Hmmm, first you didn't like the 2007 date of some of my articles, but then you offer one from 2004? Ok, I guess. But the article was on "rense.com" which is apparently the website of a radio personality (who has quite an interesting hairstyle!).
I prefer mainstream, reputable sources - and in this case, I decided I'd like to have a look at the study itself. So I Googled a bit, and here it is:
http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html
Two important things about the study: it was produced by the Center for Immigration Studies, which is a lobbying group that is in favor of cracking down on illegal immigration. And the study is not based on hard data, but on a lot of assumptions about who is illegal, what they contribute, and what they use in government services.
Interestingly, the study reveals the inaccuracy of the prejudices held by folks like Mindy and DelawareBob:
"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."
"It is worth noting that our findings show that only a tiny fraction of households headed by illegals receive cash welfare programs or Social Security benefits."
"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."
Here's the study's key finding:
"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."
But there are some questionable assumptions that lead to the study's calculation of costs of illegal households. For example, the study assumes that uninsured illegals use the same amount of health care as uninsured citizens, which is highly dubious. And the study does not attempt to factor in any positive economic benefits from undocumented workers:
"Like most studies of this kind, including the NRC's, ours does not consider how illegal immigration or immigration more generally might affect public coffers indirectly by its impact on the economy. There simply is no consensus on the economic impact of immigration."
So this study is interesting, and good fodder for discussion. But the study is not from a neutral source, and its assumptions are disputable. So it is not an undisputed breakdown of the costs of illegal immigration. — May 26, 2009 8:23 a.m.
Not an Accident
Yet another somber story from Mr. McPhail. Isn't there anything good happening out there in the world? Fire fighters rescuing cats from trees and whatnot?— May 26, 2009 8:25 a.m.
Here we go again
Hmmm, first you didn't like the 2007 date of some of my articles, but then you offer one from 2004? Ok, I guess. But the article was on "rense.com" which is apparently the website of a radio personality (who has quite an interesting hairstyle!). I prefer mainstream, reputable sources - and in this case, I decided I'd like to have a look at the study itself. So I Googled a bit, and here it is: http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html Two important things about the study: it was produced by the Center for Immigration Studies, which is a lobbying group that is in favor of cracking down on illegal immigration. And the study is not based on hard data, but on a lot of assumptions about who is illegal, what they contribute, and what they use in government services. Interestingly, the study reveals the inaccuracy of the prejudices held by folks like Mindy and DelawareBob: "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." "It is worth noting that our findings show that only a tiny fraction of households headed by illegals receive cash welfare programs or Social Security benefits." "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." Here's the study's key finding: "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." But there are some questionable assumptions that lead to the study's calculation of costs of illegal households. For example, the study assumes that uninsured illegals use the same amount of health care as uninsured citizens, which is highly dubious. And the study does not attempt to factor in any positive economic benefits from undocumented workers: "Like most studies of this kind, including the NRC's, ours does not consider how illegal immigration or immigration more generally might affect public coffers indirectly by its impact on the economy. There simply is no consensus on the economic impact of immigration." So this study is interesting, and good fodder for discussion. But the study is not from a neutral source, and its assumptions are disputable. So it is not an undisputed breakdown of the costs of illegal immigration.— May 26, 2009 8:23 a.m.
Here we go again
Auntie, you had mentioned that you were unable to find word of the recent decline in immigration, caused by the economic downturn. Here ya go, in a mainstream article from about a week ago: "The recently released data show that about 226,000 fewer people emigrated...during the year that ended in August 2008 than during the previous year, a decline of 25 percent"..."The net outflow of migrants from Mexico — those who left minus those who returned — fell by about half in the year that ended in August 2008 from the preceding year." "Mexican and American researchers say that the current decline, which has also been manifested in a decrease in arrests along the border, is largely a result of Mexicans’ deciding to delay illegal crossings because of the lack of jobs in the ailing American economy." http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/15immig.html— May 25, 2009 2:33 p.m.
Here we go again
Some numbers. If you want the source of a particular quote, stick the quote in Google and you'll get there. "The Center for American Progress estimates it would cost at least $206 billion over five years to deport 10 million undocumented workers." In contrast, "a Congressional Budget Office review of the 2006 Senate immigration [amnesty] bill found it would raise $66 billion in federal, state and local taxes over 10 years. "The Internal Revenue Service estimates that undocumented immigrants contributed nearly $50 billion in federal taxes between 1996 and 2003." "Undocumented immigrants pay the same real estate taxes—whether they own homes or taxes are passed through to rents—and the same sales and other consumption taxes as everyone else. The majority of state and local costs of schooling and other services are funded by these taxes. "The U.S. Social Security Administration has estimated that three quarters of undocumented immigrants pay payroll taxes, and that they contribute $6-7 billion in Social Security funds that they will be unable to claim" "In 2003, over 90 percent of undocumented men worked—a rate higher than that for U.S. citizens or legal immigrants" "Undocumented immigrants are ineligible for welfare, food stamps, Medicaid, and most other public benefits" "Two-thirds of all children with undocumented parents (about 3 million) are U.S.-born citizens who live in mixed-status families." "Nationally in 2000, only 1.5 percent of elementary schoolchildren (enrolled in kindergarten through 5th grade) and 3 percent of secondary children (grades 6-12) were undocumented. Slightly higher shares—5 percent in elementary and 4 percent in secondary schools—had undocumented parents."— May 25, 2009 2:25 p.m.
Here we go again
Some more thoughts, DelawareBob. First, I can and do change my mind on issues like this, when I'm presented with convincing evidence that my view is incorrect. For example, I used to think guns should be banned in the U.S., but after thinking it over and absorbing some arguments from the other side, I'm over gun control. So keep on workin' it! To answer a few of your questions: yes, I do think Americans should pay for school for the children of undocumented workers. Most of these children will grow up to be productive U.S. citizens, and the investment in them will pay off handsomely. Of course, it would pay off even more if our schools were properly funded, and if programs like Head Start were expanded, to give assistance to families with children in those ever-so-important first few years of life. As far as 20 million for the number of undocumented immigrants in the U.S., I got that number from your first post. I don't know what it really is, but probably somewhere between 10 mill and 30 mill, right? Even if it's 10 mill, that's 1 in 30 people in our country...aka a heck of a lot of people. If it's 30 mill, that's 1 in 10 people, and your zero tolerance policy becomes even more impractical. Glad to hear you are not opposed to legal immigration. This may be where we are on common ground. I agree that, ideally, all immigration would be legal, and U.S. employers would not hire people who could not prove their citizenship. Maybe the difference between us is that I think the best way to get closer to the ideal is to focus on the employers, and not the employees. The economic downturn has proven that fewer jobs means fewer people immigrating illegally. And stopping illegal employers is much easier than stopping illegal immigrants. But employers have money and influence, while the immigrants have neither...that's why the easy fix has not become reality. On human trafficking, fake green cards, stolen identities, driving without license or insurance: I definitely think that stuff all sucks. What did you mean by asking?— May 25, 2009 2:10 p.m.
Here we go again
Good stuff, DelawareBob. I'll be back with more later, but for now, wanted to provide some updates to your USA Today article, which mentions anti-immigrant laws in Hazleton, PA; Oklahoma; Arizona; and Georgia: "On July 26, 2007 a federal judge, James Munley, struck down Hazleton's Illegal Immigration Relief Act as an unconstitutional ordinance pre-empted by federal law." "In June 2008, an Oklahoma City federal court held that the Oklahoma immigration law’s employment provisions shouldn’t be enforced because they violated federal law." "Two years later, the only thing all sides of the debate over Georgia's unilateral crackdown agree on is they don't like how the law is playing out. Opponents of illegal immigration say the law isn't being enforced. Contractors affected by the law complain they're being forced to play immigration cops." "Only 15 percent of Arizona companies are using the federal E-Verify system, which the state law requires them to use to determine electronically whether the people they hire are in this country legally...Companies can use E-Verify only to check new employees and not those already on the payroll. Firms that have not hired anyone since the beginning of 2008 have no need to sign up."— May 25, 2009 10:25 a.m.
Here we go again
Mindy, I have to thank you for "We've shared America enough"...a lot of people I know will get a kick out of that. And I know a lot of other people really feel that way, but would never actually put it into words. Personally, I gotta disagree...I think it's pretty hard for the richest country on Earth to run out of room to share. Auntie, you seem to think population growth is a bad idea. This is probably the main source of our disagreement over the immigration issue. In my humble view, we all are better off by having more of us...I tend to think humans are generally good, and tend to do wonderful things, and more humans only results in more wonderful things, such as longer life expectancies and higher standards of living for the average person. I'm pretty sure all of human history to date confirms this, as life expectancy and standard of living have tended to increase right along with population over the centuries. But perhaps we must agree to disagree here. It's too bad, because I would also hypothesize that, of all the people we would want to welcome to our country, we would certainly welcome those who are willing to come here and work menial jobs - sometimes more than one - to support not just themselves, but their families. A strong work ethic and a commitment to family are qualities you build a nation on. If you welcome these people as citizens, our country gets to fully harness the contribution from them and their families - which we're going to need as we go up against China and India, not to mention everyone else, in the decades ahead. Anyhoo, on birth rates, I wasn't satisfied by your source, "susps.org," which from what I can tell is an anti-population-growth website created by some guy. But here's the NY Times on U.S. birth rate, which in recent years has indeed surprised experts by touching the replacement level of 2.1 kids per woman: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/19/health/19birth.… The articles I shared were responses to DelawareBob's zero tolerance idea. My main point there is that drastic anti-immigrant laws have backfired, hurting businesses while not saving any money - because it is a myth that undocumented immigrants take more from an economy than they give to it. And also that E-Verify would not necessarily be simple, and might actually require the support of a large and costly bureacracy, and might occasionally result in really unfortunate things happening to legitimate American citizens. As for America not having enough inhabitable land, well, take a cross-country flight, or even a hot-air balloon ride across San Diego County, and look down. You'll see lotsa land, Auntie! Heck, these days, we've even got lots of empty condos and houses sittin' and waitin' for occupants!— May 24, 2009 9:37 p.m.
Here we go again
DelawareBob, you seemed concerned about the economic costs of the employment of undocumented immigrants. But you don't seem concerned about the direct costs and indirect costs of the solution you suggest. IT WOULD COST A HELL OF A LOT to round up and deport the 20 million or so undocumented immigrants. I have no idea what the total cost might run, but the logistics are mind-boggling and WOULD BE INCREDIBLY EXPENSIVE. And I'm just talking economically. I have to imagine that the systematic deportation of 1 of every 15 people in the U.S. would also have A SUBSTANTIAL NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THE MORALE OF THE REST OF US. And then you have the indirect costs, which would likely be even more overwhelming. For example, MILLIONS OF UNDOCUMENTED WORKERS PAY TAXES to U.S. governments, ADDING UP TO BILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF REVENUE for U.S. governments. YOUR PLAN WOULD REMOVE THESE BILLIONS from American coffers. And then we must ALSO CONSIDER THE TAXES PAID BY EMPLOYERS who currently employ undocumented workers. After losing their undocumented immigrants, these employers would have to HIRE NEW WORKERS AT HIGHER COST, OR NOT HIGHER NEW WORKERS AT ALL. In either case, the EMPLOYERS WOULD MAKE LESS PROFIT AND THEREFORE PAY LESS IN TAXES. Another cost. Finally, think more about the BROADER IMPACT TO THE U.S. ECONOMY if your plan became reality. As the removal of undocumented immigrants rippled through the economy, many BUSINESSES WOULD BE FORCED TO RAISE PRICES OR FORCED TO SHUT DOWN ALTOGETHER. (Some stats from the Pew Hispanic Center: 20% of all cooks in the U.S. workforce as of 2005 were "unauthorized migrant" workers, as were 17% of all "food preparation workers" and 23% of all dishwashers. Think restaurants might suffer from your plan?) Overall, given how fragile the economy has appeared lately, seems like a shock like yours could lead to ALL-OUT ECONOMIC DEPRESSION, though it's impossible to know exactly how bad things could get. Personally, I believe that debate over your idea of mass deportation, like debate over any new idea, MUST ACKNOWLEDGE THE COSTS AS WELL AS THE BENEFITS. Here's some material for further consideration: "Colorado's new law banning state spending on illegal immigrants has cost more than $2 million to enforce - and has saved the state nothing." http://www.denverpost.com/ci_5081255 "Towns Rethink Laws Against Illegal Immigrants" http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/26/nyregion/26rive… "SSA records indicate there may be as many as 17.8 million discrepancies in name, date of birth and citizenship status information records and, of those documents with problems, nearly 13 million belong to U.S. citizens." http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,7052664… "Feds wrongly deport citizen living in North Carolina" http://www.newsobserver.com/news/story/1507200.ht…— May 24, 2009 1:33 p.m.
Here we go again
Auntie, do you feel any angst toward the American employers who knowingly hire undocumented immigrants? 'Cause in the end, if there weren't willing employers up here, there wouldn't be people coming from down here. The current economic downturn has proved this fact: as jobs in the States have dried up, immigration from Mexico has decreased dramatically. So what's your true concern - fighting the problem of undocumented immigration, or bashing on easy targets? If it's the former, I'd suggest you point your pen (or your keyboard) at the real root of the problem, which is the fact that American employers can and do hire undocumented workers on a massive scale. Be ready for a tough battle, though. George W. Bush, in an uncharacteristically noble move, tried to cut back on illegal hiring by American employers. But even he couldn't get anywhere, and he was a guy employers loved. Thinking longer-term, our country needs immigrants, by the millions. As the baby boomers hit retirement, they're tilting the American demographic scales such that our ratio of retirees to young workers is increasingly out of wack. American citizens aren't having enough children to re-establish a healthy balance, so the only route to that balance is welcoming new citizens from other countries, by the millions. Overall, Auntie, I hope you'll rethink your animosity toward undocumented immigrants, if only for the selfish reason that, by sharing America, we help America grow stronger.— May 23, 2009 11:12 a.m.
Surfers and Sunset at the Pier
Thanks for the positive feedback, MsGrant and SurfPuppy! I'm delighted to hear you're enjoying this stuff. MsGrant, I'm happy to report that Shady has been officially adopted by my next-door neighbors and I. She's doing great, and seems quite happy with her new home(s). And last week she got a clean bill of health from the vet, so I think it's safe to say that after her bout of temporary homelessness a few months ago, she has bounced back 100%.— May 23, 2009 9:31 a.m.