Reply With Quote
Maybe Scott doesn't realize how many less employers would be willing to get a felony conviction, or is using the stupid all or nothing type argument.
I think it's very realistic. Tell me why is won't work please.
Maybe Scott doesn't realize how many less employers would be willing to get a felony conviction, or is using the stupid all or nothing type argument.
They are a net GAIN to guys like Bob Perry, net loss to the middle class. From the link I posted
Giving amnesty to illegal immigrants will greatly increase long-term costs to the taxpayer. Granting amnesty to illegal immigrants would, over time, increase their use of means-tested welfare, Social Security, and Medicare. Fiscal costs would rise in the intermediate term and increase dramatically when amnesty recipients reach retirement. Although it is difficult to provide a precise estimate, it seems likely that if 10 million adult illegal immigrants currently in the U.S. were granted amnesty, the net retirement cost to government (benefits minus taxes) could be over $2.6 trillion.
The calculation of this figure is as follows. As noted above, in 2007 there were, by the most commonly used estimates, roughly 10 million adult illegal immigrants in the U.S. Most illegal immigrants are low-skilled. On average, each elderly low-skill immigrant imposes a net cost (benefits minus taxes) on the taxpayers of about $17,000 per year. The major elements of this cost are Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid benefits. (The figure includes federal state and local government costs.) If the government gave amnesty to 10 million adult illegal immigrants, most of them would eventually become eligible for Social Security and Medicare benefits or Supplemental Security Income and Medicaid benefits.
However, not all of the 10 million adults given amnesty would survive until retirement at age 67. Normal mortality rates would reduce the population by roughly 15 percent before age 67. That would mean 8.5 million individuals would reach age 67 and enter retirement.
Of those reaching 67, their average remaining life expectancy would be around 18 years.[17] The net cost to taxpayers of these elderly individuals would be around $17,000 per year.[18] Over 18 years, the cost would equal $306,000 per elderly amnesty recipient. A cost of $306,000 per amnesty recipient multiplied by 8.5 million amnesty recipients results in a total net cost of $2.6 trillion.
These costs would not occur immediately. The average adult illegal immigrant is now in his early thirties; thus, it will be 25 to 30 years before the bulk of amnesty recipients reaches retirement. At their peak level, it appears the amnesty recipients will expand the number of beneficiaries under Social Security by 5 to 10 percent. This will occur at a point when Social Security will already be running deficits of over $200 billion annually.
This is a rough estimate. More research should be performed, but policymakers should examine these potential costs very carefully before rushing to grant amnesty, "Z visas," or "earned citizenship" to the current illegal immigrant population.
Factors That Could Increase Future Costs
The $2.6 trillion figure is a rough estimate of future costs that would result from putting 10 million adult illegal immigrants on a guaranteed pathway to citizenship. There are a number of factors that could raise or lower these future costs. Among the factors that could increase the net cost (benefits received minus taxes paid) well above $2.6 trillion are the following:
- The actual number of illegal immigrants may be greater than 12 million. The estimated cost of $2.6 trillion in future retirement costs outlined above assumes that the number of illegal immigrants in the U.S. in 2007 was around 12 million, based on data from the Pew Hispanic Center. While the Pew Hispanic Center is the most widely used source for demographic information about illegal immigrants, its data assume that some 90 percent of illegal immigrants appear in the Census Bureau's Current Population Survey (CPS).[19] It is possible that many illegal immigrants do not appear in the CPS and that the total number of illegal immigrants is substantially higher than 12 million. Some estimates place the number of illegal immigrants as high as 20 million. Clearly, if the illegal immigrant population is greater than 12 million, then the net retirement costs resulting from amnesty would be, ceteris paribus, higher as well.
- There is a huge potential for amnesty fraud. In order to receive amnesty and a Z visa and be put on a pathway to citizenship, an illegal immigrant must demonstrate that he or she was in the U.S. illegally and employed on January 1, 2007. However, the standard to demonstrate residence is very loose. The illegal immigrant need merely produce two affidavits from non-relatives asserting that he or she was working in the U.S. on the appropriate date. The affidavits could even come from other illegal immigrants. It is doubtful that the Department of Homeland Security has any real capacity to separate true affidavits from bogus ones, especially in the crush of processing millions of applications in the space of a year or two. Consequently, the potential for amnesty based on fraudulent do ents is very high. In the 1986 amnesty, an estimated 25 percent of the amnesties granted were fraudulent.[20] In the last 20 years, the underground industry producing fraudulent do ents has grown vastly larger and more sophisticated. In this round of amnesty, the fraud rate could be as high as or higher than in 1986, resulting in millions of additional amnesties.
- Spouses and children living abroad may be added to the amnesty population. In its present form, the bill grants amnesty to employed illegal immigrants who were in the U.S. on January 1, 2007. Any spouses, children, and parents of employed illegal immigrants who were residing in the U.S. on that date will also receive Z visas and amnesty. However, many illegal immigrants have spouses and children living abroad; under S. 1348, while illegal immigrants and their families inside the U.S. are put on a path to citizenship, families living abroad are not. family members living abroad would be denied Z visas and would not be permitted to reside in the U.S. for the foreseeable future. Presumably, the Z visa holder could have his family join him when he achieves legal permanent residence, but this would not occur until eight years after he is initially given the Z visa.
The designers of the bill appear to have excluded spouses and children living abroad from eligibility for Z visas in order to lower the apparent number of amnesty recipients, but pressure will build to eliminate this exclusion. At some point, either before or after the bill's passage, a "technical correction" will almost certainly be introduced allowing spouses and children living abroad to obtain Z visas and get on the pathway to citizenship. For every 10 illegal immigrants living in the U.S., there may be four dependents living abroad; if the current illegal population is 12 million, the number of additional dependents who could be brought permanently into the country should the exclusion be eliminated may be as high as five million.[21] The overall number of amnesty recipients and dependents could easily reach 17 million.
- Medicaid and Medicare costs are likely to rise faster than the rate of general inflation. To project the future governmental costs of amnesty recipients during retirement, this paper has used the current net governmental costs for elderly immigrants with skill levels similar to the amnesty population. These net governmental costs amount to $17,000 per person per year in 2004; half of this cost was medical care expenditures under the Medicare and Medicaid programs. The cost of government Medicaid and Medicare benefits has tended to escalate rapidly both because medical cost inflation has been greater than the general rate of inflation in the economy and because the range of medical services provided by these programs has expanded. The cost of Medicare and Medicaid services is likely to continue to increase more rapidly than inflation for the foreseeable future. As a consequence, the actual retirement costs for amnesty recipients will almost certainly be greater than $2.6 trillion, even after adjusting for general inflation.
To be fair Borat, aren't you some sort of scientist? I think you should stick with that instead of going outside your field of study.
Essentially you're talking about adding 20 million people to a working population already facing almost 10% unemployment. Amongst these 20 million, the vast majority are low wage earners and don't pay much in federal taxes, although once given amnesty would start applying for social welfare and the costs would be staggering. Hispanics are second only to blacks in welfare received and it isn't by as big of a margin as you'd think. We have everything to lose and nothing to gain by granting them amnesty. The corporations and business owners would now have to pay larger salaries expenses, cost of goods goes up, putting a strain on the already strained middle class. It's also unfair to those who came here legally and waited their turn.
The only thing keeping it from happening is the rich who have the politicians in their back pocket, other than that it's totally feasible and easy to implement. Scott is just part of the new wave of Gingrich fan.
http://www.examiner.com/immigration-...g-them-to-stay
DHS confirms cheaper to deport every illegal alien than allowing them to stay
Surprised Janet?Credits:
Getty Images
On December 3, Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs, Nelson Pea , responding to request from several U.S. Senators, including Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), wrote: “Our conservative estimate suggests that ICE would require a budget of more than $135 billion to apprehend, detain and remove the nation’s entire illegal immigrant population.”
In July 2010, the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) released the results of a study which examined the costs of illegal immigration at the federal, state and local levels. The study found that U.S. state and local governments s out $84.2 billion annually in various services (law enforcement, schools, social services, etc.), with California taxpayers alone, spending $21 billion on illegal aliens every year.
The same study found that $29 billion is spent every year in federal funds on illegal aliens.
So, while it would cost a one-time fee of about $135 billion to deport every single illegal alien in the country, it is actually a bargain considering the fact that it already costs us $113 billion annually to keep them here.
In other words, the mass deportation would pay for itself in a little over a year.
Incidentally, in 2007, the DHS estimated the cost of deporting all illegal aliens to be approximately $94 billion.
Cheap Chinese labor won't arrive soon to match US salaries and benefits. Then again, UCA is screwing hourlies, salaries, and benefits to the bone, so I bet the quickest move will be by the US, not China. China spends about $30B/year subsidizing mfr so mfrs can dump product on the rest of the planet. US doesn't have the balls to call China on dumping, because China took the US's balls.
LOL, what?!? Dude, you have no idea what I think the solutions to any purported problems are, because I haven't provided any. You're taking on a "if it's not A, it must be B" mentality fairly typical of the resident wingbats of this forum.
When I have time to spend more than 5 minutes at a keyboard, I'll happily explain why it's not feasible.
Pray tell, what is your field of study?
finance/economics 3.8 gpa due to graduate this spring
I'm not qualified to debate you. I concede to whatever you said before.
Figure out how to enforce that.
Given the blowback such a policy would cause, not to mention that would mean that people might not even hire legal immigrants out of fear that they might accidentally hire someone with really good fake papers.
Most have begun to sink roots here with families and children.
This is yet another reason that the problem will go away. The illegal immigrants give birth the US citizens, who will go on to college and jobs.
What do you do with the 10 year old US citizen whose parents are illegals?
Your whole solution again smacks of pompus self-righteousness. I prefer not to have my public policy sacrificed on that altar.
that's telling me
Self righteous? Tell me how amnesty is "righteous" at all for the millions who have migrated here legally and take pride in this country.
Bingo. I have done some bookkeeping for a small construction company. There wasn't a check in sight.
The thing about illegal immigrants is that the rich making a killing off them while we get stuck with the bill. Every time they go to college, we subsidize part of it with tax dollars so that it's even somewhat affordable to them. Especially at community college. Every time they make a trip to the country hospital, yup me and you pay for it. And at the same time they artificially increase the supply for many working class jobs, driving down wages. Net loss for the middle class I tell you, and what we're hearing right now from all these politicians is just propoganda to try to get the Hispanic vote. Not one of these guys proposing amnesty will ever do such a thing, because the rich who have them in their back pockets won't ever allow it. They just spout off like the puppets they are and you people eat it up.
Whip out some papers, research data, ,even a graph or two.
I'll keep up, promise.
Be sure to balance the benefits of lower costs of goods and services purchased to your costs. I would love to see what that graph/calculation looks like, and what you base it on.
I don't give a about amnesty or not, and that wasn't what the OP was about.
Got any other faulty assumptions you want to test?
Illegal immigrants generally don't go to college.
More fail.
" Scott also serves on the Brewers Association Finance Committee and, while no one is looking, teaches economics at the University of Texas at San Antonio. "
The sad thing is that you don't realize exactly what he is saying there.
He is more than fully qualified to discuss the economics, so that doesn't mean what you think it does. I am fairly sure I know what the post means, and it is funny that you don't.
PhD in economics, if memory serves. I wasn't gonna give it up, but since it is outta the bag." Scott also serves on the Brewers Association Finance Committee and, while no one is looking, teaches economics at the University of Texas at San Antonio. "
Meh. As opposed to your complete inability to back up your with anything that approaches logic, and or data?
Isn't that the definition of propaganda?
If all you have are rumors, but no data, that is pretty much the definition of what you are criticizing. Making you a hypocritical dumbass.
QED
So what is your suggestion, just keep them here and do nothing at all about immigration?
bull . i know PLENTY who do. an aerospace engineer who dj's at clubs, a teacher who volunteers as a teachers assistant grading papers for free, a nurse who sits at home all day..complete and utter bull .
it's super ironic how you talk about faulty assumptions then post this. i knew his post was sarcasm that's why i sarcastically replied that he "told me."
There's data out the ass that shows that illegal immigrants are a net loss to the tax payer, you just don't know how to use google and I'm not doing your research for you. I find it dumb that I should even have to post these studies.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions