I needn't bother.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

But it's important to talk about it again, since let's face it, the main reason for Donald Trump's popularity is that the vast majority of the base of the Republican party agree with him on this topic, and that fact is sad and pathetic. Most of the information that the conservative base believes about illegal immigration is false, based on fear, ignorance, misinformation, and yes in some cases, bigotry.

This is not the tone of someone looking for an actual discussion. This is the rhetoric of someone that has their mind made up or has an agenda.

I was writing specifically about those who agree with Donald Trump on this subject, and yes I've made my mind up about them.

You and Donald Trump are standing on opposite banks of the Rio Grande at each other, total and opposite extremes of this issue.

 

[timschochet]

But it's important to talk about it again, since let's face it, the main reason for Donald Trump's popularity is that the vast majority of the base of the Republican party agree with him on this topic, and that fact is sad and pathetic. Most of the information that the conservative base believes about illegal immigration is false, based on fear, ignorance, misinformation, and yes in some cases, bigotry.

This is not the tone of someone looking for an actual discussion. This is the rhetoric of someone that has their mind made up or has an agenda.

Tim is not worth talking to on the subjects of race, immigration, Hillary, and global warming. He has become such a head-in-the-sand wingnut on each of those topics. Really a major shift for him becoming so hardened and unreasoning in his rhetoric.

When you start posting reasonably on these subjects let me know.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Let's see who is willing to compromise here...

From a thread nearly two years ago:

New plan for immigration reform:

Open borders for anyone who wants to work here (subject to intense background check for security purposes). No welfare, no government payments or subsidies of any kind. Guest workers would pay property taxes, sales taxes, and income taxes, but not SS or Medicare, since they would receive no benefits from those. They could take advantage of 401K, 529, and similar plans. They must abide by all laws, including minimum wage and other work rules, as well as requirements for auto insurance and such. No separate path to citizenship, although they could apply for citizenship like anyone else, but no threat of deportation. No voting rights, of course.

Re: health care/insurance, they could purchase group or individual insurance, unsubsidized. On the individual market, insurers would have no restrictions re: pre-existing condition bans/costs.

I would agree to this- under three conditions, and one thought:1. We have to be able to treat these people for public health concerns- i.e., tuberculosis.

2. Their children must be allowed to attend public schools.

3. After a certain period of time (10 years?) they would receive automatic citizenship, so long as they obey these rules and commit no felonies.

My thought, Rich, is that if you make them abide by minimum wage requirements you're still going to have millions of illegals. Minimum wage creates a black market for illegal immigration. It would be better simply to do away with minimum wage, or failing that, to allow illegals to receive less than minimum wage for certain jobs.

No problem on #1.

I'd consider #2, although I'd prefer a tax/fee, such as $2000 per year per child.

Absolutely not on #3. That's not compromise, that's blanket amnesty.

Oh, and the rule about children born here being automatic citizens would have to be revoked, obviously.

Re: abandoning minimum wage, that simply creates a black market for labor, not specifically for illegals. I'd love to get rid of minimum wage. But you absolutely can't allow guest workers to receive less than citizens, or they would price citizens out of jobs. Failing removal of minimum wage, just institute a penalty of $100K per incident of businesses paying less than minimum wage, citizen or guest worker.

We are closer than we've ever been Rich, but we're still worlds apart. I have to have Jerusalem as my capital.

So, who is willing to compromise and who is not, now?

Me. You wouldn't allow them to become citizens, ever, no matter how long they stay or what they do, and you insist on revoking the right of their children to be citizens. That's not compromise. That's Trump.

Dude, allowing a constant stream of foreigners without limitation as a matter of policy and law is not a compromise.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

But it's important to talk about it again, since let's face it, the main reason for Donald Trump's popularity is that the vast majority of the base of the Republican party agree with him on this topic, and that fact is sad and pathetic. Most of the information that the conservative base believes about illegal immigration is false, based on fear, ignorance, misinformation, and yes in some cases, bigotry.

This is not the tone of someone looking for an actual discussion. This is the rhetoric of someone that has their mind made up or has an agenda.

Tim is not worth talking to on the subjects of race, immigration, Hillary, and global warming. He has become such a head-in-the-sand wingnut on each of those topics. Really a major shift for him becoming so hardened and unreasoning in his rhetoric.

When you start posting reasonably on these subjects let me know.

This is wingnuttery, Sanders and Hillary are both to the far right of your position.

 

[Rohn Jambo]

We should not enforce that law, because it would involve deporting undocumented people who are already here. Since that is somewhere in the range of 10-15 million, such enforcement would be impossible.

We need to change that law to allow for a path to citizenship for undocumented people.

Fine, don't deport them - agree on amnesty or legalization or split the baby somehow, I don't care - but no matter what you have to pick a Day 1 where you start enforcing this law. Agreed?

No. Once we give the ones here amnesty, what about the millions who come illegally after that? I am never going to be for forced deportation of millions of people. Never. So I will never agree to enforcing such a law.

What a great concept.I guess it is OK to ignore any law on the books. Thanks for setting a precedent of ignoring laws and giving me the freedom to do whatever I

want to do without fear of prosecution. Lets empty all the prisons since laws don't need to be followed.

New gun laws can be ignore.

Obamacare can be ignored.

Tax laws can be ignored.

Fire Codes can be ignored.

No need for a passport.

What other laws can we choose to ignore?

Imagine how great it will be without lawyers in this country.

After thousands of years of evolution then going from the Stone Age through the Renaissance, the Industrial Revolution to the Internet Age, Tim finally realizes that the Cavemen got it right.

 

[cubd8]

Not true in the slightest. I would allow them to become citizens. They, and their children, could apply just like anyone else. I would even expand the number of citizenship applications we accept each year.

What I would not do is grant preferential treatment (as in, someone who enters illegally should not have an easier "path to citizenship" than someone applying without first coming here illegally), thus rewarding them for breaking the law.

How would you handle the people already here? We are not going to deport them, in you view, right?

 

[jon_mx]

But it's important to talk about it again, since let's face it, the main reason for Donald Trump's popularity is that the vast majority of the base of the Republican party agree with him on this topic, and that fact is sad and pathetic. Most of the information that the conservative base believes about illegal immigration is false, based on fear, ignorance, misinformation, and yes in some cases, bigotry.

This is not the tone of someone looking for an actual discussion. This is the rhetoric of someone that has their mind made up or has an agenda.

Tim is not worth talking to on the subjects of race, immigration, Hillary, and global warming. He has become such a head-in-the-sand wingnut on each of those topics. Really a major shift for him becoming so hardened and unreasoning in his rhetoric.

When you start posting reasonably on these subjects let me know.

I hit all of those topics reasonably:

On Hillary, I avoided all the side discussions on Bill's sex scandals and focus on HIllary's lack of ethics in passing out political/leagal/commercial favors for personal gain which come out of taxpayers pockets and security interests. You avoid that discussion like the plague. You say it is 'boring' or those things don't apply to her heiness.

On global warming, I discuss that latest scientific data and trends. You just cut and paste talking points and have zero understanding of the facts.

On immigration, I favor more immigration. I just don't see the need to throw around the bigotry rhetoric. .

On race, I wait until the facts come out before making judgements and my conclusions end up matching outcomes, unlike you who parrots whatever the latest MSNBC talking points are in railroading and lynching every non-african american person involved in a shooting.

 

[SIDA!]

Anyone who thinks importing millions of uneducated people who can't speak English and largely work in low paying and /or under the table jobs is beneficial to our country is brain dead. Zero interest in debating a guy who believes in open borders while at the same time locking his doors every time he leaves the house.

 

[timschochet]

Anyone who thinks importing millions of uneducated people who can't speak English and largely work in low paying and /or under the table jobs is beneficial to our country is brain dead. Zero interest in debating a guy who believes in open borders while at the same time locking his doors every time he leaves the house.

Good to hear from you SIDA! Happy new year.

But of course you're wrong about all of it. Many of them can't speak English, but they don't need to, and according to the stats listed in the OP, their children will. The fact that they largely work in low paying jobs is a necessity and a boon for our economy. If some of them work for under the table jobs, that is a criticism of our minimum wage laws, and not on the illegals themselves. And I fail to see the connection between my house and our country. Our country is an idea, not a house.

 

[timschochet]

But it's important to talk about it again, since let's face it, the main reason for Donald Trump's popularity is that the vast majority of the base of the Republican party agree with him on this topic, and that fact is sad and pathetic. Most of the information that the conservative base believes about illegal immigration is false, based on fear, ignorance, misinformation, and yes in some cases, bigotry.

This is not the tone of someone looking for an actual discussion. This is the rhetoric of someone that has their mind made up or has an agenda.

Tim is not worth talking to on the subjects of race, immigration, Hillary, and global warming. He has become such a head-in-the-sand wingnut on each of those topics. Really a major shift for him becoming so hardened and unreasoning in his rhetoric.

When you start posting reasonably on these subjects let me know.

I hit all of those topics reasonably:

On Hillary, I avoided all the side discussions on Bill's sex scandals and focus on HIllary's lack of ethics in passing out political/leagal/commercial favors for personal gain which come out of taxpayers pockets and security interests. You avoid that discussion like the plague. You say it is 'boring' or those things don't apply to her heiness.

On global warming, I discuss that latest scientific data and trends. You just cut and paste talking points and have zero understanding of the facts.

On immigration, I favor more immigration. I just don't see the need to throw around the bigotry rhetoric. .

On race, I wait until the facts come out before making judgements and my conclusions end up matching outcomes, unlike you who parrots whatever the latest MSNBC talking points are in railroading and lynching every non-african american person involved in a shooting.

1. Your comments on Hillary's corruption are based on supposition and no real evidence. We've been over and over it. When you come up with evidence, produce it. Until then, I see no point in discussing it. You don't discuss anything regarding Hillary anyhow, all you do is call her names.

2. You repeat verbatim the fake pseudo-scientists who are paid by the oil companies to question global warming. To call that "latest scientific data and trends" is laughable.

3. I don't know what your specific views are on immigration. All I know is that whenever I have called Donald Trump a bigot on this issue (which he obviously is) you have attempted to defend him, or at least those who like his views on this issue. Now is your chance to distance yourself from his bigoted remarks, if you'd like.

4. You consistently deny that there is institutionalized racism in the police forces of this country. Just as when you deny the truth of man-made climate change, this makes it impossible to have a reasonable discussion with you on that subject.

 

[RCon]

Not true in the slightest. I would allow them to become citizens. They, and their children, could apply just like anyone else. I would even expand the number of citizenship applications we accept each year.

What I would not do is grant preferential treatment (as in, someone who enters illegally should not have an easier "path to citizenship" than someone applying without first coming here illegally), thus rewarding them for breaking the law.

How would you handle the people already here? We are not going to deport them, in you view, right?

Nope. It really is crazy. My proposal would not penalize existing illegals in any way whatsoever. They could stay, work, and be legal. Yet somehow I'm the one who refuses to compromise because I wouldn't also make them citizens.

 

[jon_mx]

What is it with you and the no real evidence ####### bull#### all the time. There are countless cases where Hillary receives money and benefits are received. I don't need to see the sperm fertilizing the egg to realize how a women got pregnant. The fact that there is an action and there is a result is all anyone needs to see there is corruption. That is evidence and when it come to Hillary there are mountains and mountains of it.

As I said before, this is not a legal case. It is picking someone to be in the most entrusted position on the planet. There are hundreds of documented accounts of the Clintons abusing the system. Hillary is a crook who does not deserve 8 more years of enriching herself at the detriment of this country.

 

[BeaverCleaver]

But it's important to talk about it again, since let's face it, the main reason for Donald Trump's popularity is that the vast majority of the base of the Republican party agree with him on this topic, and that fact is sad and pathetic. Most of the information that the conservative base believes about illegal immigration is false, based on fear, ignorance, misinformation, and yes in some cases, bigotry.

This is not the tone of someone looking for an actual discussion. This is the rhetoric of someone that has their mind made up or has an agenda.

Tim is not worth talking to on the subjects of race, immigration, Hillary, and global warming. He has become such a head-in-the-sand wingnut on each of those topics. Really a major shift for him becoming so hardened and unreasoning in his rhetoric.

When you start posting reasonably on these subjects

Hopefully someday you will do the same.

 

[TLEF316]

Anyone who thinks importing millions of uneducated people who can't speak English and largely work in low paying and /or under the table jobs is beneficial to our country is brain dead. Zero interest in debating a guy who believes in open borders while at the same time locking his doors every time he leaves the house.

Good to hear from you SIDA! Happy new year.

But of course you're wrong about all of it. Many of them can't speak English, but they don't need to, and according to the stats listed in the OP, their children will. The fact that they largely work in low paying jobs is a necessity and a boon for our economy. If some of them work for under the table jobs, that is a criticism of our minimum wage laws, and not on the illegals themselves. And I fail to see the connection between my house and our country. Our country is an idea, not a house.

Not to sound like Trump....but the bolded is absolutely nonsense. Our country is a clearly defined parcel of land with formal laws (enacted by people that were voted in by citizens) that state in perfectly clear terms how people are and aren't allowed to enter it. Illegal immigrants are breaking those rules just like if someone decided to take it upon themselves to slide in through your open basement window.

If someone breaks into my house and cleans my bathroom, they still broke into my house.

 

[dparker713]

Jesus Tim, you dug up this crap again. Its not like you haven't posted this exact same crap before.

For your information, an illegal immigrant, by definition, is breaking the law every single day that they are here. Amnesty and clemency are not the same thing. Increasing our immigration numbers does not require us to allow for people to enter the country any way they choose. Every reasonable person realizes Ayn Rand was full of #### by the time they're 22. We are a nation of laws.