finethen wrote:

Alright, we've got a full on debate going here! Excellent!

First of all, to respond to your (well-documented) qualms regarding
the study I pointed out. Not being a statistician, or even good at
math, I will have to assume that your issues with the study are good ones. I tend to take information that is given to me from trusted sources as good enough, since they are experts and I, decidedly am not.

Not to beat a dead horse, but seriously, if you rent, try itemizing a portion of your rent on your income taxes as a property tax payment. That is what they are trying to do with their numbers. I cannot take any study seriously that does that. It is basic finance and has nothing to do with statistics. Property taxes are paid by the property owner, not the renter. Said another way, a vacant house can generate property taxes.

However, I believe you will find many studies, even coming from an anti-immigrant viewpoint, that back up my claim. But, for the purposes of arguement, let's say that you are correct in your assertions and we'll take your point and run with it: there is not enough data to support a claim to one side or another. I feel certain it would be similar trying to determine the net-impact of any one social group on the country.

I'll share a study with you. I have not vetted all of the footnotes yet, there are about 4 times as many as in the study you quoted, so I owe a more thorough combing of the statistics to this discussion. They are using a 55% compliance rate figure, which again, is out of thin air. The report you cited used a 50% rate, so the CIS report is giving some benefit of the doubt to the illegals. I wish I could source the compliance rate somewhere. On the surface, I don't see any sleight of hand with any of the other figures though:

http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalfindings.html

This study was written by the Center for Immigration Studies.

"The Center is animated by a pro-immigrant, low-immigration vision which seeks fewer immigrants but a warmer welcome for those admitted. "

This study uses the March 2003 CPS report from the U.S. Census Bureau as a source. Some quotes from the report:

Balance of Tax and Cost

Illegals Create Large Net Costs. The bottom portion of Table 2 adds together the total tax payments and costs illegals impose on the federal budget. When defense spending is not considered, illegal households are estimated to impose costs on the federal treasury of $6,949 a year or 58 percent of what other households received. When defense spending is included, their costs are only 46 percent those of other households. However, they pay only 28 percent as much in taxes as non-illegal households. As a result, the estimated net cost per illegal household was $2,736. Whether one sees this fiscal deficit as resulting from low tax payments or heavy use of services is a matter of perspective. As already discussed, illegal households comprise 3.6 percent of the total population, but as Table 2 shows they account for an estimated 0.9 percent of taxes paid and 1.4 percent of costs. Thus, both their payments and costs are significantly less than their share of the total population. Since they use so much less in federal services than other households, it probably makes the most sense to see the fiscal deficit as resulting from low tax payments rather than heavy use of public services.

Total Deficit Created by Illegals. If the estimated net fiscal drain of $2,736 a year that each illegal household imposes on the federal treasury is multiplied by the nearly three million illegal households, the total cost comes to $10.4 billion a year. Whether one considers this to be a large sum or not is, of course, a matter of perspective. But, this figure is unambiguously negative and certainly not trivial. It is also worth remembering that these figures are only for the federal government and do not include any costs at the state or local level, where the impact is likely to be significant.

Now, I did catch the part about "it probably makes the most sense to see the fiscal deficit as resulting from low tax payments rather than heavy use of public services." "Heavy use" does not mean "no use." Also, consider the compliance rate. You can't prove a negative, but you know it's there. That is a very frustrating feeling. If half of illegal immigrants make no contributions whatsoever, but use services, those cost increases start to rise even further. This goes back to my statement about how we cannot gloss over the importance of the non-compliance figure. If two studies, one with the figures in the black, and one with figures in the red (ironically, by nearly the same amount) both agree about the compliance rate, they are both saying they could be overestimating their figures upward.

It's like, this would be so much easier to talk about if they were documented, and oh.... legal? But then it wouldn't even be an issue, because no one is against LEGAL immigration here. As you stated, our forefathers were all immigrants at one point.

Moving along, I wrote, "If you don't follow [US immigration laws], if you bypass them, you are here ILLEGALLY and you should be removed. Your response:

Needless to say, I disagree. I happened to be reading your comments yesterday, which was Holocaust memorial day. I was thinking about how during the early part of the Holocaust, thousands of Jewish immigrants were turned away from the U.S. and sent back to nazi-Europe because public opinion was widely opposed to them settling the in the U.S.

I mention this not to compare Mexico to nazi Germany, but rather to point out the well-observed fact that Americans are typically against immigration- whether for good reasons, bad reasons, or no reasons.

For the sake of the debate, I will not invoke Godwin's Law :) The immigration quotas were instated in 1924 and knew no race. You make it sound like it was popular opinion to send Jews back because we knew a holocaust was happening. We didn't even know the true extent of the holocaust until after the fact. Depending on who you believe, we took in 25000 to 30000 Jews PER YEAR during the holocaust. I agree, without quotas in place, we could have taken in more, but it is what it is.

What do you do, take everyone? During a World War? I mean, you do what you can, you know? Don't even get me started on other countries attitudes during that time. Comparatively speaking, we weren't perfect, but we were a hell of a lot more open during that time that the world was being torn asunder than a lot of other countries.

What is wrong with Americans being "typically against" immigration anyway? Not that I am accepting your premise, but say it is true. So what? We are, for the most part, a majority rules democracy. If most of us feel that way, that's popular opinion. It's relatively easy for me though to accept that, since all other things being equal, I fall into the quota camp. I believe in the land of the free, but I also understand logistics and their necessary stipulations. We cannot accept everyone who wants to come here, that's just the reality of it.

This legality issue is covering up the fact that people just generally do not like mass movements of people moving onto what they percieve as "their land." Forgetting the fact, of course, that their own ancestors were once part of these immigrant movements long before our current immigration system was in place.

"This legality issue" is a flippant way to state it. According to the Pew Hispanic Center, 6.8 million illegal aliens was the net increase between 1990 and 2004. If 6.8 million people came here at once illegally, we would call that an invasion. What do you call it when you spread it out over 14 years?

I am certainly in favor of the rule of law. In fact, I want to become a lawyer. However, when laws are unjust or simply do not work, they must change. (Please see: women voters, segregation, abortion, gay marriage.) It is clear that the current immigration system does not work.

So you believe existing immigration laws are unjust? Please, tell me which ones and why. And to the 15 million LEGAL immigrants since 1990, what do you say to them? What do you tell them? What reason did it work for them but will not work for a certain subset of others? Why are some immigrants preferred over others, so much so that they are making policy makers entertain changes to immigration law? To those 15 million immigrants who did it the right way, that would certainly leave a bad taste in their mouth, yes?

You cannot invoke the memory of social issues of US citizens and try to equate that with the current problem of people who didn't get in line to BECOME a US citizen. This isn't a human rights issue. Illegal migration is not a human right. Yes, I am sorry if someone was born in the "wrong" country and they want to come here to have opportunity. But life is not fair. The US will try to welcome and accomodate them, but we have a process for it.

Otherwise, we would not have 11 million people in the U.S. who work, pay (some) taxes, do not receive social services, and are at risk of violence, racial profiling and abuse. Yet, these individuals fill a need. Otherwise, we wouldn't have such a low unemployment rate. Ultimately, the U.S. needs immigrants for a good economy and also for vibrant social growth.

And those risks are the US's fault? No, it is their fault. THEY chose to either come here illegally or overstay their visa. The US didn't make them. And please, don't do the bait and switch and use the term "the U.S. needs immigrants for a good economy and also for vibrant social growth" when I KNOW what the main tenant of your arguement is. Of course I agree with that statement. You left the world "illegal" out though.

Right now in Congresss they are discussing ways to change the immigration system. They recognize that there are not enough visas (not NEARLY enough) for all the jobs available. There is also not an easy enough path to citizenship for people who come here to work, even legally. It has to change to fit the reality of the situation- we need these people. Probably more than they need us.

Illegal aliens don't do the jobs Americans find undesirable. Illegal aliens do the jobs Americans find undesireable for the money. You can pay an illegal alien slave wages. An American, not willing to live in squalor or in an overcrowded house with multiple families, will not take a job for that amount of money. You can work an illegal like a dog. An American will tell that boss go to hell, that they know their rights.

This tide of cheap labor has caused a situation of unfair job competition. An American who was previously entitled to the market rate for their work now has to compete with the illegal alien for the same job. I do not believe the American should have to lower his or her standard of living to compete in an artificially deflated market, against PEOPLE WHO SHOULDN'T BE HERE IN THE FIRST PLACE.

We need to enforce the laws we have on the books right now. In Tennessee, you can lose your business license if you hire an illegal alien. It is never enforced. Before you start trying to change things too much, take a look at what exists and see what is not even used.

Yes, we need laws. But we need laws that are just and reflect historical and social realities. 'Legal' immigration as is does not work to fulfill our needs as a country. (And lets not forget that 9/11 took place at the hands of LEGAL immigrants. Oft-repeated, but true.) We need a change, a mass deportation is not an option. (Or is that too obvious?)

Please, read that study I cited and read about the costs of amnesty. I assume that is what you think the solution is for the existing illegal population. It is a pretty binary decision tree, you either deport them or naturalize them. You might be surprised at what it will really cost in the long run if we do that.

I believe in demagnetization. I want to see fines imposed for employers of illegal aliens, for governments who provide services to them, for landlords who rent to them, for banks who lend to them. And I want to see jail time for repeat offenders. As long as those parties offer an attractive support system for illegals so that they may ultimately take advantage of them, nothing is going to change. It is a very unhealthy symbiotic relationship.

If that is what you mean by "we need them" (meaning we need to be able to take advantage of them) then yes, I most certainly disagree with you.

Very lively discussion I might add. It's a pleasure to actually speak with a worthy debater.

ps: About 9/11, you're talking to someone who wholeheartedly believes that particular piece of our history was an inside job. See: WTC7. See: Controlled demolition. See: Not even mentioned in the Kean report. That's a whole 'nother can of worms though ;)

While we are on conspiracy theory, allow me to free flow some of my crazy theory about illegal immigration. Let's see: SS is a Ponzi scheme, we all know this. We let these people pay into the system, knowing they cannot collect on it. That props up the Ponzi scheme a little longer. If my theory is correct, illegal immigrant SS payments help subsidize the SS payments to the boomer population, which is coming due within a decade.

Another theory I've entertained relates to the discontinuation of Fed M3 currency publications in March. We no longer have a true accounting of how much money is being printed by the Fed. The more population we have in the US (legal or illegal) the more dollars can be printed and spread into more hands. This masks inflation.

Those are a couple of left field, around the edge type thoughts I entertain. You'll never see a peer reviewed study on them because they are so "out there," relegated to the fringes of economic understanding. But, I think there is a lot more to the immigration debate than any of us realize. The world is run by powerful interests held in the hands of a few. There has to be big money in this for someone.

RE: How can Illegal Immigration help our Homeless situation?