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 $84.2 billion on an estimated 13 million undocumented residents. In his speech, Obama estimated that there are 11 million.
But FAIR's critics said the report wrongly included American-born children of undocumented workers in its study.
“The single biggest 'expense' it attributes to unauthorized immigrants is the education of their children, yet most of these children are native-born, U.S. citizens who will grow up to be taxpaying adults," said Walter Ewing, a senior researcher at the American Immigration Council. "It is disingenuous to count the cost of investing in the education of these children, so that they will earn higher incomes and pay more in taxes when they are adults, as if it were nothing more than a cost incurred by their parents."
He added that “the report fails to account for the purchasing power of unauthorized consumers, which supports U.S. businesses and U.S. jobs” and that it “ignores the value added to the U.S. economy by unauthorized workers, particularly in the service sector.”
Martin said FAIR expected that criticism, but that because the children are a direct result of illegal immigration, their inclusion was both fair and reasonable
...and what income do they generate for the US? This is just one side of the equation. All the expenses, and none of the income. From what I've understood many illegals do pay tax since it is directly deducted from their pay-checks, and it must be said that many do not get any services back for those tax dollars. Not to mention that they are mostly at work doing something (that's why they come), meaning they generate value and income in the economy every single one of them. And as there are a few million of them, it doesn't take much for them to generate more income than that projected expense of 113 billion. In fact the article states a cost of 1100$ per head. So if they only generate 1200$ of value each, they are a boon to the national economy.
The acronym FAIR is truly priceless. If they were trying to be fair (Which they sure as hell aren't as they are a political pressure group pushing the answer they want and grab around for factoids to support it), they would include projected added value and income that these immigrants provide. Like it seems the mentioned Perryman report of 2008 does.
So AZ law and constitution aside, this statement by FAIR is really very dishonest. It's like presenting modernized equipment in industry as only the cost, and neglecting to show how it will also raise the income over time. Or presenting hiring a new employee as only the expense on wage, and neglecting to show that he/she generates more income than their wage for the company. Dishonest.
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
It doesnt matter where the facts come from, some of you don't want to face the truth. The fact are it's costing us billions and we cant afford it. Just look at california and the mees they are in right now. when are you libs going to wake the hell up. never I guess.
Im just curious. For those of you that don't favor the arizona law does this bother you at all ?
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.
please give me a fucking break. :x :roll: The only one that is biased is you.
Here's another link for you. I can't wait to hear this..
This study is one of the first to estimate the total impact of illegal immigration on the federal budget. Most previous studies have focused on the state and local level and have examined only costs or tax payments, but not both. Based on Census Bureau data, this study finds that, when all taxes paid (direct and indirect) and all costs are considered, illegal households created a net fiscal deficit at the federal level of more than $10 billion in 2002. We also estimate that, if there was an amnesty for illegal aliens, the net fiscal deficit would grow to nearly $29 billion.
Among the findings:
Households headed by illegal aliens imposed more than $26.3 billion in costs on the federal government in 2002 and paid only $16 billion in taxes, creating a net fiscal deficit of almost $10.4 billion, or $2,700 per illegal household.
Among the largest costs are Medicaid ($2.5 billion); treatment for the uninsured ($2.2 billion); food assistance programs such as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches ($1.9 billion); the federal prison and court systems ($1.6 billion); and federal aid to schools ($1.4 billion).
With nearly two-thirds of illegal aliens lacking a high school degree, the primary reason they create a fiscal deficit is their low education levels and resulting low incomes and tax payments, not their legal status or heavy use of most social services.
On average, the costs that illegal households impose on federal coffers are less than half that of other households, but their tax payments are only one-fourth that of other households.
Many of the costs associated with illegals are due to their American-born children, who are awarded U.S. citizenship at birth. Thus, greater efforts at barring illegals from federal programs will not reduce costs because their citizen children can continue to access them.
If illegal aliens were given amnesty and began to pay taxes and use services like households headed by legal immigrants with the same education levels, the estimated annual net fiscal deficit would increase from $2,700 per household to nearly $7,700, for a total net cost of $29 billion.
Costs increase dramatically because unskilled immigrants with legal status -- what most illegal aliens would become -- can access government programs, but still tend to make very modest tax payments.
Although legalization would increase average tax payments by 77 percent, average costs would rise by 118 percent.
The fact that legal immigrants with few years of schooling are a large fiscal drain does not mean that legal immigrants overall are a net drain -- many legal immigrants are highly skilled.
The vast majority of illegals hold jobs. Thus the fiscal deficit they create for the federal government is not the result of an unwillingness to work.
The results of this study are consistent with a 1997 study by the National Research Council, which also found that immigrants' education level is a key determinant of their fiscal impact.
A Complex Fiscal Picture
Welfare use. Our findings show that many of the preconceived notions about the fiscal impact of illegal households turn out to be inaccurate. In terms of welfare use, receipt of cash assistance programs tends to be very low, while Medicaid use, though significant, is still less than for other households. Only use of food assistance programs is significantly higher than that of the rest of the population. Also, contrary to the perceptions that illegal aliens don't pay payroll taxes, we estimate that more than half of illegals work "on the books." On average, illegal households pay more than $4,200 a year in all forms of federal taxes. Unfortunately, they impose costs of $6,950 per household.
Social Security and Medicare. Although we find that the net effect of illegal households is negative at the federal level, the same is not true for Social Security and Medicare. We estimate that illegal households create a combined net benefit for these two programs in excess of $7 billion a year, accounting for about 4 percent of the total annual surplus in these two programs. However, they create a net deficit of $17.4 billion in the rest of the budget, for a total net loss of $10.4 billion. Nonetheless, their impact on Social Security and Medicare is unambiguously positive. Of course, if the Social Security totalization agreement with Mexico signed in June goes into effect, allowing illegals to collect Social Security, these calculations would change.
The Impact of Amnesty. Finally, our estimates show that amnesty would significantly increase tax revenue. Because both their income and tax compliance would rise, we estimate that under the most likely scenario the average illegal alien household would pay 77 percent ($3,200) more a year in federal taxes once legalized. While not enough to offset the 118 percent ($8,200) per household increase in costs that would come with legalization, amnesty would significantly increase both the average income and tax payments of illegal aliens.
What's Different About Today's Immigration. Many native-born Americans observe that their ancestors came to America and did not place great demands on government services. Perhaps this is true, but the size and scope of government were dramatically smaller during the last great wave of immigration. Not just means-tested programs, but expenditures on everything from public schools to roads were only a fraction of what they are today. Thus, the arrival of unskilled immigrants in the past did not have the negative fiscal implications that it does today. Moreover, the American economy has changed profoundly since the last great wave of immigration, with education now the key determinant of economic success. The costs that unskilled immigrants impose simply reflect the nature of the modern American economy and welfare state. It is doubtful that the fiscal costs can be avoided if our immigration policies remain unchanged.
Policy Implications
The negative impact on the federal budget need not be the only or even the primary consideration when deciding what to do about illegal immigration. But assuming that the fiscal status quo is unacceptable, there are three main changes in policy that might reduce or eliminate the fiscal costs of illegal immigration. One set of options is to allow illegal aliens to remain in the country, but attempt to reduce the costs they impose. A second set of options would be to grant them legal status as a way of increasing the taxes they pay. A third option would be to enforce the law and reduce the size of the illegal population and with it the costs of illegal immigration.
Reducing the Cost Side of the Equation. Reducing the costs illegals impose would probably be the most difficult of the three options because illegal households already impose only about 46 percent as much in costs on the federal government as other households. Thus, the amount of money that can be saved by curtailing their use of public services even further is probably quite limited. Moreover, the fact that benefits are often received on behalf of their U.S.-citizen children means that it is very difficult to prevent illegal households from accessing the programs they do. And many of the programs illegals use most extensively are likely to be politically very difficult to cut, such as the Women Infants and Children (WIC) nutrition program. Other costs, such as incarcerating illegals who have been convicted of crimes are unavoidable. It seems almost certain that if illegals are allowed to remain in the country, the fiscal deficit will persist.
Increasing Tax Revenue by Granting Amnesty. As discussed above, our research shows that granting illegal aliens amnesty would dramatically increase tax revenue. Unfortunately, we find that costs would increase even more. Costs would rise dramatically because illegals would be able to access many programs that are currently off limits to them. Moreover, even if legalized illegal aliens continued to be barred from using some means-tested programs, they would still be much more likely to sign their U.S.-citizen children up for them because they would lose whatever fear they had of the government. We know this because immigrants with legal status, who have the same education levels and resulting low incomes as illegal aliens, sign their U.S.-citizen children up for programs like Medicaid at higher rates than illegal aliens with U.S.-citizen children. In addition, direct costs for programs like the Earned Income Tax Credit would also grow dramatically with legalization. Right now, illegals need a Social Security number and have to file a tax return to get the credit. As a result, relatively few actually get it. We estimate that once legalized, payments to illegals under this program would grow more than ten-fold.
From a purely fiscal point of view, the main problem with legalization is that illegals would, for the most part, become unskilled legal immigrants. And unskilled legal immigrants create much larger fiscal costs than unskilled illegal aliens. Legalization will not change the low education levels of illegal aliens or the fact that the American labor market offers very limited opportunities to such workers, whatever their legal status. Nor will it change the basic fact that the United States, like all industrialized democracies, has a well-developed welfare state that provides assistance to low-income workers. Large fiscal costs are simply an unavoidable outcome of unskilled immigration given the economic and fiscal realities of America today.
Enforcing Immigration Laws. If we are serious about avoiding the fiscal costs of illegal immigration, the only real option is to enforce the law and reduce the number of illegal aliens in the country. First, this would entail much greater efforts to police the nation's land and sea borders. At present, less than 2,000 agents are on duty at any one time on the Mexican and Canadian borders. Second, much greater effort must be made to ensure that those allowed into the country on a temporary basis, such as tourists and guest workers, are not likely to stay in the country permanently. Third, the centerpiece of any enforcement effort would be to enforce the ban on hiring illegal aliens. At present, the law is completely unenforced. Enforcement would require using existing databases to ensure that all new hires are authorized to work in the United States and levying heavy fines on businesses that knowingly employ illegal aliens. Finally, a clear message from policymakers, especially senior members of the administration, that enforcement of the law is valued and vitally important to the nation, would dramatically increase the extremely low morale of those who enforce immigration laws.
Policing the border, enforcing the ban on hiring illegal aliens, denying temporary visas to those likely to remain permanently, and all the other things necessary to reduce illegal immigration will take time and cost money. However, since the cost of illegal immigration to the federal government alone is estimated at over $10 billion a year, significant resources could be devoted to enforcement efforts and still leave taxpayers with significant net savings. Enforcement not only has the advantage of reducing the costs of illegal immigration, it also is very popular with the general public. Nonetheless, policymakers can expect strong opposition from special interest groups, especially ethnic advocacy groups and those elements of the business community that do not want to invest in labor-saving devices and techniques or pay better salaries, but instead want access to large numbers of cheap, unskilled workers. If we choose to continue to not enforce the law or to grant illegals amnesty, both the public and policymakers have to understand that there will be significant long-term costs for taxpayers.
Summary Methodology
Overall Approach. To estimate the impact of households headed by illegal aliens, we rely heavily on the National Research Council's (NRC) 1997 study, "The New Americans." Like that study, we use the March Current Population Survey (CPS) and the decennial Census, both collected by the Census Bureau. We use the March 2003 CPS, which asks questions about income, household structure, and use of public services in the calendar year prior to the survey. We control total federal expenditures and tax receipts by category to reflect actual expenditures and tax payments. Like the NRC, we assume that immigrants have no impact on defense-related expenditures and therefore assign those costs only to native-headed households. Like the NRC, we define a household as persons living together who are related. Individuals living alone or with persons to whom they are unrelated are treated as their own households. As the NRC study points out, a "household is the primary unit through which public services are consumed and taxes paid." Following the NRC's example of using households, many of which include U.S.-citizen children, as the unit of analysis makes sense because the presence of these children and the costs they create are a direct result of their parents having been allowed to enter and remain in country. Thus, counting services used by these children allows for a full accounting of the costs of illegal immigration.
Identifying Illegal Aliens in Census Bureau Data. While the CPS does not ask respondents if they are illegal aliens, the Urban Institute, the former Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), and the Census Bureau have used socio-demographic characteristics in the data to estimate the size and characteristics of the illegal population. To identify illegal aliens in the survey, we used citizenship status, year of arrival in the United States, age, country of birth, educational attainment, sex, receipt of welfare programs, receipt of Social Security, veteran status, and marital status. This method is based on some very well-established facts about the characteristics of the illegal population. In some cases, we assume that individuals have zero chance of being an illegal alien, such as naturalized citizens, veterans, and individuals who report that they personally receive Social Security benefits or cash assistance from a welfare program or those who are enrolled in Medicaid. However, other members of a household, mainly the U.S.-born children of illegal aliens, can and do receive these programs. We estimate that there were 8.7 million illegal aliens included in the March 2003 CPS. By design, our estimates for the size and characteristics of the illegal population are very similar to those prepared by the Census Bureau, the INS, and the Urban Institute.
Estimating the Impact of Amnesty. We assume that any amnesty that passes Congress will have Lawful Permanent Residence (LPR) as a component. Even though the President's amnesty proposal in January seems to envision "temporary" worker status, every major legalization bill in Congress, including those sponsored by Republican legislators, provides illegal aliens with LPR status at some point in the process. Moreover, Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry has indicated his strong desire to give LPR status to illegal aliens.
To estimate the likely impact of legalization, we run two different simulations. In our first simulation, we assume that legalized illegal aliens would use services and pay taxes like all households headed by legal immigrants with the same characteristics. In this simulation, we control for the education level of the household head and whether the head is from Mexico. The first simulation shows that the net fiscal deficit grows from about $2,700 to more than $6,000 per household. In the second simulation, we again control for education and whether the household head is Mexican and also assume that illegals would become like post-1986 legal immigrants, excluding refugees. Because illegals are much more like recently arrived non-refugees than legal immigrants in general, the second simulation is the more plausible. The second simulation shows that the net fiscal deficit per household would climb to $7,700.
Results Similar to Other Studies. Our overall conclusion that education level is the primary determinant of tax payments made and services used is very similar to the conclusion of the 1997 National Research Council report, "The New Americans." The results of our study also closely match the findings of a 1998 Urban Institute study, which examined tax payments by illegal aliens in New York State. In order to test our results we ran separate estimates for federal taxes and found that, when adjusted for inflation, our estimated federal taxes are almost identical to those of the Urban Institute. The results of this study are also buttressed by an analysis of illegal alien tax returns done by the Inspector General's Office of the Department of Treasury in 2004, which found that about half of illegals had no federal income tax liability, very similar to our finding of 45 percent.
It doesnt matter where the facts come from, some of you don't want to face the truth. The fact are it's costing us billions and we cant afford it. Just look at california and the mees they are in right now. when are you libs going to wake the hell up. never I guess.
The second source you added here is better and less blatantly biased. However there are a few criticisms/points to be made:
1)The report is from 2004, and based on even older data. Perhaps a minor point, but things can change in 10 years when talking about something as fluid as migration.
2) They only consider the fiscal implications for the federal government. They do not consider the effects on the general economy from them being there. They spend their pay-checks, increasing demand and thus increasing incomes for retailers etc in the economy who also pay taxes and so on and so forth. One should consider impact on GDP for a truthful picture of overall benefit/liability. Focusing on likely tax-payments is too narrow.
3) Adding the costs of American-born children is contestable. Or rather, you can't kick them out anyway as they are US citizens, thus they really aren't part of the equation in any real way. The implication of the study is aimed at the potential booting out of these people (removing of expense) after all.
So, better, but with a too narrow focus if the goal is to assess the "value" of illegal immigrants.
(edit) Here is the report from the Perryman group in 2008, that does take into account lost spending in the economy as a result of taking away the illegal immigrants. I know, the site that links it is obviously activist, but the Perryman group is an independent entity at least. http://www.americansforimmigrationrefor ... kforce.pdf
Homepage of company doing the analysis: http://www.perrymangroup.com/
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
It doesnt matter where the facts come from, some of you don't want to face the truth. The fact are it's costing us billions and we cant afford it. Just look at california and the mees they are in right now. when are you libs going to wake the hell up. never I guess.
Are you or are you not disregarding the revenue and other value to the economy brought by undocumented workers? How do you account for those facts? Are you even interested in knowing the whole truth?
I'll have to read your other article when I have more time, though Dan's assessment of it seems reasonable at first glance.
It doesnt matter where the facts come from, some of you don't want to face the truth. The fact are it's costing us billions and we cant afford it. Just look at california and the mees they are in right now. when are you libs going to wake the hell up. never I guess.
Are you or are you not disregarding the revenue and other value to the economy brought by undocumented workers? How do you account for those facts? Are you even interested in knowing the whole truth?
I'll have to read your other article when I have more time, though Dan's assessment of it seems reasonable at first glance.
I doubt they contribute $113 BILLION a year to our economy..or even close, I'll bet that loss to gain ratio is no where worth the money and problems the US has to deal with because of illegal immigration...just my guess.
And might I add, it is not necessarily a conflict between benefit to the general economy and net loss for federal coffers. It might just mean that taxes won't pick up that revenue directly because they are mostly low-income. But many small incomes also benefit the economy, if not the federal government with today's rules.
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
I doubt they contribute $113 BILLION a year to our economy..or even close, I'll bet that loss to gain ratio is no where worth the money and problems the US has to deal with because of illegal immigration...just my guess.
Godfather.
Excerpt from Perryman groups report, working on the number of illegals being 8 million:
For the US as a whole, the negative effect was found to be sizable. In fact, the immediate effect of eliminating the undocumented workforce would include an estimated $1.757 trillion in annual lost spending, $651.511 billion in annual lost output, and 8.1 million job losses. (These effects are annual figures based on the size of the US economy in 2008.) This measure is indicative of what could be expected in a situation characterized by adoption of an enforcement-only and removal policy with no effective mechanisms to avoid disruptions."
And if you take in the rest of the economy compensating:
Nonetheless, the outcomes involve the permanent loss of millions of jobs and would prove highly detrimental to particular geographic areas and industries. In fact, TPG calculated that the foregone economic activity (based on the size of the national economy in 2008) would include some $551.569 billion in annual spending, $244.971 billion in annual output, and more than 2.8 million lost jobs.
When you are talking of millions of people, a couple of billion $ isn't that much...
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
well I guess you can't argue with numbers, but that means every Illegal immigrant would have to contribute over a million each and not get any government assistance right ? I don't remember the number of illegals in the country today.
well I guess you can't argue with numbers, but that means every Illegal immigrant would have to contribute over a million each and not get any government assistance right ? I don't remember the number of illegals in the country today.
Godfather.
I've seen 10 million as the number, but it's not like it's an easy number to pin point...
So even then, for 10 million people to offset the $113 billion amount, that is $11,300 per person.. not a terribly high number.
Probably not made up in federal income taxes withheld, but when you consider their spending contribution to the local economy where they live (rent, food, etc), and just the overall number that they contribute to our economy and keep costs down for businesses, I don't think the revenue vs expenses could be that out of whack.
My whole life
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
well I guess you can't argue with numbers, but that means every Illegal immigrant would have to contribute over a million each and not get any government assistance right ? I don't remember the number of illegals in the country today.
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.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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,
kisstheshadows1 wrote:well lets see, Ive got some illegal hispanic kids at my apartment complex that like to go around and piss on peoples doors. sound animal enough?"
don't you think idiots like this will be calling cops every time they see an "animal" (Hispanic).... :roll:
well, anyone can get sued, and I was specifically talking about the Fed challenges. This guy is sueing on the prefunctory conclusion he may or may not get sued based on how he enforces the law. The lawyer goes on to say he may lose his job if he fails to enforce the law....ah...DUH! I would hope a police officer would lose their job if they fail to enforce the law, even if they disagree with it.
I would say if this law falls due to racial profiling, we are in trouble as a country. considering the law itself talks about reasonable suspicion after lawful contact has been made, that covers about every aspect of any traffic stop now.
as far as the other dope who called hispanic kids animals, in one ear out the other. That was just a stupid thing to say and hopefully he/she feels stupid for saying it. And yes, some people will call the police on suspicion of illegal immigranst, much like they already do. But this law does not pertain to that, this law is about already having contact with the people. I just think we need to see what happens before we go all crazy and talk about how this law will do this and will do that. Lets see what it does and then move from there. This could be the biggest thing ever, or just fadeaway after we do not see the unintended consequences people are up in arms about...it is really to early to tell.
I am mmore interested in how the supreme court will decide the idea of supremacy in this issue.
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Most of you think that all cops are racists and must be plotting anyway they can get minorities. It is sad to me that so many of you have this horribly skewed impression of police officers.
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.
I don't think so. A lot of the challenges I have read consist of how cops will now stop anyone who is brown and question their immigration status, which just isn't the case.
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.)
this is a prime example of it right here. you say you know the law is written to ensure there is no racial profiling, yet you also say that it will happen no matter what because some how the law encourages it. This is either a gross msunderstanding of the law, or distrust of law enforcement.
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Why don't we simply pass laws that curb incentives for illegals from all nations to come into the USA until we can actually take care of the population we do have?
Stop persecuting the people who are already here and start curbing incentives for more immigrants to come here illegally.
Some ideas: no more citizenship for babies of illegals born in the USA, no more free healthcare (medicaid), equal wages for all, etc.
The sad fact is that the USA is overpopulated and cannot sustain the growth of the population at its current rates. However, to criminalize those who are here already and being productive members of society is inhumane.
The illegal immigrants who commit violent crimes, however, I feel should be deported, as it is not worth it for us to pay taxes to keep them in our legal system.
If we made all immigration legal, then illegal immigration wouldn't cost us anything. It's a simple solution.
Immigration is legal, under the proper circumstances. The problem is, there are many poor people from other countries that want to start families but simply cannot afford to do so, so they cross the border into the USA illegally as sort of a quick fix. I can't say I blame them, but unfortunately, it is becoming a hefty burden on a country already plagued by recession and corruption.
Most of you think that all cops are racists and must be plotting anyway they can get minorities. It is sad to me that so many of you have this horribly skewed impression of police officers.
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.
I don't think so. A lot of the challenges I have read consist of how cops will now stop anyone who is brown and question their immigration status, which just isn't the case.
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.)
this is a prime example of it right here. you say you know the law is written to ensure there is no racial profiling, yet you also say that it will happen no matter what because some how the law encourages it. This is either a gross msunderstanding of the law, or distrust of law enforcement.
Do you deny that there are SOME law enforcement officers who have a problem with Hispanic people? Even 1% is 1% too much. That doesn't mean I distrust the other 99% of law enforcement. It seems like you are trying to suggest that anyone who acknowledges that racial profiling or police harassment exist thinks that "all cops are racists and must be plotting anyway they can get minorities," which is absolutely not what we think.
I don't have a gross misunderstanding of the law; I have read it backwards and forwards. I think it was written in a way that encourages racial profiling. Then, when there was public outcry, they threw in a line that says "no racial profiling," not to change the spirit of the law, but just to cover their asses legally.
0
unsung
I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
that is $11,300 per person.. not a terribly high number.
So it would be cheaper to buy them a one way plane ticket back to their home country? I'd offer a ticket plus $5000 to those that self deport and agree not to come back illegally again. Win-win.
Do you deny that there are SOME law enforcement officers who have a problem with Hispanic people? Even 1% is 1% too much. That doesn't mean I distrust the other 99% of law enforcement. It seems like you are trying to suggest that anyone who acknowledges that racial profiling or police harassment exist thinks that "all cops are racists and must be plotting anyway they can get minorities," which is absolutely not what we think.
I don't have a gross misunderstanding of the law; I have read it backwards and forwards. I think it was written in a way that encourages racial profiling. Then, when there was public outcry, they threw in a line that says "no racial profiling," not to change the spirit of the law, but just to cover their asses legally.
Well, it cannot be both ways, either it says racial profiling is acceptable or it doesn't...either it makes racial profiling acceptable or it doesn't. It isn't the acknowledging of racial profiling or harassment, it is the idea that if there are a few cops who for whatever reason are dinks. it isn't the majority, and the ones who do take advantage will be punished according to precinct and department policy. Not arresting criminals because someone a thousand miles away abused their power seems silly and stupid. This law isn't debating whether or not someone here without permission of the government is a criminal, that much is already proven for the time being, so why should we not be able punish them?
That isn't to say that all those who support this measure are against immigration, far from it. I don't care who or how many people want to come here, just as long as they come in the front door.
it is nice to know that you don't think all cops are racist pricks, so why don't we see what happens with this law in practice before we get up in arms about it, before we attack them for racially profiling
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
that is $11,300 per person.. not a terribly high number.
So it would be cheaper to buy them a one way plane ticket back to their home country? I'd offer a ticket plus $5000 to those that self deport and agree not to come back illegally again. Win-win.
That seems hateful.....Why would you be willing to do that? What is about illegal immigrants that you hate so much? When that other guy called Hispanic's animals .... you didn't say anything, you just questioned how someone should report a black person to the police......
You must be like that Tea Party guy who was throwing money at a sick man because he needed heathcare! I'll have to find the video ..... that's a disturbing comment.... no wonder i don't respect your opinion....
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.
FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).
Correction: I was looking at the old version of the bill when I posted the quote above. The new version so longer says "any lawful contact". The new version now says "any lawful stop, detention, or arrest". It is still not, however, limited to when a crime has been committed.
Do you deny that there are SOME law enforcement officers who have a problem with Hispanic people? Even 1% is 1% too much. That doesn't mean I distrust the other 99% of law enforcement. It seems like you are trying to suggest that anyone who acknowledges that racial profiling or police harassment exist thinks that "all cops are racists and must be plotting anyway they can get minorities," which is absolutely not what we think.
I don't have a gross misunderstanding of the law; I have read it backwards and forwards. I think it was written in a way that encourages racial profiling. Then, when there was public outcry, they threw in a line that says "no racial profiling," not to change the spirit of the law, but just to cover their asses legally.
Well, it cannot be both ways, either it says racial profiling is acceptable or it doesn't...either it makes racial profiling acceptable or it doesn't. It isn't the acknowledging of racial profiling or harassment, it is the idea that if there are a few cops who for whatever reason are dinks. it isn't the majority, and the ones who do take advantage will be punished according to precinct and department policy. Not arresting criminals because someone a thousand miles away abused their power seems silly and stupid. This law isn't debating whether or not someone here without permission of the government is a criminal, that much is already proven for the time being, so why should we not be able punish them?
That isn't to say that all those who support this measure are against immigration, far from it. I don't care who or how many people want to come here, just as long as they come in the front door.
it is nice to know that you don't think all cops are racist pricks, so why don't we see what happens with this law in practice before we get up in arms about it, before we attack them for racially profiling
Well I guess you just have more faith in our system than I do. I prefer to not give the government even more power to fuck over the citizens than they already have. And as long as proof of citizenship is only required of people who seem suspect, then this law cannot be applied equally across all populations.
I'm not talking at all about immigration, by the way.
well I guess you can't argue with numbers, but that means every Illegal immigrant would have to contribute over a million each and not get any government assistance right ? I don't remember the number of illegals in the country today.
Godfather.
Ehm, no.
As blackredyellow said, it's 11.300$ pr head, and that is because they get assistance in various ways. Wouldn't be a cost if they weren't collecting benefits.
The TPG report shows a loss to the economy of at least 800 billion if they were all booted out, and that is assuming that the labour market adjusts quickly and flawlessly to fill the gap. And TPG is using a fairly low estimate of illegals at 8 million. In that equation, 113 billion is nothing. Note that you have to take into account not only their tax payments, but the effect of them spending their paychecks into the economy when assessing their worth, not to mention the added value from their labour that is (taxable) profit for the business owners.
So if it's about the money, I think this immigration makes you more prosperous if anything. If you're gonna start counting, you have to count both credit and debit sides in the books...
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
well I guess you can't argue with numbers, but that means every Illegal immigrant would have to contribute over a million each and not get any government assistance right ? I don't remember the number of illegals in the country today.
Godfather.
Ehm, no.
As blackredyellow said, it's 11.300$ pr head, and that is because they get assistance in various ways. Wouldn't be a cost if they weren't collecting benefits.
The TPG report shows a loss to the economy of at least 800 billion if they were all booted out, and that is assuming that the labour market adjusts quickly and flawlessly to fill the gap. And TPG is using a fairly low estimate of illegals at 8 million. In that equation, 113 billion is nothing. Note that you have to take into account not only their tax payments, but the effect of them spending their paychecks into the economy when assessing their worth, not to mention the added value from their labour that is (taxable) profit for the business owners.
So if it's about the money, I think this immigration makes you more prosperous if anything. If you're gonna start counting, you have to count both credit and debit sides in the books...
Peace
Dan
Excellent points.... Where is Pf.. the guy that promised me a bootleg if my taxes don't go up... by the way how is that going to work?
If my taxes go up, and I'm not in the top bracket, I'll buy you a bootleg! How's that?
I would like to hear your responses to Dan's comments...
well I guess you can't argue with numbers, but that means every Illegal immigrant would have to contribute over a million each and not get any government assistance right ? I don't remember the number of illegals in the country today.
Godfather.
are you just playing dumb.....
I hope so
that wasen't very nice smellyman I think you just hurt my last little bit of feelings...
thats it lets round up all the ilegals and and give them a life sentence down in the tip of baja and smellyman you can be the jailer....wait they might hurt you for being there illegally and harass you or worse yet racially profile you....NOOOOOOOOO
well I guess you can't argue with numbers, but that means every Illegal immigrant would have to contribute over a million each and not get any government assistance right ? I don't remember the number of illegals in the country today.
Godfather.
Ehm, no.
As blackredyellow said, it's 11.300$ pr head, and that is because they get assistance in various ways. Wouldn't be a cost if they weren't collecting benefits.
The TPG report shows a loss to the economy of at least 800 billion if they were all booted out, and that is assuming that the labour market adjusts quickly and flawlessly to fill the gap. And TPG is using a fairly low estimate of illegals at 8 million. In that equation, 113 billion is nothing. Note that you have to take into account not only their tax payments, but the effect of them spending their paychecks into the economy when assessing their worth, not to mention the added value from their labour that is (taxable) profit for the business owners.
So if it's about the money, I think this immigration makes you more prosperous if anything. If you're gonna start counting, you have to count both credit and debit sides in the books...
Peace
Dan
Excellent points.... Where is Pf.. the guy that promised me a bootleg if my taxes don't go up... by the way how is that going to work?
If my taxes go up, and I'm not in the top bracket, I'll buy you a bootleg! How's that?
I would like to hear your responses to Dan's comments...
did you figure in the amount of money they send home and how many of them pay taxes ? and how many pay rent...the canyons and hillside and riverbeds are full of these people that must pay their rent to the city for use of the areas they squat on right ? and what about medical bills that will never be paid unless of corse the tax payer picks up the tab as we always do, as I said I don't think the loss to gain is worth it and besides THEY ARE HERE ILLEGALLY , what do you think mexico would do if 8 to 10 million americans did the same thing to mexico ? what would the other 97% of this bord say then.
did you figure in the amount of money they send home and how many of them pay taxes ? and how many pay rent...the canyons and hillside and riverbeds are full of these people that must pay their rent to the city for use of the areas they squat on right ? and what about medical bills that will never be paid unless of corse the tax payer picks up the tab as we always do, as I said I don't think the loss to gain is worth it and besides THEY ARE HERE ILLEGALLY , what do you think mexico would do if 8 to 10 million americans did the same thing to mexico ? what would the other 97% of this bord say then.
Godfather.
I didn't read this particular study, but I would bet that it did figure in the amount of money undocumented immigrants send home and how many of them pay taxes. And I'd also bet that the vast majority of them pay rent or mortgages or share a home with someone who does. I'm sure there are squatters like you're talking about, but I have never seen a single one of them here. The people here live in homes. Also, many people do pay their medical bills. In fact, I would think undocumented immigrants pay more into the healthcare system than citizens in the same income bracket, since poor citizens qualify for Medicaid and therefore don't pay anything. Some people (citizens, documented immigrants, & undocumented immigrants) don't pay and the government has to eat the cost with taxes, but undocumented immigrants pay into the tax system. And the U.S. has already taken over Mexico in far worse ways than Mexicans have taken over the U.S.
Comments
The acronym FAIR is truly priceless. If they were trying to be fair (Which they sure as hell aren't as they are a political pressure group pushing the answer they want and grab around for factoids to support it), they would include projected added value and income that these immigrants provide. Like it seems the mentioned Perryman report of 2008 does.
So AZ law and constitution aside, this statement by FAIR is really very dishonest. It's like presenting modernized equipment in industry as only the cost, and neglecting to show how it will also raise the income over time. Or presenting hiring a new employee as only the expense on wage, and neglecting to show that he/she generates more income than their wage for the company. Dishonest.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
please give me a fucking break. :x :roll: The only one that is biased is you.
Here's another link for you. I can't wait to hear this..
http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html
This study is one of the first to estimate the total impact of illegal immigration on the federal budget. Most previous studies have focused on the state and local level and have examined only costs or tax payments, but not both. Based on Census Bureau data, this study finds that, when all taxes paid (direct and indirect) and all costs are considered, illegal households created a net fiscal deficit at the federal level of more than $10 billion in 2002. We also estimate that, if there was an amnesty for illegal aliens, the net fiscal deficit would grow to nearly $29 billion.
Among the findings:
Households headed by illegal aliens imposed more than $26.3 billion in costs on the federal government in 2002 and paid only $16 billion in taxes, creating a net fiscal deficit of almost $10.4 billion, or $2,700 per illegal household.
Among the largest costs are Medicaid ($2.5 billion); treatment for the uninsured ($2.2 billion); food assistance programs such as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches ($1.9 billion); the federal prison and court systems ($1.6 billion); and federal aid to schools ($1.4 billion).
With nearly two-thirds of illegal aliens lacking a high school degree, the primary reason they create a fiscal deficit is their low education levels and resulting low incomes and tax payments, not their legal status or heavy use of most social services.
On average, the costs that illegal households impose on federal coffers are less than half that of other households, but their tax payments are only one-fourth that of other households.
Many of the costs associated with illegals are due to their American-born children, who are awarded U.S. citizenship at birth. Thus, greater efforts at barring illegals from federal programs will not reduce costs because their citizen children can continue to access them.
If illegal aliens were given amnesty and began to pay taxes and use services like households headed by legal immigrants with the same education levels, the estimated annual net fiscal deficit would increase from $2,700 per household to nearly $7,700, for a total net cost of $29 billion.
Costs increase dramatically because unskilled immigrants with legal status -- what most illegal aliens would become -- can access government programs, but still tend to make very modest tax payments.
Although legalization would increase average tax payments by 77 percent, average costs would rise by 118 percent.
The fact that legal immigrants with few years of schooling are a large fiscal drain does not mean that legal immigrants overall are a net drain -- many legal immigrants are highly skilled.
The vast majority of illegals hold jobs. Thus the fiscal deficit they create for the federal government is not the result of an unwillingness to work.
The results of this study are consistent with a 1997 study by the National Research Council, which also found that immigrants' education level is a key determinant of their fiscal impact.
A Complex Fiscal Picture
Welfare use. Our findings show that many of the preconceived notions about the fiscal impact of illegal households turn out to be inaccurate. In terms of welfare use, receipt of cash assistance programs tends to be very low, while Medicaid use, though significant, is still less than for other households. Only use of food assistance programs is significantly higher than that of the rest of the population. Also, contrary to the perceptions that illegal aliens don't pay payroll taxes, we estimate that more than half of illegals work "on the books." On average, illegal households pay more than $4,200 a year in all forms of federal taxes. Unfortunately, they impose costs of $6,950 per household.
Social Security and Medicare. Although we find that the net effect of illegal households is negative at the federal level, the same is not true for Social Security and Medicare. We estimate that illegal households create a combined net benefit for these two programs in excess of $7 billion a year, accounting for about 4 percent of the total annual surplus in these two programs. However, they create a net deficit of $17.4 billion in the rest of the budget, for a total net loss of $10.4 billion. Nonetheless, their impact on Social Security and Medicare is unambiguously positive. Of course, if the Social Security totalization agreement with Mexico signed in June goes into effect, allowing illegals to collect Social Security, these calculations would change.
The Impact of Amnesty. Finally, our estimates show that amnesty would significantly increase tax revenue. Because both their income and tax compliance would rise, we estimate that under the most likely scenario the average illegal alien household would pay 77 percent ($3,200) more a year in federal taxes once legalized. While not enough to offset the 118 percent ($8,200) per household increase in costs that would come with legalization, amnesty would significantly increase both the average income and tax payments of illegal aliens.
What's Different About Today's Immigration. Many native-born Americans observe that their ancestors came to America and did not place great demands on government services. Perhaps this is true, but the size and scope of government were dramatically smaller during the last great wave of immigration. Not just means-tested programs, but expenditures on everything from public schools to roads were only a fraction of what they are today. Thus, the arrival of unskilled immigrants in the past did not have the negative fiscal implications that it does today. Moreover, the American economy has changed profoundly since the last great wave of immigration, with education now the key determinant of economic success. The costs that unskilled immigrants impose simply reflect the nature of the modern American economy and welfare state. It is doubtful that the fiscal costs can be avoided if our immigration policies remain unchanged.
Policy Implications
The negative impact on the federal budget need not be the only or even the primary consideration when deciding what to do about illegal immigration. But assuming that the fiscal status quo is unacceptable, there are three main changes in policy that might reduce or eliminate the fiscal costs of illegal immigration. One set of options is to allow illegal aliens to remain in the country, but attempt to reduce the costs they impose. A second set of options would be to grant them legal status as a way of increasing the taxes they pay. A third option would be to enforce the law and reduce the size of the illegal population and with it the costs of illegal immigration.
Reducing the Cost Side of the Equation. Reducing the costs illegals impose would probably be the most difficult of the three options because illegal households already impose only about 46 percent as much in costs on the federal government as other households. Thus, the amount of money that can be saved by curtailing their use of public services even further is probably quite limited. Moreover, the fact that benefits are often received on behalf of their U.S.-citizen children means that it is very difficult to prevent illegal households from accessing the programs they do. And many of the programs illegals use most extensively are likely to be politically very difficult to cut, such as the Women Infants and Children (WIC) nutrition program. Other costs, such as incarcerating illegals who have been convicted of crimes are unavoidable. It seems almost certain that if illegals are allowed to remain in the country, the fiscal deficit will persist.
Increasing Tax Revenue by Granting Amnesty. As discussed above, our research shows that granting illegal aliens amnesty would dramatically increase tax revenue. Unfortunately, we find that costs would increase even more. Costs would rise dramatically because illegals would be able to access many programs that are currently off limits to them. Moreover, even if legalized illegal aliens continued to be barred from using some means-tested programs, they would still be much more likely to sign their U.S.-citizen children up for them because they would lose whatever fear they had of the government. We know this because immigrants with legal status, who have the same education levels and resulting low incomes as illegal aliens, sign their U.S.-citizen children up for programs like Medicaid at higher rates than illegal aliens with U.S.-citizen children. In addition, direct costs for programs like the Earned Income Tax Credit would also grow dramatically with legalization. Right now, illegals need a Social Security number and have to file a tax return to get the credit. As a result, relatively few actually get it. We estimate that once legalized, payments to illegals under this program would grow more than ten-fold.
From a purely fiscal point of view, the main problem with legalization is that illegals would, for the most part, become unskilled legal immigrants. And unskilled legal immigrants create much larger fiscal costs than unskilled illegal aliens. Legalization will not change the low education levels of illegal aliens or the fact that the American labor market offers very limited opportunities to such workers, whatever their legal status. Nor will it change the basic fact that the United States, like all industrialized democracies, has a well-developed welfare state that provides assistance to low-income workers. Large fiscal costs are simply an unavoidable outcome of unskilled immigration given the economic and fiscal realities of America today.
Enforcing Immigration Laws. If we are serious about avoiding the fiscal costs of illegal immigration, the only real option is to enforce the law and reduce the number of illegal aliens in the country. First, this would entail much greater efforts to police the nation's land and sea borders. At present, less than 2,000 agents are on duty at any one time on the Mexican and Canadian borders. Second, much greater effort must be made to ensure that those allowed into the country on a temporary basis, such as tourists and guest workers, are not likely to stay in the country permanently. Third, the centerpiece of any enforcement effort would be to enforce the ban on hiring illegal aliens. At present, the law is completely unenforced. Enforcement would require using existing databases to ensure that all new hires are authorized to work in the United States and levying heavy fines on businesses that knowingly employ illegal aliens. Finally, a clear message from policymakers, especially senior members of the administration, that enforcement of the law is valued and vitally important to the nation, would dramatically increase the extremely low morale of those who enforce immigration laws.
Policing the border, enforcing the ban on hiring illegal aliens, denying temporary visas to those likely to remain permanently, and all the other things necessary to reduce illegal immigration will take time and cost money. However, since the cost of illegal immigration to the federal government alone is estimated at over $10 billion a year, significant resources could be devoted to enforcement efforts and still leave taxpayers with significant net savings. Enforcement not only has the advantage of reducing the costs of illegal immigration, it also is very popular with the general public. Nonetheless, policymakers can expect strong opposition from special interest groups, especially ethnic advocacy groups and those elements of the business community that do not want to invest in labor-saving devices and techniques or pay better salaries, but instead want access to large numbers of cheap, unskilled workers. If we choose to continue to not enforce the law or to grant illegals amnesty, both the public and policymakers have to understand that there will be significant long-term costs for taxpayers.
Summary Methodology
Overall Approach. To estimate the impact of households headed by illegal aliens, we rely heavily on the National Research Council's (NRC) 1997 study, "The New Americans." Like that study, we use the March Current Population Survey (CPS) and the decennial Census, both collected by the Census Bureau. We use the March 2003 CPS, which asks questions about income, household structure, and use of public services in the calendar year prior to the survey. We control total federal expenditures and tax receipts by category to reflect actual expenditures and tax payments. Like the NRC, we assume that immigrants have no impact on defense-related expenditures and therefore assign those costs only to native-headed households. Like the NRC, we define a household as persons living together who are related. Individuals living alone or with persons to whom they are unrelated are treated as their own households. As the NRC study points out, a "household is the primary unit through which public services are consumed and taxes paid." Following the NRC's example of using households, many of which include U.S.-citizen children, as the unit of analysis makes sense because the presence of these children and the costs they create are a direct result of their parents having been allowed to enter and remain in country. Thus, counting services used by these children allows for a full accounting of the costs of illegal immigration.
Identifying Illegal Aliens in Census Bureau Data. While the CPS does not ask respondents if they are illegal aliens, the Urban Institute, the former Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), and the Census Bureau have used socio-demographic characteristics in the data to estimate the size and characteristics of the illegal population. To identify illegal aliens in the survey, we used citizenship status, year of arrival in the United States, age, country of birth, educational attainment, sex, receipt of welfare programs, receipt of Social Security, veteran status, and marital status. This method is based on some very well-established facts about the characteristics of the illegal population. In some cases, we assume that individuals have zero chance of being an illegal alien, such as naturalized citizens, veterans, and individuals who report that they personally receive Social Security benefits or cash assistance from a welfare program or those who are enrolled in Medicaid. However, other members of a household, mainly the U.S.-born children of illegal aliens, can and do receive these programs. We estimate that there were 8.7 million illegal aliens included in the March 2003 CPS. By design, our estimates for the size and characteristics of the illegal population are very similar to those prepared by the Census Bureau, the INS, and the Urban Institute.
Estimating the Impact of Amnesty. We assume that any amnesty that passes Congress will have Lawful Permanent Residence (LPR) as a component. Even though the President's amnesty proposal in January seems to envision "temporary" worker status, every major legalization bill in Congress, including those sponsored by Republican legislators, provides illegal aliens with LPR status at some point in the process. Moreover, Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry has indicated his strong desire to give LPR status to illegal aliens.
To estimate the likely impact of legalization, we run two different simulations. In our first simulation, we assume that legalized illegal aliens would use services and pay taxes like all households headed by legal immigrants with the same characteristics. In this simulation, we control for the education level of the household head and whether the head is from Mexico. The first simulation shows that the net fiscal deficit grows from about $2,700 to more than $6,000 per household. In the second simulation, we again control for education and whether the household head is Mexican and also assume that illegals would become like post-1986 legal immigrants, excluding refugees. Because illegals are much more like recently arrived non-refugees than legal immigrants in general, the second simulation is the more plausible. The second simulation shows that the net fiscal deficit per household would climb to $7,700.
Results Similar to Other Studies. Our overall conclusion that education level is the primary determinant of tax payments made and services used is very similar to the conclusion of the 1997 National Research Council report, "The New Americans." The results of our study also closely match the findings of a 1998 Urban Institute study, which examined tax payments by illegal aliens in New York State. In order to test our results we ran separate estimates for federal taxes and found that, when adjusted for inflation, our estimated federal taxes are almost identical to those of the Urban Institute. The results of this study are also buttressed by an analysis of illegal alien tax returns done by the Inspector General's Office of the Department of Treasury in 2004, which found that about half of illegals had no federal income tax liability, very similar to our finding of 45 percent.
The second source you added here is better and less blatantly biased. However there are a few criticisms/points to be made:
1)The report is from 2004, and based on even older data. Perhaps a minor point, but things can change in 10 years when talking about something as fluid as migration.
2) They only consider the fiscal implications for the federal government. They do not consider the effects on the general economy from them being there. They spend their pay-checks, increasing demand and thus increasing incomes for retailers etc in the economy who also pay taxes and so on and so forth. One should consider impact on GDP for a truthful picture of overall benefit/liability. Focusing on likely tax-payments is too narrow.
3) Adding the costs of American-born children is contestable. Or rather, you can't kick them out anyway as they are US citizens, thus they really aren't part of the equation in any real way. The implication of the study is aimed at the potential booting out of these people (removing of expense) after all.
So, better, but with a too narrow focus if the goal is to assess the "value" of illegal immigrants.
(edit) Here is the report from the Perryman group in 2008, that does take into account lost spending in the economy as a result of taking away the illegal immigrants. I know, the site that links it is obviously activist, but the Perryman group is an independent entity at least.
http://www.americansforimmigrationrefor ... kforce.pdf
Homepage of company doing the analysis:
http://www.perrymangroup.com/
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
Are you or are you not disregarding the revenue and other value to the economy brought by undocumented workers? How do you account for those facts? Are you even interested in knowing the whole truth?
I'll have to read your other article when I have more time, though Dan's assessment of it seems reasonable at first glance.
I doubt they contribute $113 BILLION a year to our economy..or even close, I'll bet that loss to gain ratio is no where worth the money and problems the US has to deal with because of illegal immigration...just my guess.
Godfather.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
Excerpt from Perryman groups report, working on the number of illegals being 8 million:
And if you take in the rest of the economy compensating:
When you are talking of millions of people, a couple of billion $ isn't that much...
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
Godfather.
I've seen 10 million as the number, but it's not like it's an easy number to pin point...
So even then, for 10 million people to offset the $113 billion amount, that is $11,300 per person.. not a terribly high number.
Probably not made up in federal income taxes withheld, but when you consider their spending contribution to the local economy where they live (rent, food, etc), and just the overall number that they contribute to our economy and keep costs down for businesses, I don't think the revenue vs expenses could be that out of whack.
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
are you just playing dumb.....
I hope so
well, anyone can get sued, and I was specifically talking about the Fed challenges. This guy is sueing on the prefunctory conclusion he may or may not get sued based on how he enforces the law. The lawyer goes on to say he may lose his job if he fails to enforce the law....ah...DUH! I would hope a police officer would lose their job if they fail to enforce the law, even if they disagree with it.
I would say if this law falls due to racial profiling, we are in trouble as a country. considering the law itself talks about reasonable suspicion after lawful contact has been made, that covers about every aspect of any traffic stop now.
as far as the other dope who called hispanic kids animals, in one ear out the other. That was just a stupid thing to say and hopefully he/she feels stupid for saying it. And yes, some people will call the police on suspicion of illegal immigranst, much like they already do. But this law does not pertain to that, this law is about already having contact with the people. I just think we need to see what happens before we go all crazy and talk about how this law will do this and will do that. Lets see what it does and then move from there. This could be the biggest thing ever, or just fadeaway after we do not see the unintended consequences people are up in arms about...it is really to early to tell.
I am mmore interested in how the supreme court will decide the idea of supremacy in this issue.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
this is a prime example of it right here. you say you know the law is written to ensure there is no racial profiling, yet you also say that it will happen no matter what because some how the law encourages it. This is either a gross msunderstanding of the law, or distrust of law enforcement.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Stop persecuting the people who are already here and start curbing incentives for more immigrants to come here illegally.
Some ideas: no more citizenship for babies of illegals born in the USA, no more free healthcare (medicaid), equal wages for all, etc.
The sad fact is that the USA is overpopulated and cannot sustain the growth of the population at its current rates. However, to criminalize those who are here already and being productive members of society is inhumane.
The illegal immigrants who commit violent crimes, however, I feel should be deported, as it is not worth it for us to pay taxes to keep them in our legal system.
Immigration is legal, under the proper circumstances. The problem is, there are many poor people from other countries that want to start families but simply cannot afford to do so, so they cross the border into the USA illegally as sort of a quick fix. I can't say I blame them, but unfortunately, it is becoming a hefty burden on a country already plagued by recession and corruption.
Do you deny that there are SOME law enforcement officers who have a problem with Hispanic people? Even 1% is 1% too much. That doesn't mean I distrust the other 99% of law enforcement. It seems like you are trying to suggest that anyone who acknowledges that racial profiling or police harassment exist thinks that "all cops are racists and must be plotting anyway they can get minorities," which is absolutely not what we think.
I don't have a gross misunderstanding of the law; I have read it backwards and forwards. I think it was written in a way that encourages racial profiling. Then, when there was public outcry, they threw in a line that says "no racial profiling," not to change the spirit of the law, but just to cover their asses legally.
So it would be cheaper to buy them a one way plane ticket back to their home country? I'd offer a ticket plus $5000 to those that self deport and agree not to come back illegally again. Win-win.
Well, it cannot be both ways, either it says racial profiling is acceptable or it doesn't...either it makes racial profiling acceptable or it doesn't. It isn't the acknowledging of racial profiling or harassment, it is the idea that if there are a few cops who for whatever reason are dinks. it isn't the majority, and the ones who do take advantage will be punished according to precinct and department policy. Not arresting criminals because someone a thousand miles away abused their power seems silly and stupid. This law isn't debating whether or not someone here without permission of the government is a criminal, that much is already proven for the time being, so why should we not be able punish them?
That isn't to say that all those who support this measure are against immigration, far from it. I don't care who or how many people want to come here, just as long as they come in the front door.
it is nice to know that you don't think all cops are racist pricks, so why don't we see what happens with this law in practice before we get up in arms about it, before we attack them for racially profiling
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Just sayin'.
That seems hateful.....Why would you be willing to do that? What is about illegal immigrants that you hate so much? When that other guy called Hispanic's animals .... you didn't say anything, you just questioned how someone should report a black person to the police......
You must be like that Tea Party guy who was throwing money at a sick man because he needed heathcare! I'll have to find the video ..... that's a disturbing comment.... no wonder i don't respect your opinion....
Correction: I was looking at the old version of the bill when I posted the quote above. The new version so longer says "any lawful contact". The new version now says "any lawful stop, detention, or arrest". It is still not, however, limited to when a crime has been committed.
Well I guess you just have more faith in our system than I do. I prefer to not give the government even more power to fuck over the citizens than they already have. And as long as proof of citizenship is only required of people who seem suspect, then this law cannot be applied equally across all populations.
I'm not talking at all about immigration, by the way.
Fucking socialists.
As blackredyellow said, it's 11.300$ pr head, and that is because they get assistance in various ways. Wouldn't be a cost if they weren't collecting benefits.
The TPG report shows a loss to the economy of at least 800 billion if they were all booted out, and that is assuming that the labour market adjusts quickly and flawlessly to fill the gap. And TPG is using a fairly low estimate of illegals at 8 million. In that equation, 113 billion is nothing. Note that you have to take into account not only their tax payments, but the effect of them spending their paychecks into the economy when assessing their worth, not to mention the added value from their labour that is (taxable) profit for the business owners.
So if it's about the money, I think this immigration makes you more prosperous if anything. If you're gonna start counting, you have to count both credit and debit sides in the books...
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
Excellent points.... Where is Pf.. the guy that promised me a bootleg if my taxes don't go up... by the way how is that going to work?
If my taxes go up, and I'm not in the top bracket, I'll buy you a bootleg! How's that?
I would like to hear your responses to Dan's comments...
thats it lets round up all the ilegals and and give them a life sentence down in the tip of baja and smellyman you can be the jailer....wait they might hurt you for being there illegally and harass you or worse yet racially profile you....NOOOOOOOOO
Godfather.
did you figure in the amount of money they send home and how many of them pay taxes ? and how many pay rent...the canyons and hillside and riverbeds are full of these people that must pay their rent to the city for use of the areas they squat on right ? and what about medical bills that will never be paid unless of corse the tax payer picks up the tab as we always do, as I said I don't think the loss to gain is worth it and besides THEY ARE HERE ILLEGALLY , what do you think mexico would do if 8 to 10 million americans did the same thing to mexico ? what would the other 97% of this bord say then.
Godfather.
I didn't read this particular study, but I would bet that it did figure in the amount of money undocumented immigrants send home and how many of them pay taxes. And I'd also bet that the vast majority of them pay rent or mortgages or share a home with someone who does. I'm sure there are squatters like you're talking about, but I have never seen a single one of them here. The people here live in homes. Also, many people do pay their medical bills. In fact, I would think undocumented immigrants pay more into the healthcare system than citizens in the same income bracket, since poor citizens qualify for Medicaid and therefore don't pay anything. Some people (citizens, documented immigrants, & undocumented immigrants) don't pay and the government has to eat the cost with taxes, but undocumented immigrants pay into the tax system. And the U.S. has already taken over Mexico in far worse ways than Mexicans have taken over the U.S.