NationStates Jolt Archive

As a Californian, I've often heard it said that illegal immigrants, largely from Mexico (though significant numbers from other South American and Asian countries reside here illegally as well) make a valueable contribution to society because they "take the jobs nobody else wants" and work for cheap to keep our prices low.

The reality is that these criminal aliens (immigrants who are present here criminally) create a tremendous financial burden that is born entirely by legal, tax-paying citizens. A criminal alien working in a strawberry field makes minimum wage or less. Let's pretend that if the market had to rely more on domestic labor for these tasks (I say "more" because some of the labor is already obviously here legally--it's not like the fields would be empty if the criminal aliens left), then the price of this unskilled labor would triple from $5.00/hour to $15.00/hour--a high enough wage that i'm sure you could find people who would be willing to "stoop to that level" for. This is probably a gross exaggeration, but I don't want there to be any question in the argument. Let's also be generous and say that unskilled labor currently accounts for 25% of the strawberry owners' total production costs. The strawberry company mashes the strawberries into jam, cans it, distributes it for $1 per jar and it's sold in the supermarket for $2. Without the criminal aliens, the temptation is to say that the production costs would increase by 75% (25% X 3), so that they distribute it for $1.75 per jar and the stores would sell it for $2.75 per jar, and our prices go up approximately 37.5%. This number is obviously extremely generous, and some industries wouldn't be affected at all, so let's say that but for the labor of criminal aliens, who make up approximately 9% of California's total population, overall prices would increase by 10%. Don't get me wrong-this would still be huge because under this scenario, your dollar would only get you $0.90 worth of stuff. That's a gigantic difference.

The problem is that this rationale complete fails to take into consideration the drain and costs that the criminal aliens place on society. First of all, the criminal aliens to not pay a single cent of income tax to the state, federal, or local governments. This means that while the kid at McDonald's making $5.75 per hour is giving up about 15 cents of every dollar to Uncle Sam, the guy who shouldn't even be here is giving up nothing. And though it's bad enough that they're not contributing, they use the social services and resources that we have avalable in a disproportionate way, thereby increasing the tax and social burdens for those of us who actually pay for them.

Criminal aliens do not pay taxes to support the roads they drive on, the sidewalks they walk on, the street lamps that light them, the police and fire personnel that protect them, or the schools that teach them. These are all costs that must be borne almost entirely by the citizens here legally. I'm not going to say that the criminal aliens are more prone to commit violent crimes or theft crimes than anyone else--but they obviously will be engaged in activities that require emergency services at least as much as the rest of us... only they don't pay for it.

What's worse is that because most of them come here without healthcare, they go to the Emergency Room for any ailment, critical or not, because the ER, by law, must treat them. The result is that the ERs are jammed and crowded all the time, people in need of urgent medical care are forced to wait for what is often up to 24 hours, and the tax payers again pick up the bill.

I think that the greatest insult of all is that criminal aliens can attend public colleges at in-state tuition rates. What sense does it make that a resident from another U.S. state has to pay 10 times more for tuition at an out-of-state college, but someone who doesn't even live here legally can pay a reduced rate supposedly reserved for tax payers?

So my point is that it's possible that we would see an increase in prices if the illegal immigrants/criminal aliens were universally deported, but it would result in at least enough tax savings to compensate for the difference.

The last thing I'll say is that this isn't just about economics--it's also about respecting and obeying the laws of our country that are set in place for our protection. But economics alone demands that they leave.

I agree. There's nothing wrong with them coming here to do work, as long as they either become citizens or get legal visas, and pay taxes on the money they earn.

Look at this:

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=walmart

And tell me what you think. Read all of it.

Look at this:

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=walmart

And tell me what you think. Read all of it.

I read all of it except for the end when the author went on a tirade of profanity, but I think I got the jist.

I would hope that no one is against immigration or legal immigrants alltogether, but that doesn't change the fact that those who are here criminally are costing us dearly.

Said it once, say it again: Immigrants provide a 14 billion dollar boost each year to us natives (and that's from the President of the United States, George W. Bush). 'Economics' demands that we let more in, not keep them out. We not only increase the growth rate of our economy, but we also helpfully manage to nip the problem of a graying population in the bud by importing in young workers.

I agree though. Legalize all immigration, then we can tax them.

Said it once, say it again: Immigrants provide a 14 billion dollar boost each year to us natives (and that's from the President of the United States, George W. Bush). 'Economics' demands that we let more in, not keep them out. We not only increase the growth rate of our economy, but we also helpfully manage to nip the problem of a graying population in the bud by importing in young workers.

That's an interesting number. I wonder if you even read the original post.

That's an interesting number. I wonder if you even read the original post.
Yep. I read it. You claim that they are a drain on the ecomony. That is false. They are a great boost to ours.

Yep. I read it. You claim that they are a drain on the ecomony. That is false. They are a great boost to ours.

A boost to the economy but a drain on our taxes and services. Making them legal would help them and save us money; they couldn't be abused by their employers with fears of deportation, their income would be taxed to pay for services, and they would be able to establish themselves safely in America.

That's an interesting number. I wonder if you even read the original post.
The post where you make stuff up that isn't supposed to be questioned? Like if you somehow kept out illegal immigrants, wages would triple? That one?

No, I didn't bother to read that either.

A boost to the economy but a drain on our taxes and services. Making them legal would help them and save us money; they couldn't be abused by their employers with fears of deportation, their income would be taxed to pay for services, and they would be able to establish themselves safely in America.
But then they couldn't be paid slave wages anymore...they'd be protected under law and might complain! Wouldn't that be BAD for the economy?

I think this situation is just how certain people like it.

Yep. I read it. You claim that they are a drain on the ecomony. That is false. They are a great boost to ours.

I see. You say that illegal immigrants add $14 billion per year to the U.S. economy. How much do you claim they cost for social services? (Hint: more than $14 billion.)

A boost to the economy but a drain on our taxes and services. Making them legal would help them and save us money; they couldn't be abused by their employers with fears of deportation, their income would be taxed to pay for services, and they would be able to establish themselves safely in America.
Pardon if I misrepresented, that's taxes there. The 14 billion is surplus tax paid by immigrants against benefits paid out. Both sorts.

I see. You say that illegal immigrants add $14 billion per year to the U.S. economy. How much do you claim they cost for social services? (Hint: more than $14 billion.)
The difficulty is to reconcile economic reality with political reality. Most economists believe immigration is an economic plus, not least because most immigrants arrive as young and healthy adults. Taking the difference between taxes paid and benefits received by immigrants, the National Research Council reported in 1997 that there was a “significant positive gain” of up to $10 billion a year to native Americans...In 2002 the President's Council of Economic Advisers put the gain at up to $14 billion a year.


Nope. Immigrants pay a lot more then 14 billion in taxes. The 14 billion number is just the difference between benefits and taxes paid.

The post where you make stuff up that isn't supposed to be questioned? Like if you somehow kept out illegal immigrants, wages would triple? That one?

No, I didn't bother to read that either.

When you read that sentence that you're misquoting, did you notice the preface that said, "Let's pretend..."?

Don't worry--I don't think you're lazy or stupid because you lack fundamental reading comprehension skills. I'm sure you're just in a rush.

Pardon if I misrepresented, that's taxes there. The 14 billion is surplus tax paid by immigrants against benefits paid out. Both sorts.

So they pay more tax than the services they use? That seems like another reason to make their immigration legal, so that they aren't being screwed over for money they recieve no benefits for. Plus, they'd get more money and be able to improve their situation much more easily than illegals can, which is necessary for obvious reasons.

The difficulty is to reconcile economic reality with political reality. Most economists believe immigration is an economic plus, not least because most immigrants arrive as young and healthy adults. Taking the difference between taxes paid and benefits received by immigrants, the National Research Council reported in 1997 that there was a “significant positive gain” of up to $10 billion a year to native Americans...In 2002 the President's Council of Economic Advisers put the gain at up to $14 billion a year.


Nope. Immigrants pay a lot more then 14 billion in taxes. The 14 billion number is just the difference between benefits and taxes paid.
You mean you have sources for your numbers

How dare you!

So they pay more tax than the services they use? That seems like another reason to make their immigration legal, so that they aren't being screwed over for money they recieve no benefits for. Plus, they'd get more money and be able to improve their situation much more easily than illegals can, which is necessary for obvious reasons.
"Paradoxically, the best solution might well be to relax, not tighten, the restrictions on immigration. The libertarian-minded Cato Institute argues that when barriers to entry are low, migration becomes a circular process. Under the bracero (strong arm or labourer) programme that ran from 1942 to 1964, Mexican workers entered and left the American labour market almost at will (albeit under deplorable working conditions). By contrast, when barriers are high, there is every incentive to come and then stay.

Using as his example Puerto Rico, which like Mexico is poor but which, unlike Mexico, has no immigration barrier to the American mainland, Cato's Daniel Griswold notes that during the 1980s, 46% of the Puerto Ricans who moved to the mainland stayed for less than two years. By the 1990s “out-migration had stopped completely, despite persistently high unemployment.” Legalising Mexican migration, says Mr Griswold, would at a stroke “bring a huge underground market into the open” and improve working conditions for millions of the low-skilled. "

The difficulty is to reconcile economic reality with political reality. Most economists believe immigration is an economic plus, not least because most immigrants arrive as young and healthy adults. Taking the difference between taxes paid and benefits received by immigrants, the National Research Council reported in 1997 that there was a “significant positive gain” of up to $10 billion a year to native Americans...In 2002 the President's Council of Economic Advisers put the gain at up to $14 billion a year.


Nope. Immigrants pay a lot more then 14 billion in taxes. The 14 billion number is just the difference between benefits and taxes paid.

I find that difficult to believe, but if you can show me where to find the report online, I'll definitely take a look at it.

When you read that sentence that you're misquoting, did you notice the preface that said, "Let's pretend..."?

Don't worry--I don't think you're lazy or stupid because you lack fundamental reading comprehension skills. I'm sure you're just in a rush.
Good, I would hate to think you were being arrogant.

Save us the trouble then, and remove that entire 'make believe' passage. It serves no purpose, and simply detracts from an already flawed argument. Roleplay in RP forums, not in the middle of an actual RL debate.

I find that difficult to believe, but if you can show me where to find the report online, I'll definitely take a look at it.
www.economist.com

Dreaming of the other side of the wire
Mar 10th 2005 | NOGALES, ARIZONA
From The Economist print edition


You need a (nonfree) subscription to see it.

I agree. There's nothing wrong with them coming here to do work, as long as they either become citizens or get legal visas, and pay taxes on the money they earn.

Aye...though becoming a U.S. citizen is definitely harder than just being born one...the test that immigrants must take to become a citizen contains several questions that many native U.S. people couldn't answer...plus, it's obviously not to the immigrant's advantage to gain citizenship (other than not having to worry about being caught) because they wouldn't have to pay taxes and such...which some U.S. citizens choose not to pay anyway (illegally)

Second, there's more wrong with our health care system than illegal aliens recieving care for free...ER's would be jam packed anyway whether more illegal aliens gained citizenship.

Good, I would hate to think you were being arrogant.

Save us the trouble then, and remove that entire 'make believe' passage. It serves no purpose, and simply detracts from an already flawed argument. Roleplay in RP forums, not in the middle of an actual RL debate.

Nice attempt, but no face saved. Sorry, kid :(

Nice attempt, but no face saved. Sorry, kid :(

A criminal alien working in a strawberry field makes minimum wage or less. Let's pretend that if the market had to rely more on domestic labor for these tasks (I say "more" because some of the labor is already obviously here legally--it's not like the fields would be empty if the criminal aliens left), then the price of this unskilled labor would triple from $5.00/hour to $15.00/hour--a high enough wage that i'm sure you could find people who would be willing to "stoop to that level" for. This is probably a gross exaggeration, but I don't want there to be any question in the argument.
Then don't bother making it. It isn't an argument, it's a fanatasy. Unless you actually have a point to make with this?

"Paradoxically, the best solution might well be to relax, not tighten, the restrictions on immigration. The libertarian-minded Cato Institute argues that when barriers to entry are low, migration becomes a circular process. Under the bracero (strong arm or labourer) programme that ran from 1942 to 1964, Mexican workers entered and left the American labour market almost at will (albeit under deplorable working conditions). By contrast, when barriers are high, there is every incentive to come and then stay.

Using as his example Puerto Rico, which like Mexico is poor but which, unlike Mexico, has no immigration barrier to the American mainland, Cato's Daniel Griswold notes that during the 1980s, 46% of the Puerto Ricans who moved to the mainland stayed for less than two years. By the 1990s “out-migration had stopped completely, despite persistently high unemployment.” Legalising Mexican migration, says Mr Griswold, would at a stroke “bring a huge underground market into the open” and improve working conditions for millions of the low-skilled. "

That's why we should make legal immigration as easy as possible, because of the benefits to the illegal workers' pay and benefits. They do work that Americans wouldn't touch, and it's a shame that we make it so difficult for them to come here and work to improve themselves. Plus, if they go back to Mexico, it will help their economy as well which in turn will benefit the US. Easy, legal immigration is the best solution we could implement.

At an Alabama poultry processing plant, some American workers were laid off, wages reduced, and illegals were hired. In Oklahoma, a new meat processing plant was being built. There were promises there would be new jobs for the people living in the area. When the plant opened, "experienced people from California" were given the jobs.

What we need to do is make it very expensive for companies to hire illegal aliens. Something along the lines of $200,000.00 per worker per day might work.

If we need these workers we should first make sure no American wants the job, make sure no legal aliens wants the job, then allow legal guest workers to take the jobs, and we need to make sure whomever gets the job is paid a reasonable wage.

At an Alabama poultry processing plant, some American workers were laid off, wages reduced, and illegals were hired. No worries! If you manage to keep out the illegals, apparently wages will triple! Oh wait...that was make believe...never mind...what was that doing in this thread anyway?

Then don't bother making it. It isn't an argument, it's a fanatasy. Unless you actually have a point to make with this?

All I hear from you is "blah blah blah" :) I'm tellin' ya', man. You goofed up. You were wrong. I called you on it. Get over it :)

Yep. I read it. You claim that they are a drain on the ecomony. That is false. They are a great boost to ours.

Then why are some of the border states having problems funding education, medical care, and other social services? Reason! These are services they have to provide to illegal immigrants but they do not collect the taxes for the salaries earned by these illegals.

Pardon if I misrepresented, that's taxes there. The 14 billion is surplus tax paid by immigrants against benefits paid out. Both sorts.

Do you have any credible references for this figure?

So the fact that there is great poverty in some places such as that it's worthwhile being exploited in the US, and that so many US employers are more than happy to knowingly exploit these people, at great cost to their fellow citizens, just to up their margins of profit, is the fault of the impoverished and relatively powerless illegal immigrants who have no moral or patriotic obligation to the US, but not all the fault of the employers, who one would imagine owe far more loyalty to the US than those who are not even citizens...? :confused:

A far more appropriate title would be 'scummy fellow Americans are costing us heaps just to up their personal gain'. After all who is really to blame, the desperate who take a chance to improve their intolerable current lot, or the already not doing too bad, who with all the opportunity in the US, still feel the need to rip off their fellow citizens, just so they can grab an even larger slice of unearned pie?

Do you have any credible references for this figure?
Already posted
Also linked to the Econominist

The post where you make stuff up that isn't supposed to be questioned? Like if you somehow kept out illegal immigrants, wages would triple? That one?

No, I didn't bother to read that either.


When you read that sentence that you're misquoting, did you notice the preface that said, "Let's pretend..."?

Don't worry--I don't think you're lazy or stupid because you lack fundamental reading comprehension skills. I'm sure you're just in a rush.

Hmmm...misquoting this?

Let's pretend that if the market had to rely more on domestic labor for these tasks (I say "more" because some of the labor is already obviously here legally--it's not like the fields would be empty if the criminal aliens left), then the price of this unskilled labor would triple from $5.00/hour to $15.00/hour--a high enough wage that i'm sure you could find people who would be willing to "stoop to that level" for. This is probably a gross exaggeration, but I don't want there to be any question in the argument.

Or this?

That's an interesting number. I wonder if you even read the original post.
I'm sorry you seem so confused. My point in my first post, about the little 'let's pretend' game you played in your original post was, when half of what you posted is complete and utter fantasy, why would the rest of it suddenly be 'true'? You've provided no links, no real information. And your imaginings about increased wages do nothing to further an argument backed up by suppositions, rather than facts.

Unless you'd like to start over, and provide some actual proof....? You could leave out the fairy tales this time...

Then why are some of the border states having problems funding education, medical care, and other social services? Reason! These are services they have to provide to illegal immigrants but they do not collect the taxes for the salaries earned by these illegals.
Because most of the money earned by immigrants goes to the federal level, and that money isn't leaking to the state level. Bitch to congress about it, doesn't change the fact that "the benefits of immigration exceed the costs of immigration" (President's Council of Economic Advisers, 2005 report)

A boost to the economy but a drain on our taxes and services. Making them legal would help them and save us money; they couldn't be abused by their employers with fears of deportation, their income would be taxed to pay for services, and they would be able to establish themselves safely in America.

illegal immigrants already pay taxes, including payroll taxes. illegal immigrants do not claim government services due to their status.

legalizing them is completely the right thing to do and good for society, but it won't be to save us money.

www.economist.com

Dreaming of the other side of the wire
Mar 10th 2005 | NOGALES, ARIZONA
From The Economist print edition


You need a (nonfree) subscription to see it.


I saw the article. I've subscribed to the Economist in the past, but I don't have a current subscription.

The information that you gave definitely contributes to your argument, but did you see the full text? From the article:

"But the devil is in the details: the financial burden of illegal immigration falls mostly at the state and local, not federal, levels. The Federation for American Immigration Reform reckons that California spends $7.7 billion a year educating illegal immigrants and their children, $1.4 billion a year on health care, and another $1.4 billion on illegal immigrants in prison. Moreover, low-paid immigrant workers can result in lower pay for Americans, too."

I should point out that this estimate is for California alone, where as the net "benefit" of $14 billion is to the federal government alone. What this means is that illegal immigrants contribute a net $14 billion to the federal government, but they cost the state of california (not including county and city governments) at least $10.5 billion per year (not including the cost of unlisted services provided to them). Add in other border states (as well as non-border states, for that matter), and local government costs, and the cost of illegal immigrants to the country far outweighs their contribution.

Wouldn't you agree? I'm taking these numbers straight from the article that you used as your source. The question is not rhetorical.

p.s. It's ok to admit when you're mistaken. I won't think less of you.

Unless you'd like to start over, and provide some actual proof....? You could leave out the fairy tales this time...
I was wondering the same ... the only stats in the post were made up.
How are we supposed to know if they bear any resemblance to the real world.

No worries! If you manage to keep out the illegals, apparently wages will triple! Oh wait...that was make believe...never mind...what was that
doing in this thread anyway?

People who got laid off were not worried about any wage increases, they just wanted to keep their jobs and work at the same wage, instead they got replaced by illegals who worked for less.

When you read that sentence that you're misquoting, did you notice the preface that said, "Let's pretend..."?

Don't worry--I don't think you're lazy or stupid because you lack fundamental reading comprehension skills. I'm sure you're just in a rush.

All I hear from you is "blah blah blah" I'm tellin' ya', man. You goofed up. You were wrong. I called you on it. Get over it


Brians Test: Knock off the baiting. Now.

I saw the article. I've subscribed to the Economist in the past, but I don't have a current subscription.

The information that you gave definitely contributes to your argument, but did you see the full text? From the article:

"But the devil is in the details: the financial burden of illegal immigration falls mostly at the state and local, not federal, levels. The Federation for American Immigration Reform reckons that California spends $7.7 billion a year educating illegal immigrants and their children, $1.4 billion a year on health care, and another $1.4 billion on illegal immigrants in prison. Moreover, low-paid immigrant workers can result in lower pay for Americans, too."

I should point out that this estimate is for California alone, where as the net "benefit" of $14 billion is to the federal government alone. What this means is that illegal immigrants contribute a net $14 billion to the federal government, but they cost the state of california (not including county and city governments) at least $10.5 billion per year (not including the cost of unlisted services provided to them). Add in other border states (as well as non-border states, for that matter), and local government costs, and the cost of illegal immigrants to the country far outweighs their contribution.

Wouldn't you agree? I'm taking these numbers straight from the article that you used as your source. The question is not rhetorical.

p.s. It's ok to admit when you're mistaken. I won't think less of you.
You're wrong. The 14 billion number refers to everything, state, local, federal (...taking the difference between taxes paid and benefits received by immigrants...). Here's something a bit more recent:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/cea/2005-erp-ch4.pdf

"The average immigrant's tax payments exceeded the costs of public services that they were expected to use by 80,000$. In 1996 this number increased to 88,000$...while an uneducated immigrant costs a net of 89,000$ to the tax payer, this is offset by a positive impact of 76,000$ in the next generation (and it follows to become positive in the one after that)."

Just took a political science class in immigration, and thought I left this discussion up at college. Darn. (As a side note, if anyone wants to see a REALLY funny and extremely exaggerated movie about California losing all its Mexican/Hispanic workers, find & watch the movie "A Day Without a Mexican." Its supposed to help the topic of immigration, but sometimes ends up being nothing but fodder for how dumb its being portrayed.)

The current problem with immigration is that its combining politics, economics, and legislation together. I personally am against letting illegals stay, but have no problem whatever with immigration itself. But if I were to say that outloud instead of typing it, I run the risk of being interrupted midsentence and being called a racist and anti-Mexican/Hispanic, which baffles me some.

Illegal immigrants are treated like human slaves basically, which is sad. They are here illegally and are therefore able to be abused, since they won't go to the police without fear of deportation. However, they are a help to our economy. The low wages they are paid allow farmers to keep prices down due to the low expenditures, compared to having to pay al their workers minimum wage if the workers were legal. This savings is passed on to the consumer, who saves money for buying fruit at the store, even though there is a natural markup from the farmer to the consumer.

The statement that illegals abuse the system by not paying taxes or using social services (fire, police protection, health services) is not totally true. There are illegal immigrants that do pay some sort of tax (I have no idea how this is accomplished without reporting yourself as illegal) or the usual taxes as citizens would. This of course is not true of the community of illegals as a whole, but there are exceptions. Health services are an important matter as well. From what I know and the research I have done and seen, illegals that need medial help only wait until it is the last viable option or are basically forced to go, again for fear of deportation. That is when the cost of such medical service is transfered to those paying taxes (basically citizens). Illegal immigrants wouldn't go to a hospital for any minor thing, only something major that probably can't be fixed or healed by a local medicine person on the farm.

What I find disturbing is the trend the last few years on how politics are coming into this more and more. Both Democrats and Republicans are trying to get votes for their parties, and thus cater to them. Fear of losing votes is gripping both parties, which is sad to me in a way. Now, if you call for a toughening of the border patrol or making the border harder to get into, call for the deportation of illegal immigrants, you're deemed racist. Sure, there might be those pushing these ideas for racist reasons, but I would assume the majority to not have racist reasons. However, by getting rid of illegals, prices would be jacked up due to rising costs for the farmer. Basically, we're in a Catch-22 position.

And in the middle is the immigrant, who must work in really bad work conditions, not have much hope of rising beyond being a farm laborer, and suffering.


Oh, last quick thought. Being non-Mexican/Hispanic, I love how groups like La Raza are getting involved, promoting the Mexican conquest of the southern USA and calling it El Norte (not sure if I spelled that last word right).

Interesting.

It was pointed out in a previous post that people want to see numbers to acertain the veracity of my premise. We all seem to think that the information compiled here is reliable and credible, so here it is:

http://www.economist.com/world/na/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3738772

The key segment of the report:

"Taking the difference between taxes paid and benefits received by immigrants, the National Research Council reported in 1997 that there was a “significant positive gain” of up to $10 billion a year to native Americans, noting that while an immigrant with less than high-school education had a negative long-term fiscal impact of $13,000, a better educated immigrant produced a long-term gain of $198,000. In 2002 the President's Council of Economic Advisers put the gain at up to $14 billion a year.

But the devil is in the details: the financial burden of illegal immigration falls mostly at the state and local, not federal, levels. The Federation for American Immigration Reform reckons that California spends $7.7 billion a year educating illegal immigrants and their children, $1.4 billion a year on health care, and another $1.4 billion on illegal immigrants in prison. Moreover, low-paid immigrant workers can result in lower pay for Americans, too."

So basically, the federal government earns a total of approximately $14 billion net from criminal aliens, but that's because most of the cost of criminal aliens falls on state and local governments. California state pays at least $10.5 billion per year just for education, health care, and prison (these things don't include expenses for things like power grid shortages, increased police and fire needs, etc.). This number also doesn't include costs to California's local governments nor costs to the state and local governments of the other 49 states. If someone has a more precise number, please feel free to post it. But otherwise it seems pretty darn clear that criminal aliens create a net drain on the U.S. economy.

It was pointed out in a previous post that people want to see numbers to acertain the veracity of my premise. We all seem to think that the information compiled here is reliable and credible, so here it is:

http://www.economist.com/world/na/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3738772

The key segment of the report:

"Taking the difference between taxes paid and benefits received by immigrants, the National Research Council reported in 1997 that there was a “significant positive gain” of up to $10 billion a year to native Americans, noting that while an immigrant with less than high-school education had a negative long-term fiscal impact of $13,000, a better educated immigrant produced a long-term gain of $198,000. In 2002 the President's Council of Economic Advisers put the gain at up to $14 billion a year.

But the devil is in the details: the financial burden of illegal immigration falls mostly at the state and local, not federal, levels. The Federation for American Immigration Reform reckons that California spends $7.7 billion a year educating illegal immigrants and their children, $1.4 billion a year on health care, and another $1.4 billion on illegal immigrants in prison. Moreover, low-paid immigrant workers can result in lower pay for Americans, too."

So basically, the federal government earns a total of approximately $14 billion net from criminal aliens, but that's because most of the cost of criminal aliens falls on state and local governments. California state pays at least $10.5 billion per year just for education, health care, and prison (these things don't include expenses for things like power grid shortages, increased police and fire needs, etc.). This number also doesn't include costs to California's local governments nor costs to the state and local governments of the other 49 states. If someone has a more precise number, please feel free to post it. But otherwise it seems pretty darn clear that criminal aliens create a net drain on the U.S. economy.
It would help if you weren't reading it wrong.

Taking the difference between taxes paid and benefits received by immigrants
But the devil is in the details: the financial burden of illegal immigration falls mostly at the state and local, not federal, levels

The burden has already been subtracted. Immigration provides a surplus. However, the problem is that the costs of immigration fall on the states, while most taxes are paid at the federal level.

Because most of the money earned by immigrants goes to the federal level, and that money isn't leaking to the state level. Bitch to congress about it, doesn't change the fact that "the benefits of immigration exceed the costs of immigration" (President's Council of Economic Advisers, 2005 report)

Many illegals get paid in cash so there are no taxes collected, and no records.

Many illegals get paid in cash so there are no taxes collected, and no records.
And yet we still see a surplus. However, you've managed to point out a brilliant idea. Legalize all workers, so that we can tax the under the shelf payments.

I saw the article. I've subscribed to the Economist in the past, but I don't have a current subscription.

The information that you gave definitely contributes to your argument, but did you see the full text? From the article:

"But the devil is in the details: the financial burden of illegal immigration falls mostly at the state and local, not federal, levels. The Federation for American Immigration Reform reckons that California spends $7.7 billion a year educating illegal immigrants and their children, $1.4 billion a year on health care, and another $1.4 billion on illegal immigrants in prison. Moreover, low-paid immigrant workers can result in lower pay for Americans, too."

I should point out that this estimate is for California alone, where as the net "benefit" of $14 billion is to the federal government alone. What this means is that illegal immigrants contribute a net $14 billion to the federal government, but they cost the state of california (not including county and city governments) at least $10.5 billion per year (not including the cost of unlisted services provided to them). Add in other border states (as well as non-border states, for that matter), and local government costs, and the cost of illegal immigrants to the country far outweighs their contribution.

Wouldn't you agree? I'm taking these numbers straight from the article that you used as your source. The question is not rhetorical.

p.s. It's ok to admit when you're mistaken. I won't think less of you.

Thank you for the summary. Good job.

It would help if you weren't reading it wrong.

wait, now i'm not sure. i'll have to look again.

I'm going to do something unheard of in NationStates Forum--I'm going to admit that you were right and I was wrong! :eek:

CRAP. Don't you hate it when that happens? :) I'm as shocked as you are. At least I can admit it, right? :)
A rarety, isn't it? I don't disagree with you, it is a problem that states are being socked with the cost while the federal government rakes in the cash, and they should send it right back, but what are the odds of that one happening :rolleyes:

The Federation for American Immigration Reform reckons that California spends ... $1.4 billion on illegal immigrants in prison.

sounds fishy.

"The California Department of Corrections operates all state prisons, oversees a variety of community correctional facilities, and supervises all parolees during their re-entry into society.
Budget: $5.7 billion (2004-2005 Budget Act)"
http://www.corr.ca.gov/CommunicationsOffice/facts_figures.asp

"The state Department of Finance has estimated that the state will spend more than $734 million this year to imprison more than 18,000 illegal immigrants convicted of crime."
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20050505/news_1n5border.html

it seems to me that the federation for american immigration reform reckons poorly.

...while an uneducated immigrant costs a net of 89,000$ to the tax payer, this is offset by a positive impact of 76,000$ in the next generation (and it follows to become positive in the one after that)."

So each uneducated immigrant cost the American taxpayer $89,000.00 per year and the second generation only costs the American taxpayer $76,000.00 a year. However, after the third generation it won't cost us anything.

So, if I understand this correctly, most illegal immigrants are uneducated and cost the American taxpayer 89k a year. Their kids cost us only 76k a year. As a generation is about 30 years, we can expect to make a profit of the taxes after 60 years?

"California spends $7.7 billion a year educating illegal immigrants and their children"

This argument, now that I think about it, is also specious FUD. An immigrant who has a high school education provides a surplus to us, of about 78,000$. It doesn't spend 7.7 billion, it 'invests' 7.7 billion.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/cea/2005-erp-ch4.pdf

"The average immigrant's tax payments exceeded the costs of public services that they were expected to use by 80,000$. In 1996 this number increased to 88,000$...while an uneducated immigrant costs a net of 89,000$ to the tax payer, this is offset by a positive impact of 76,000$ in the next generation (and it follows to become positive in the one after that)."

This article and this quote includes LEGAL, tax-paying immigrants. Illegal immigrants still cost more than contribute.

So each uneducated immigrant cost the American taxpayer $89,000.00 per year and the second generation only costs the American taxpayer $76,000.00 a year. However, after the third generation it won't cost us anything.

So, if I understand this correctly, most illegal immigrants are uneducated and cost the American taxpayer 89k a year. Their kids cost us only 76k a year. As a generation is about 30 years, we can expect to make a profit of the taxes after 60 years?
...while an uneducated immigrant costs a net of 89,000$ to the tax payer, this is offset by a positive impact of 76,000$ in the next generation (and it follows to become positive in the one after that)."

So first generation: -89,000
Second: -13,000
Third: +63,000

And that's only for immigrants without a high school education, less then 20% of the pool.

So each uneducated immigrant cost the American taxpayer $89,000.00 per year and the second generation only costs the American taxpayer $76,000.00 a year. However, after the third generation it won't cost us anything.

So, if I understand this correctly, most illegal immigrants are uneducated and cost the American taxpayer 89k a year. Their kids cost us only 76k a year. As a generation is about 30 years, we can expect to make a profit of the taxes after 60 years?

The numbers she gave were for "Immigrants" not "illegal immigrants".

This article and this quote includes LEGAL, tax-paying immigrants. Illegal immigrants still cost more than contribute.
Does not follow. In fact, the opposite does because illegals are unable to collect benefits. They contribute more then regular immigrants do.

Illegal is still illegal! What right do they have to break our laws? Send them back and keep sending them back! Come in legally and I have no problem but I think social services should be reserved only for those of us born here to legal citizens. No welfare etc. for any aliens. that might stop some of the clamor. We have plenty of migrant workers here..they dont bother to make any adjustments to living here..like learn English or try to fit in. That is what cheeses me off. We are under no olbligation to provide translations just so you can avoid the language. Some go out of their way to look pitiful and get sympathy. I know I sound horrible but it is getting to be a problem and they certainly have no right to rename anything here to suit them....adjust or get out!

The numbers she gave were for "Immigrants" not "illegal immigrants".
Entirely correct. The illegal immigrant number is higher, because they aren't eligible for welfare (yet still pay payroll taxes, god bless our employers)

To quote:
"...the same net present value would not apply to an undocumented immigrant. More then half of the undocumented immigrants are working "on the books", so they contribute to the tax rolls, but are ineligible for almost all federal assistance (and state) and most joint Federal-State programs."


However, this is an argument for legalizing immigration, no? If we stand to gain more money from immigrants then we stand to lose, why restrict access? That is the point of this entire argument, isn't it?

Does not follow. In fact, the opposite does because illegals are unable to collect benefits. They contribute more then regular immigrants do.

What benefits are they not able to collect that they would otherwise collect if on a legal work visa paying taxes?

What benefits are they not able to collect that they would otherwise collect if on a legal work visa paying taxes?
"Almost all federal assistance programs (welfare, food stamps etc) and most federal-state programs"


Couldn't tell you about state law, not familiar with it. However, if you're going to insist arguing this point to your logical conclusion:


If illegal immigration, IF, for giggles sake, has a negative impact, and legal immigration shows a positive impact, then why bother making illegals illegal?

A rarety, isn't it? I don't disagree with you, it is a problem that states are being socked with the cost while the federal government rakes in the cash, and they should send it right back, but what are the odds of that one happening :rolleyes:

Actually, now I'm not so sure I'm reading it wrong. I honestly don't know... I wish there was something else I could look at to provide some further insight on what the economics actually are. You may well be right. I'm all for those poor folks having better opportunities; I just want them to be documented for security reasons and paying taxes appropriate to their admittedly typically meager income.

And yet we still see a surplus. However, you've managed to point out a brilliant idea. Legalize all workers, so that we can tax the under the shelf payments.

A guest worker program might do just that, however I do not believe someone who has broken our laws should benefit from that. I would be amenable to a guest worker program as long as those workers applied for those jobs from their country of origin. That would mean the illegal could go home, apply, and return legally.

Actually, now I'm not so sure I'm reading it wrong. I honestly don't know... I wish there was something else I could look at to provide some further insight on what the economics actually are. You may well be right. I'm all for those poor folks having better opportunities; I just want them to be documented for security reasons and paying taxes appropriate to their admittedly typically meager income.
Then deal with it at the boarders. Remove the excessive restrictions on green cards. Declare unilateral amnesty and throw upon the boarders, allowing people in if they file through a much streamlined process for permanent residence (the system's still a mess). They become legal, they show the same positive eventual benefit to the economy as everyone else (even the least educated immigrant shows a positive impact to the economy after three generations, as shown above), and everyone is happy.

The Federation for American Immigration Reform reckons that California spends $7.7 billion a year educating illegal immigrants and their children

also according to 'fair' (ha, get it?), illegal immigrants make up 15% of the student body. we'll run with that number - it's probably close enough.

total funding from all sources for k-12 education in california - $58,933,500
http://www.cde.ca.gov/re/pn/fb/yr05edubudget.asp

15% of $59 billion = $8.85 billion. hmm, it seems that 'fair' reckons poorly again. must be those illegals stealing their education.

Then deal with it at the boarders. Remove the excessive restrictions on green cards. Declare unilateral amnesty and throw upon the boarders, allowing people in if they file through a much streamlined process for permanent residence (the system's still a mess).

and cut the costs on the paperwork. i mean, jeebus, have you looked at it? it's insane.

and cut the costs on the paperwork. i mean, jeebus, have you looked at it? it's insane.
I think it's a tradition, my grandparents waited three-four years for their green cards back in the late 40's, and he's an engineer.

also according to 'fair' (ha, get it?), illegal immigrants make up 15% of the student body. we'll run with that number - it's probably close enough.

total funding from all sources for k-12 education in california - $58,933,500
http://www.cde.ca.gov/re/pn/fb/yr05edubudget.asp

15% of $59 billion = $8.85 billion. hmm, it seems that 'fair' reckons poorly again. must be those illegals stealing their education.
Wait, but that number isn't in billions, is it?
Doesn't $58,933,500 equal 59 million?

I'm going to leave for the evening, but I first want to say this:

I think that the people who immigrate legally to the U.S. are typically among the smartest, hardest-working, most determined people in the world. Anyone who is willing to uproot their entire lives, culture, and possibly language to live in a foreign land for better opportunities for themselves and their families has already proved to me that they will probably make outstanding American citizens and lead healthy, productive lives. I will laugh with them at work, my children will play with them at school, and my grandchildren will fight beside them in our wars. My grandparents immigrated here from Europe and my wife's parents immigrated here from Asia. I love legal immigrants.

At the same time, I view people here illegally as criminal opportunists. I don't see that they've worked hard to get here, nor do they contribute their fair share, however meager that may be. I'm sorry for their situation, but they do not have my respect as legal immigrants do. This is my personal opinion.

Do they cost more than they contribute? That's what's being debated. But I don't think that criminal aliens contribute what is their fair share either way. What's the solution? Perhaps that's a debate for another thread :)

Then deal with it at the boarders. Remove the excessive restrictions on green cards. Declare unilateral amnesty and throw upon the boarders, allowing people in if they file through a much streamlined process for permanent residence (the system's still a mess). They become legal, they show the same positive eventual benefit to the economy as everyone else (even the least educated immigrant shows a positive impact to the economy after three generations, as shown above), and everyone is happy.

I know I would be.

...while an uneducated immigrant costs a net of 89,000$ to the tax payer, this is offset by a positive impact of 76,000$ in the next generation (and it follows to become positive in the one after that)."

So first generation: -89,000
Second: -13,000
Third: +63,000

And that's only for immigrants without a high school education, less then 20% of the pool.

First of all I doubt that 80% of the illegal immigrants entering the country have a high school education. Probably 60% to 80% do not have one, but I will use your figures. Here it comes out.

Assume 1,000,000,000 illegals a year.
Assume 20% are uneducated.
One generation equals 30 years.

First generation illeagals costs the taxpayer $2,670,000.00 each for 30 years, more if they live longer.
Second generation costs the taxpayer $390,000.00 each year for 30 years.

Total cost per uneducated illegal for two generations is $3,060,000.00.

Total cost for 20% of the 1 million illegals is $612,000,000,000.00.

Now, this assumes that each illegal has only one child and only 20% are uneducated. I think the total cost is much, much higher.

"""""The reality is that these criminal aliens (immigrants who are present here criminally) create a tremendous financial burden that is born entirely by legal, tax-paying citizens. A criminal alien working in a strawberry field makes minimum wage or less. Let's pretend that if the market had to rely more on domestic labor for these tasks (I say "more" because some of the labor is already obviously here legally--it's not like the fields would be empty if the criminal aliens left), then the price of this unskilled labor would triple from $5.00/hour to $15.00/hour--a high enough wage that i'm sure you could find people who would be willing to "stoop to that level" for. This is probably a gross exaggeration, but I don't want there to be any question in the argument. Let's also be generous and say that unskilled labor currently accounts for 25% of the strawberry owners' total production costs. The strawberry company mashes the strawberries into jam, cans it, distributes it for $1 per jar and it's sold in the supermarket for $2. Without the criminal aliens, the temptation is to say that the production costs would increase by 75% (25% X 3), so that they distribute it for $1.75 per jar and the stores would sell it for $2.75 per jar, and our prices go up approximately 37.5%. This number is obviously extremely generous, and some industries wouldn't be affected at all, so let's say that but for the labor of criminal aliens, who make up approximately 9% of California's total population, overall prices would increase by 10%. Don't get me wrong-this would still be huge because under this scenario, your dollar would only get you $0.90 worth of stuff. That's a gigantic difference.""""""

okay, number one, I don't see why without illegal immigrants the production costs would go up by 75%. Also, if the prices were lower you would get more for your dollar, not less. People would by more due to low prices, giving back to the company, providing more jobs...etc....I do agree with your position on taxes, though

Wait, but that number isn't in billions, is it?
Doesn't $58,933,500 equal 59 million?

sorry, didn't copy n paste the "in thousands" part of the chart is took that from

Declare unilateral amnesty and throw upon the boarders, allowing people in if they file through a much streamlined process for permanent residence (the system's still a mess).

Should we give amnesty to everyone who has broken our laws? I think that would just encourage others to do the same. Let's go with a guest worker program but require the applicant to apply from their home country. Those illegals who are already here could go home and apply and if they don't they should be deported.

Any guest worker program must have safeguards to insure no American citizen or legal immigrant wants the job.

First of all I doubt that 80% of the illegal immigrants entering the country have a high school education. Probably 60% to 80% do not have one, but I will use your figures. Here it comes out.

Assume 1,000,000,000 illegals a year.
Assume 20% are uneducated.
One generation equals 30 years.

First generation illeagals costs the taxpayer $2,670,000.00 each for 30 years, more if they live longer.
Second generation costs the taxpayer $390,000.00 each year for 30 years.

Total cost per uneducated illegal for two generations is $3,060,000.00.

Total cost for 20% of the 1 million illegals is $612,000,000,000.00.

Now, this assumes that each illegal has only one child and only 20% are uneducated. I think the total cost is much, much higher.
Wrong. Those numbers are cumulative. More to the point, those numbers are for their entire lifetime. Only the first generation costs the tax payer. The second generation brings it to within 13,000 (+76,000$). The third provides a net surplus for everyone of 63,000.

Or:

First generation: -89,000$
Second Generation: +76,000$
Third: +76,000$ (etc ad infinitum)

Or:

First generation, cumulative cost: -89,000$
Second generation, cumulative cost: -13,000$
Third generation, cumulative cost: +63,000$
Fourth generation, cumulative cost: +139,000$
etc etc

Should we give amnesty to everyone who has broken our laws? I think that would just encourage others to do the same. Let's go with a guest worker program but require the applicant to apply from their home country. Those illegals who are already here could go home and apply and if they don't they should be deported.

Any guest worker program must have safeguards to insure no American citizen or legal immigrant wants the job.
I love it how the right-wing faith in the free market falls apart once immigration is involved...

The only answer is a secure boarder to keep out potential terrorists, criminals and those with major contagious diseases. Everybody else should be able to come in, though, but they shouldn’t expect welfare or any other form of financial support from the government. If they make their own way, the contribution of a large unskilled labor force to compliment the US’s “native” fairly skilled work force would be remarkable.
love it how the right-wing faith in the free market falls apart once immigration is involved...
If you consider libertarians right wing, it doesn’t.

What I am worried about is that illegal immigrants are going to start forcing people out of their jobs due to the fact that they're willing to work for so little. The big CEOs are going to want to save money, what better way than to higher some immigrants. However, I may be over exaggerating considering that illegal immigrants tend to do manual labor and are not usually employed by highly regarded companies

A boost to the economy but a drain on our taxes and services.

Big deal. Taxation is theft and our services suck! Why blame a coyote for killing a cow when the entire herd has the plague?

Making them legal would help them and save us money; they couldn't be abused by their employers with fears of deportation, their income would be taxed to pay for services, and they would be able to establish themselves safely in America.

I agree, which is why I believe we should make it easier, not harder, for them to immigrate.

Has any legitimate, data-based economic study been made of the costs and benefits of illegal immigration?

Where can i read it?

How can you make valid claims without it?