The fact of the "Illegal" issue that many people refuse to acknowledge...

[blazee]

Originally Posted by AlmostStock

Adding in the savings in wages which leads to lower prices for everyone, along with a stronger economy, (both of which would be hard to accurately calculate) probably makes illegals close to a wash, or even beneficial to us financially. Did you notice how in his speech on Monday, even our president mentioned the economy as partial rationale for his strategy of dealing with the issue? Hmmmm... there must be some truth behind the benefits being a lot higher than many people want to believe.


Flame away with facts, not emotions.

I found an analysis of the current immigration policy that takes several factors into consideration, seems that the costs outweigh the benefits by about $9,000,000,000 every year. Truth be told, the cost is probably much greater, because it is widely believed that our current consensus of illegal immigrants is greatly under estimated.

The conclusion also mentions the points made by moppie.

A Cost-Benefit Analysis of Immigration

It is useful to do a cost-benefit analysis regarding the impact of immigration on the United States economy. Remember, however, that such an analysis only tells us if our current immigration policy is efficient. It does not tell us whether or not our policy if fair, nor what the U.S. policy should be. The "Costs" of Immigration

The costs to the US for immigration generally fall into two categories: 1) direct expenditures incurred to support the immigrants, and 2) displacement costs incurred by native citizens.

1. Direct expenditures
   Direct expenditures consist of (among other things) increases in AFDC and food stamps, SSI, health costs, and prison costs. In 1970 immigrants headed 6.8 percent of all households, paid 6.3 percent of all taxes, and received 6.7 percent of all welfare benefits, a rough wash. In 1980, immigrants headed 7.6 percent of all households, paid 7.0 percent of all taxes, and received 9.1 percent of all welfare benefits. In 1990, immigrants headed 8.4 percent of all households, paid 8.3 percent in taxes, and received 13.1 percent of all welfare benefits. So the level of welfare benefits relative to taxes paid has increased. Immigrants, then, receive proportionately more in welfare benefits than their share of the population. Since the majority of welfare benefits are paid at the county and state level, native citizens in states with high levels of immigration (such as California) paid more taxes to provide the higher level of welfare benefits. Estimates of tax payer burden range from an annual surplus of $27 billion to a deficit of $40 billion depending on the assumptions made. A "reasonable" estimate of tax accounting provided by Borjas shows that immigrants received $23.8 billion in government entitlement and paid $85.4 billion in taxes. This statistic seems to suggest at first glance that immigrants are more than paying their way for welfare benefits. However, as Borjas points out, on average only 8.9 percent of taxes goes towards entitlement programs. Thus, only $7.6 billion (85.4 x 8.9 percent) of immigrant taxes went on average to entitlements. This results in a $16.2 billion fiscal burden on native taxpayers. Therefore, it is likely that immigrants impose a net burden on native taxpayers on the order of $16 billion annually.
2. Displacement Costs
   Displacement costs occur when immigration either reduces the wages of native citizens or results in native citizens being laid off or forced to move from the area. The various estimates conclude that the elasticity of the native wage with respect to the number of immigrants is at most -0.1. This implies that a city with 10% more immigration than another will have wages that are 1 percent lower. In other words, a $10.00 per hour wage will fall to $9.90. Following the methodology of Borjas (The New Economics of Immigration" in The Atlantic Monthly, November 1996) we can compute the loss of native wages at the aggregate level. Workers' share of GDP is about 70 percent, and natives make up 90 percent of the population. Therefore, native workers take home about 63 percent of GDP in wages and salaries. If the number of workers in the US has increased by 10 percent due to immigration, then native wages and salaries fall by 1 percent to 62.37 percent of GDP. In a $7 trillion economy, this works out to just over $44 billion. In an economy the size of the U.S., this effect is small.
   The same result is found for unemployment. The great majority of studies conclude that immigrants rarely force a native worker out of a job. The effects are statistically insignificant.

In sum, direct expenditures result in a net loss of $16 billion, and loss of native wages add another $44 billion for a total cost from immigration of $60 billion.


The Benefits from Immigration

Benefits from immigration include increases in economic welfare, increase in cultural diversity, and increases in the standard of living of immigrants.

1. Gains in economic welfare. We argued earlier that a 10 percent rise in immigration lowers native wages by up to 1 percent, or possibly $44 billion per year. However, these wage reductions don't just disappear. To the extent that immigrants provide low-cost labor, either more income accrues to the employers, or cost reductions are passed on to the consumer. Therefore, the host economy benefits by an equal amount that native workers lose from the cheap labor of the immigrants. In other words, the $44 billion is simply redistributed to other people in the economy, and the net effect washes out. But the gains from the low wages go beyond the $44 billion from lower wages. The goods produced by immigrant workers also generate additional profits for employers because they are able to sell more of their products at the lower price. Borjas estimates this gain to be $7 billion per year.
2. Increase in cultural diversity. This aspect of life is difficult to quantify but consumers benefit at a minimum by the increase in product diversity (for example, ethnic restaurants, cultural centers in cities, and so on). However, diversity also leads to costs including more crime, ethnic violence, and so on. Since these aspects are so difficult to quantify, we will take the easy way out and simply assume that the positive and negative aspects of diversity cancel each other out.
3. Increases in standard of living of immigrants. Most immigrants' quality of life must increase or else immigrants would not stay and new ones would not keep coming. This benefit though is not internalized by the host country. Therefore, it is not appropriate to include this in the cost-benefit analysis that we are doing.

Since we are only summing the economic welfare benefits, the economy gains $44 billion is lower costs and/or prices from immigrant labor, and gains $7 billion more on top of that by generating more profits for employers. Thus the total benefits to immigration are on the order of $51 billion annually.


Conclusion

The cost-benefit analysis suggests that the costs ($60 billion) outweigh the benefits ($51 billion) by $9 billion annually. Therefore, current immigration policy is not as efficient as it could be, though the inefficiency is small. What do we make of all this? First, immigration (legal and illegal) has become more costly in recent times because the number of immigrants has increased, and the relative skills of immigrants have decreased. Therefore, the economic burden of immigration has surely increased in the last two decades. Second, the "stealing of natives' jobs" is mostly a myth and simply does not happen on a large scale.
An important distinction must be made again between efficiency and equity. We have tentatively concluded that the costs of immigration outweigh the benefits by $9 billion annually. From an efficiency point of view, the solution is to reduce the number of immigrants until the benefits equal the costs. Another possibility is to only admit the more educated, wealthier immigrants. This is what some countries such as Canada has done. This lead to a more "efficient" immigration policy. But is such a policy fair?
From an equity point of view, even if the costs of immigration outweigh the benefits, this tells us nothing about what type of immigration policy the United States should have. There are strong moral arguments for allowing immigrants into the US given our history. After all we are a nation of immigrants. Moreover, immigration to the United States has improved the lives of most that have arrived here. Do we have the right to shut that opportunity off to those who live in poorer countries? Most of our ancestors took advantage of that opportunity. Why can't others?
Finally, though the tax payer burden of supporting immigration may be $16 billion annually, this is about one percent of yearly federal tax revenue. Therefore, while immigration may certainly contribute to federal budget deficits, they are not the major source of the fiscal deficits in the US.

[fredjacksonsan]

Originally Posted by blazee

.
.
.
Therefore, while immigration may certainly contribute to federal budget deficits, they are not the major source of the fiscal deficits in the US.

Informational post....but it begs the question: Are the statistics for legal or illegal immigrants? If they're legal, then that is part of the "cost of doing business". However if illegal, then this $9B is a cost that shouldn't have to be borne in the first place.

(And as a quick aside, it's established that the US Gov't doesn't have an income problem, but rather a spending problem)

[blazee]

The study covered all immigrants.

Another thing to consider in the immigration debate is crime. Illegal immigrants only make up 5% of the total US population, but make up 28% of the federal prison population. Most are convicted on drug charges and violent crimes.

Anyone remember Francisco Serrano? He was a legal visitor that decided to stay after his visa expired. He was found living in a school. His sob story of being a poor immigrant who didn't want to leave made him famous and had tons of people pleading for him to be allowed to stay. The courts ordered him to go home. On his way to the airplane he disappeared in the airport. The "poor little immigrant boy" turned up again in another state when he broke into someone's home and tried to kill them with a knife.


I am 100% for immigration, but it must be done legally so that we know who we are allowing in.

[Moppie]

Originally Posted by fredjacksonsan

Nor would the citizens of NZ appreciate every island within 2000 miles emptying out and the citizens there boating their way to NZ to work on the cheap.

Ummm, actualy, during the 70s and 80s that happened, and we encouraged it.
NZ now has more pasific islanders living in it than there are left living in the pasific islands.
Europeans and Maaori make up less than half the population in our biggest city, the rest have immigrated here in the last 50 years from the pasific and asia.



Heres another way to think about it, America has some of the worlds largest deposits of minerals, and has more land per person than almost anywhere else in the world, and certianly has more productive land per person than anywhere else in the world.
It holds control of well over half the worlds wealth, yet only has 2.5% of the worlds population.
Prehaps its time you thought about sharing some of those resources and that wealth with people who need it, and not by giving it to them, but by giving them fair access to it, i.e. letting them live and WORK in the US?

America is facing a similar problem to what NZ went through in the 70s, a lack of unskilled labour, or any kind of labour force that is prepared to work for low reward.
We solved it by opening our boarders to imigrants from our pasific neighbors, and our manufactoring base is now well supplied with labour, and doing very well. Infact we know have a good supply of unskilled labour, and are running out of skilled labour, which is a small problem that isn't hard to fix, especialy as the decendants of the unskilled labour that came here in the 70s start to find thier way into higher education.

[YogsVR4]

I'm all for getting immigration reformed. I'm all for seeing our population swell to a billion people or more. We have the space. We have the infrastructure. We have the goods and services. What we don't have is immigration under control.

The laws need to be reformed and immigration needs to be streamlined for people looking for work and those who want to become citizens. Come on in - glad to have you. To those that broke the law and are here illegally - FUCK YOU! Get the hell out!! To those companies that knowingly hire or promote illegals FUCK YOU!! I hope you find yourself as someones bitch in prison and have all your worldly good confiscated.

[stone_mound_camaro]

Originally Posted by Nayr747

WTF is wrong with you? You obvously don't understand what an analogy is. You didn't get that my statement was to PROVE that laws are not always good, and sometimes need to be changed, and that people who break the law are not ALWAYS bad. I said this because the person I quoted gave the justification of "they broke the law" to support his belief on the immigrant issue, implying that all people that break the law are doing something wrong. And I proved this to be incorrect. You would have to prove that the particular law that they broke is actually one of the ones that are morally/rataionally justified, since I proved that some aren't. You can't just say "they broke the law" because this can mean they did something that is technically wrong but is not actually wrong, and so they deserve punishment. It was NOT meant to prove that THIS particular law is wrong, because it may or may not be. It was just to show that it is incorrect to say that someone is ALWAYS doing something wrong because they are breaking the law. YOU even agreed with this: "Those brave African Americans broke segregation laws." Lol.

And I will continue to compare the two all I want. Your stupidity will not determine my actions. You seem VERY emotional about this topic so arguing with you about it is going to go nowhere. It would be like arguing with a lifetime military vet about war. Pointless.

Edit: I just realized that YOU made the statement I quoted. That makes it even funnier.

So are you this mad at the companies who allow these people to work here? If companies followed the law there would be no illegal immigrant problem. Instead of building fences, having "minute men," or some other poinless and innefective system, why not just focus on making companies follow the law???

Pfft... Quit your bitchin. The fact of the matter is illegal immigrants cost more than they contribute which includes their economic impact and social impact(for you r-tards, that means crime). I'm all for legal immigrants. Welcome come and be profitable by all means. But it must be a slap in the face for them, because they had to go through all the trials and tribulations known as the Legalization Process, but illegals are able to come in, avoid taxes, and pretty much bypass what others worked hard to attain.

[fredjacksonsan]

Originally Posted by Moppie

Ummm, actualy, during the 70s and 80s that happened, and we encouraged it.
NZ now has more pasific islanders living in it than there are left living in the pasific islands.
Europeans and Maaori make up less than half the population in our biggest city, the rest have immigrated here in the last 50 years from the pasific and asia.



Heres another way to think about it, America has some of the worlds largest deposits of minerals, and has more land per person than almost anywhere else in the world, and certianly has more productive land per person than anywhere else in the world.
It holds control of well over half the worlds wealth, yet only has 2.5% of the worlds population.
Prehaps its time you thought about sharing some of those resources and that wealth with people who need it, and not by giving it to them, but by giving them fair access to it, i.e. letting them live and WORK in the US?

America is facing a similar problem to what NZ went through in the 70s, a lack of unskilled labour, or any kind of labour force that is prepared to work for low reward.
We solved it by opening our boarders to imigrants from our pasific neighbors, and our manufactoring base is now well supplied with labour, and doing very well. Infact we know have a good supply of unskilled labour, and are running out of skilled labour, which is a small problem that isn't hard to fix, especialy as the decendants of the unskilled labour that came here in the 70s start to find thier way into higher education.

I stand corrected; pardon my ignorance.

[driftinggrifter2]

You know how illegals working here for cheap is supposed to keep prices down and blah blah blah. If that is the case then how come in the past 7yrs prices for all these things have gone up and yet min wage has barely made a improvment?


How come it is so hard for me; a U.S. citizen by birth and a single father; to get help with my daughter? And im not talking about welfare or medicaid( i wont fuck with that), I'm talking about the child care service's our gov offers. And yet there are thousands of illegals here who get the help alot easier than i can.

I got alot of friends that are immigrants but legal. They dont like the fact that this has become such a issue with people favoring the illegals. Hell they wouldnt even partake in any of the protests.

[Mr Wiggl3s]

Originally Posted by driftinggrifter2

You know how illegals working here for cheap is supposed to keep prices down and blah blah blah. If that is the case then how come in the past 7yrs prices for all these things have gone up and yet min wage has barely made a improvment?


How come it is so hard for me; a U.S. citizen by birth and a single father; to get help with my daughter? And im not talking about welfare or medicaid( i wont fuck with that), I'm talking about the child care service's our gov offers. And yet there are thousands of illegals here who get the help alot easier than i can.

I got alot of friends that are immigrants but legal. They dont like the fact that this has become such a issue with people favoring the illegals. Hell they wouldnt even partake in any of the protests.

Because my friend, all the jobs are up north, i lived in a county with a population of about 1200, and there was 1 place to work, and that was a paper mill where you got paid $7 and if you worked there you were considered a "rich" person

[driftinggrifter2]

If im not mistaken the min wage up north is the same as here if not close to it which is what around $5.15.

And its not the fact that all jobs are up north it more the likely hood of the area you live in. The city i live in now is considered small but i laugh at people when they tell me that. In picayune i could walk across the entire city in 45mins or less here wont even get me half way.
no coincidence that picayune had very min jobs and here has jobs out the ass.

on a further note with that $7 hr ya'll made i feel ya there thats the way it was in picayune

[fredjacksonsan]

You know, if it's true that using illegal labor reduces consumers' costs, then I'm all for putting them to work at the oil refineries. Gas prices are SURE to come down then, right?

[driftinggrifter2]

^dont they already pick tobacco too. How come the price of those is so high?

[drunken monkey]

shhh.. quit asking questions your govt. doesn't want to asnwer...

[YogsVR4]

Originally Posted by driftinggrifter2

^dont they already pick tobacco too. How come the price of those is so high?

Taxes. Sin taxes are a boon to the government coffers.

[fredjacksonsan]

Hahaha, "sin" taxes. In Spanish, sin means "without". OH, the irony.