Illegal Immigration Costs U.S. $113 Billion a Year,
WaveCameCrashin
Posts: 2,929
Im just curious. For those of you that don't favor the arizona law does this bother you at all ?
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/07/02/im ... ts-reform/
The cost of harboring illegal immigrants in the United States is a staggering $113 billion a year -- an average of $1,117 for every “native-headed” household in America -- according to a study conducted by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR).
The study, a copy of which was provided to FoxNews.com, “is the first and most detailed look at the costs of illegal immigration ever done,” says Bob Dane, director of communications at FAIR, a conservative organization that seeks to end almost all immigration to the U.S.
FAIR's opponents in the bitter immigration debate describe the organization as "extremist," though it is regularly called upon to testify before Congress.
Groups that support immigration reform immediately attacked FAIR's report and pointed out that it is the polar opposite of the Perryman Report, a 2008 study that found illegal immigration was actually a boon to the American economy. It estimated that illegal immigrants add $245 billion in Gross Domestic Product to the economy and account for 2.8 million jobs.
The FAIR report comes as President Obama moves immigration reform to the top of his agenda, and it is likely to be a rallying point for those who oppose the president. At a speech Thursday at American University in Washington, D.C., Obama argued that the entire immigration system is broken and needs sweeping reforms. Among the changes he said are needed is "a path for [farm] workers to earn legal status," which the president's critics called an opening for a new amnesty program.
FAIR's report argues that there are two choices in the immigration debate: “One choice is pursuing a strategy that discourages future illegal migration and increasingly diminishes the current illegal alien population through denial of job opportunities and deportations. The other choice,” it says, “would repeat the unfortunate decision made in 1986 to adopt an amnesty that invited continued illegal migration.”
The report states that an amnesty program wouldn’t appreciably increase tax revenue and would cost massive amounts in Social Security and public assistance expenses. An amnesty “would therefore be an accentuation of the already enormous fiscal burden,” the report concludes.
The single largest cost to the government of illegal immigration, according to the report, is an estimated $52 billion spent on schooling the children of illegals. “Nearly all those costs are absorbed by state and local governments,’ the report states.
Moreover, the study’s breakdown of costs on a state-by-state basis shows that in states with the largest number of illegals, the costs of illegal immigration are often greater than current, crippling budget deficits. In Texas, for example, the additional cost of immigration, $16.4 billion, is equal to the state’s current budget deficit; in California the additional cost of illegal immigration, $21.8 billion, is $8 billion more than the state’s current budget deficit of $13.8 billion; and in New York, the $6.8 billion deficit is roughly two-thirds the $9.5 billion yearly cost of its illegal population, according to Jack Martin, the researcher who completed the study.
“The most important finding of the study is the enormous cost to state and local governments due to lack of enforcement of our immigration laws,” Martin wrote.
The report found that the federal government paid $28.6 billion in illegal related costs, and state and local governments paid $84.2 billion on an estimated 13 million undocumented residents. In his speech, Obama estimated that there are 11 million.
But FAIR's critics said the report wrongly included American-born children of undocumented workers in its study.
“The single biggest 'expense' it attributes to unauthorized immigrants is the education of their children, yet most of these children are native-born, U.S. citizens who will grow up to be taxpaying adults," said Walter Ewing, a senior researcher at the American Immigration Council. "It is disingenuous to count the cost of investing in the education of these children, so that they will earn higher incomes and pay more in taxes when they are adults, as if it were nothing more than a cost incurred by their parents."
He added that “the report fails to account for the purchasing power of unauthorized consumers, which supports U.S. businesses and U.S. jobs” and that it “ignores the value added to the U.S. economy by unauthorized workers, particularly in the service sector.”
Martin said FAIR expected that criticism, but that because the children are a direct result of illegal immigration, their inclusion was both fair and reasonable
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/07/02/im ... ts-reform/
The cost of harboring illegal immigrants in the United States is a staggering $113 billion a year -- an average of $1,117 for every “native-headed” household in America -- according to a study conducted by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR).
The study, a copy of which was provided to FoxNews.com, “is the first and most detailed look at the costs of illegal immigration ever done,” says Bob Dane, director of communications at FAIR, a conservative organization that seeks to end almost all immigration to the U.S.
FAIR's opponents in the bitter immigration debate describe the organization as "extremist," though it is regularly called upon to testify before Congress.
Groups that support immigration reform immediately attacked FAIR's report and pointed out that it is the polar opposite of the Perryman Report, a 2008 study that found illegal immigration was actually a boon to the American economy. It estimated that illegal immigrants add $245 billion in Gross Domestic Product to the economy and account for 2.8 million jobs.
The FAIR report comes as President Obama moves immigration reform to the top of his agenda, and it is likely to be a rallying point for those who oppose the president. At a speech Thursday at American University in Washington, D.C., Obama argued that the entire immigration system is broken and needs sweeping reforms. Among the changes he said are needed is "a path for [farm] workers to earn legal status," which the president's critics called an opening for a new amnesty program.
FAIR's report argues that there are two choices in the immigration debate: “One choice is pursuing a strategy that discourages future illegal migration and increasingly diminishes the current illegal alien population through denial of job opportunities and deportations. The other choice,” it says, “would repeat the unfortunate decision made in 1986 to adopt an amnesty that invited continued illegal migration.”
The report states that an amnesty program wouldn’t appreciably increase tax revenue and would cost massive amounts in Social Security and public assistance expenses. An amnesty “would therefore be an accentuation of the already enormous fiscal burden,” the report concludes.
The single largest cost to the government of illegal immigration, according to the report, is an estimated $52 billion spent on schooling the children of illegals. “Nearly all those costs are absorbed by state and local governments,’ the report states.
Moreover, the study’s breakdown of costs on a state-by-state basis shows that in states with the largest number of illegals, the costs of illegal immigration are often greater than current, crippling budget deficits. In Texas, for example, the additional cost of immigration, $16.4 billion, is equal to the state’s current budget deficit; in California the additional cost of illegal immigration, $21.8 billion, is $8 billion more than the state’s current budget deficit of $13.8 billion; and in New York, the $6.8 billion deficit is roughly two-thirds the $9.5 billion yearly cost of its illegal population, according to Jack Martin, the researcher who completed the study.
“The most important finding of the study is the enormous cost to state and local governments due to lack of enforcement of our immigration laws,” Martin wrote.
The report found that the federal government paid $28.6 billion in illegal related costs, and state and local governments paid $84.2 billion on an estimated 13 million undocumented residents. In his speech, Obama estimated that there are 11 million.
But FAIR's critics said the report wrongly included American-born children of undocumented workers in its study.
“The single biggest 'expense' it attributes to unauthorized immigrants is the education of their children, yet most of these children are native-born, U.S. citizens who will grow up to be taxpaying adults," said Walter Ewing, a senior researcher at the American Immigration Council. "It is disingenuous to count the cost of investing in the education of these children, so that they will earn higher incomes and pay more in taxes when they are adults, as if it were nothing more than a cost incurred by their parents."
He added that “the report fails to account for the purchasing power of unauthorized consumers, which supports U.S. businesses and U.S. jobs” and that it “ignores the value added to the U.S. economy by unauthorized workers, particularly in the service sector.”
Martin said FAIR expected that criticism, but that because the children are a direct result of illegal immigration, their inclusion was both fair and reasonable
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
:roll:
I don't think he is talking about the rights of illegal immigrants.... I think he is talking about the AZ law and whether it is unconstitutional .
Every single human being has rights in this and any other civilized country, illegal immigrants aren't farm animals, and even those have rights.
Neil deGrasse Tyson
Why not (V) (°,,,,°) (V) ?
Who are you calling an Animal?
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Let this be an example as to why so many people continue to use Racism while debating this issue. Kisstheshows is dehumanizing the Hispanic community. My father came to this country as an illegal immigrant... He lives and dies by the American flag - and you are insulting me, my father, and the Hispanic community. My brother served in the US Air force and thousands of Hispanics have given there life for this country - and you want to call Hispanic's Animals!
Your a piece of ......never mind...your not even worth it.... you don't even understand what this freaking debate was about...your just an idiot ...
Yes, it bothers me. Biased, bullshit studies passing themselves off as "fact" because some people will believe anything that fits their agenda always bother me.
even if we're to agree that illegal immigrants have no rights under the constitution (a disgusting and racist notion that you can basically treat a person as below you just because he or she is illegal, but based on the posts above me, disgusting and racist ideas are definitely not beyond you), this still protects ANY individual from having to hand over identification in the first place because no one is allowed to assume that another person is illegal based on racial profiling. so if someone who is forced to hand over their ID turns out to be a citizen, that citizen has every right to sue for racial profiling because it is unconstitutional.
Aside from the argument that no one deserves to be treated like animals, this law violates the rights of NATURAL-BORN AMERICAN CITIZENS.
So if a black kid robs a person and the person is in the cop shop describing the offender should the victim not say he was black?
The 4th Amendment does not say you don't have to show identification. If you get pulled over for speeding are you not going to give the officer your ID?
Not like this guy even cares, but here's to the point SCB made...
Anti-immigration groups split on Utah list
After an anonymous group of anti-immigration activists distributed a list of some 1,300 names and personal information purportedly belonging to Utah residents who are in the country illegally, no one is rushing forward to take credit for an act of information vigilantism that is against Utah state law. The list, which went out to state and federal enforcement officials as well as to local media outlets and state political leaders, came with a note urging that all the people included on it be deported — even though follow-up press reports have indicated that some of the names belong to legal residents of the United States.
Local and national anti-illegal-immigration groups tell Yahoo! News they are not responsible for the move. But the groups don't uniformly condemn publishing the anonymous accusations — which in turn bespeaks a revealing split in just how far different groups are willing to go in their push for more aggressive enforcement against illegal immigrants.
Ron Mortensen, co-founder of the Utah Coalition on Illegal Immigration, says he objects to the list because there is "no justification" for releasing someone's private information. His group is pushing for the state to pass an immigration law modeled on Arizona's next year, and says the controversy over the list is "not helpful" for the movement.
Utah Minuteman Project co-chair Eli Cawley, however, was not so concerned about privacy violations — though he also said his group was not behind the list. "It's probably against some privacy laws," he said on local radio station KSL. "But I think in the interest of preserving our civilization, preserving our society, and protecting the people of the state of Utah, I think that's a greater interest than protecting the privacy of some individuals."
The list contained some Social Security numbers, addresses, dates of birth, and phone numbers of people — including 200 children — it accused of being in the country illegally. A letter from the anonymous group Concerned Citizens for the United States attached to the list also pointed out that six women on the list were pregnant and should be deported immediately. (ABC News has posted the letter here.)
Bob Dane, a spokesman for Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), backed away from the vigilante tactic. He told Yahoo! News that his organization encourages people to report illegal immigrants to an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) tip line. "If citizens want to help fight illegal immigration, use the tip line. And pressure politicians to enforce the laws," he said. An attorney for FAIR's legal arm helped craft the Arizona immigration law.
Meanwhile, William Gheen, president of the anti-illegal-immigration political action committee Americans for Legal Immigration, said the people behind the list are "heroes" who are expressing frustration with a lack of federal immigration enforcement.
Mortensen and Gheen said ICE's tip line is "useless" because of the agency's policy of prioritizing the investigation of illegal immigrants who could be a threat to society. An ICE spokeswoman told the Associated Press that the agency focuses "first on those dangerous convicted criminal aliens who present the greatest risk to the security of our communities, not sweeps or raids to target undocumented immigrants indiscriminately."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20 ... -utah-list
Are we talking about Animals, Blacks, or Humans? :roll:
Should the police officer write on the report that robber was a black animal? that would probably make more sense .... :roll:
are you not following the conversation?
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
WOW you need to take a chill pill man
Neil deGrasse Tyson
Why not (V) (°,,,,°) (V) ?
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
you are horrible with analogies.
If you had read the law, maybe you have but missed this part, it states that they are to ask for ID when a crime has been committed. No where does it say that people are going to be stopped simply because of their skin color.
No, that's not what it says. It says:
Law enforcement officers have "lawful contact" with all kinds of people who haven't committed any crime - like victims of crimes and witnesses to crimes. And now they not only can, but arguably MUST, require people to provide proof of citizenship if there is reason to SUSPECT - not probable cause - that they may be here illegally. They say this will not be based on skin color, but there is not really any way to avoid that. (Isn't it the Mexicans over the Swedes who you would suspect are here illegally?) Now people will be reluctant to come forward and cooperate with police, which is a primary reason why we haven't had such a law in my border state. Plus, of course, there will be U.S. citizens who look Mexican who are made to show papers.
EDIT: "Probably cause"?
Also, if law enforcement does not enforce this law, the citizens of Arizona can file a law suit against police officers/department. Just another reason why I do not support this law...
Imagine if a citizen calls 911 because a bunch of brown person's are standing in front of a home depot, if those brown people aren't arrested then that citizen is going to want an explanation, as to why they weren't arrested... otherwise someone may be sued...
Exactly. Hey, you're brown, aren't you? I think I'm gonna sue every cop who comes into "lawful contact" with you and doesn't ask you for your papers. Those cops should have reasonably suspected that you're an "illegal". Of course, you can't possibly say the same thing about me. No one should reasonably suspect that I'm here illegally because I have blonde hair and blue eyes. Guess you'd better be extra nice to me from now on!
The constitutional challenge is basically because they are making state law what is ostensibly a federal issue. To me it doesn't seem to be able to be challenged on those grounds. A state has police powers over all of the operations within its borders. If the federal government passed immigration laws some how giving immunity to all people that crossed borders illegally and arizona began deporting them on their own it would be a supremacy issue...
I really think they are challenging the law for votes, which is strange since so many americans support the measure.
I think we all need to do is relax and watch this bill go into practice. If there are truly cases of simple racial profiling they will be able to challenge it and win rather easily. If there are only anecdotal stories and no real charges of racial profiling then I think you will see an embarrassed Justice department drop any and all challenges.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Mike,
what about
Officer Sues Over Arizona Immigrant Law
PHOENIX—A lawyer for a Phoenix police officer told a federal court Thursday his client could be sued for racial profiling if he enforces Arizona's new immigration law. It is the first hearing in a series of legal challenges filed over the controversial crackdown which has divided law enforcement in the state and across the country.
Officer David Salgado, a 19-year veteran of the Phoenix police department, could also lose his job if he fails to enforce the new law, his attorney said.
Arizona's statute requires an officer to verify the immigration status of a person stopped for other alleged crimes, if "reasonable suspicion" exists of illegal presence in the U.S.
But the law also empowers Arizona residents to sue an officer they believe isn't enforcing the law to the fullest extent.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 24112.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Don't you think this will also create more division amongst the citizens of AZ- Do you think that certain racist citizens will start to abuse this authority (and hype) and start reporting Hispanic's (citizens), because of the color of there skin?
Putting more stress on the officers?
what are your thoughts?
A perfect example,
don't you think idiots like this will be calling cops every time they see an "animal" (Hispanic).... :roll:
I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume that I fall into your "most of you" category, so I'll respond to your assertion about what we (or at least I) think: It is incorrect.
It doesn't matter if there are ever any cases of racial profiling that actually happen (which, I have no doubt, there will be - though they might be dismissed as anecdotal stories). What matters is that the law not only allows for it, but encourages it. (I know, they changed it to say "no racial profiling," but that is meaningless.)