Looks like it is finally happening

Here is that thread I mentioned about the economic effects of illegal immigration.

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=155003

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MiamiHeat

Yes, now they do. The whole point of this discussion is to change the conditions here in America so that they won't want to do that anymore. Have you been paying attention??

---

I've been paying attention to the rhetoric, unfortunately.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MiamiHeat

Is that really the only "discincentive" you can think of? America has to be in "worst shape than the economy in mexico" ?
I gave you a few solutions earlier, did you not pay attention?
Our economy could be the best in the world. Just make it so the majority of illegals can't make a living here and share in it.

---

That all sounds rosy and all, but when you turn around, it's all about money. Paying less to do the same job. You think you can impose some kind of moral authority over economic advantage, and you're certainly as naïve as I said you were.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MiamiHeat

If we don't create laws to stop their desire to come, then as you said, "they risk their lives to come here"..... and who will pay for this expensive border security?

---

Didn't you just say we lose soooooo much money by having them here? Well, then we sure can pay the expensive border security with the savings, right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MiamiHeat

What about the Coast Guard too? You realize Mexicans have boats right? They can just circumvent the land border and just get on a boat near the border, go north, and land on Non-Border coastline in the Gulf of Mexico or the Californian Pacific coastline. Drug dealers already do this.

---

And? Border security is border security. We spend trillions in useless wars but we can't justify spending a mere subset of that in our own security?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MiamiHeat

Do you see where your plan goes wrong? Who pays for all of this? and it's impossible to stop.

---

Who do you think pays for the constant deportation of illegals that just keep on coming back? What do you think it's more costly in the long run?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MiamiHeat

The only way is to continue to move forward with serious laws.

---

But this isn't a serious law. It's entirely unconstitutional. Amending the constitution is the way to do this, but there's no political will to do that either.

We just need to give the illegals anmesty so that "greedy" capitalist can have cheap labor and Democrats can have a massive group of low-income, entitlement-addicted voter cattle.

It's a win-win.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElNono

I've been paying attention to the rhetoric, unfortunately.



That all sounds rosy and all, but when you turn around, it's all about money. Paying less to do the same job. You think you can impose some kind of moral authority over economic advantage, and you're certainly as naïve as I said you were.



Didn't you just say we lose soooooo much money by having them here? Well, then we sure can pay the expensive border security with the savings, right?



And? Border security is border security. We spend trillions in useless wars but we can't justify spending a mere subset of that in our own security?



Who do you think pays for the constant deportation of illegals that just keep on coming back? What do you think it's more costly in the long run?



But this isn't a serious law. It's entirely unconstitutional. Amending the constitution is the way to do this, but there's no political will to do that either.

---

I agree that we could spend part of the savings to beef up border security, but I think that it would be unnecessary to spend more on border security if we had some tough disincentives to come across (no anchor babies, proof of citizenship for social services, jail time for employers who knowingly hire them, etc). It is a far more efficient use of resources to effect the demand side than to try to stem the supply side. With all that being said, if the right disincentives are in place, it would seem that the flow would slow down enough that our current border security spending would suffice to prevent the remaining (comparative) trickle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nbadan

Illegal labor saves US citizens billions of dollars yearly in lower cost food, housing and many, many services...studies show, way more than they consume nationally....trouble is illegals aren't spread out across the country evenly, so border states like Texas, Arizona, and California must use local and state money to deal with the symptoms of illegal immigration...

---

I'd like to see a source for this. As I comb the net looking for impact on food prices, I'm finding alot of probablys and maybes, but not much in the way of actual data. It would seem to be a fairly marginal figure if it exists at all.
"There are places in the United States where illegal immigration has big effects (both positive and negative). But economists generally believe that when averaged over the whole economy, the effect is a small net positive. Harvard's George Borjas says the average American's wealth is increased by less than 1 percent because of illegal immigration."
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=5312900
I'd like to see the methodolgy behind measuring the average American's wealth and the attributes thereof, but no bibliography to search thru.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TeyshaBlue

I'd like to see a source for this. As I comb the net looking for impact on food prices, I'm finding alot of probablys and maybes, but not much in the way of actual data. It would seem to be a fairly marginal figure if it exists at all.
"There are places in the United States where illegal immigration has big effects (both positive and negative). But economists generally believe that when averaged over the whole economy, the effect is a small net positive. Harvard's George Borjas says the average American's wealth is increased by less than 1 percent because of illegal immigration."
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=5312900
I'd like to see the methodolgy behind measuring the average American's wealth and the attributes thereof, but no bibliography to search thru.

---

There was an economic study done that tried to be as comprehensive as possible, outlining all the costs/benefits, and found that any given illegal immigrant added a Net Present Value (specific finance/economics term) of about $60,000 or so each. This nets all the present and future costs/benefits to one single number.

(from memory, don't know the exact study, sorry)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

There was an economic study done that tried to be as comprehensive as possible, outlining all the costs/benefits, and found that any given illegal immigrant added a Net Present Value (specific finance/economics term) of about $60,000 or so each. This nets all the present and future costs/benefits to one single number.

---

Yeah, I saw that referenced in Scott's thread. I understand NPV somewhat, but am unsure as to it's plasticity as current costs fluctuate. I'd like to find that study.

BTW...your comparison of illegal immigration reform and marijuana law reform was actually pretty sparkling, RG. :toast

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drachen

You have an internet connection, right? You have an amazing resource that has revolutionized the dissemination of information over the 15-20 years. Welcome to the information age. Have at it!

---

I did use my internet connection to ask another user if he had the information.

The idiots got pissy.

The non-idiots simply said they didn't have it.

ElNono had it and gave it to me.

I got the information using the internet.

I had at it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

I did use my internet connection to ask another user if he had the information.

The idiots got pissy.

The non-idiots simply said they didn't have it.

ElNono had it and gave it to me.

I got the information using the internet.

I had at it.

---

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

I did use my internet connection to ask another user if he had the information.

The idiots got pissy.

The non-idiots simply said they didn't have it.

ElNono had it and gave it to me.

I got the information using the internet.

I had at it.

---

Good job, glad you are satisfied.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jack sommerset

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!

---

Petty and insecure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drachen

Good job, glad you are satisfied.

---

Are you satisfied that I used the internet?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

Petty and insecure.

Are you satisfied that I used the internet?

---

You absolutely used the internet (thus the "good job" comment). You used it to find someone willing to do your work for you and I won't fault you for that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drachen

You absolutely used the internet (thus the "good job" comment). You used it to find someone willing to do your work for you and I won't fault you for that.

---

The forum has people who already know these things and who don't get pissy when asked.

The ones who do get pissy are entertaining. I'm sure I've done it.

The hijacking this thread by the pissy to make it about me is entertaining as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

The forum has people who already know these things and who don't get pissy when asked.

The ones who do get pissy are entertaining. I'm sure I've done it.

---

Yes but doing so makes one seem lazy, especially when the bulk of one's posts are questions requesting hard facts, and not an equal amount of providing hard facts. Google is a wonderful thing, and I think you will find that you would have the answer to your questions a lot faster than if you try to badger people into doing your work for you. If google isn't good enough for you, try scholar.google.com, same great search engine, peer reviewed results.

(To be fair, I have not read ALL of your 51k posts, so I am making generalizations on what I have observed, but the funny thing is that I haven't noticed this tendency of yours until maybe the last 5 or 6 months)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drachen

Yes but doing so makes one seem lazy, especially when the bulk of one's posts are questions requesting hard facts, and not an equal amount of providing hard facts. Google is a wonderful thing, and I think you will find that you would have the answer to your questions a lot faster than if you try to badger people into doing your work for you. If google isn't good enough for you, try scholar.google.com, same great search engine, peer reviewed results.

(To be fair, I have not read ALL of your 51k posts, so I am making generalizations on what I have observed, but the funny thing is that I haven't noticed this tendency of yours until maybe the last 5 or 6 months)

---

It's funny, but it actually took less time simply asking the question for ElNono to provide that link than it would have for me to find that particular document using Google.

Google is great, people can be better.

lol bulk -- the main reason I ask for hard facts is that people so clearly make up shit here. That is the main reason they get pissy when I ask them to back up their claims. They made the claim, so they should know where they got the information. If you pay attention to other posters histories as closely as you claim to follow mine, you would see that pattern as well.

I'm all for getting back to the subject -- or do you want to keep posting about me?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

It's funny, but it actually took less time simply asking the question for ElNono to provide that link than it would have for me to find that particular document using Google.

Google is great, people can be better.

lol bulk -- the main reason I ask for hard facts is that people so clearly make up shit here. That is the main reason they get pissy when I ask them to back up their claims. They made the claim, so they should know where they got the information. If you pay attention to other posters histories as closely as you claim to follow mine, you would see that pattern as well.

I'm all for getting back to the subject -- or do you want to keep posting about me?

---

Im enamored, isn't it obvious? Anyway, i know some other posters' tendencies, though you stand out because, if memory serves, you used to be a quality poster. Maybe I am mistaken in that.


But, we can get back to the topic at hand if there is anything else to say, because I have no statistics or peer reviewed sources to back up my claims above.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drachen

Im enamored, isn't it obvious? Anyway, i know some other posters' tendencies, though you stand out because, if memory serves, you used to be a quality poster. Maybe I am mistaken in that.

---

So, you want to keep talking about me.

Swell -- my calling out of people who make up shit is nothing new. Perhaps there are more people making up shit these days.

I can't say your opinion of my past and present posting is of any importance. Most people say things like that when they get into an argument with me.

You used to be cool, man.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TeyshaBlue

Yeah, I saw that referenced in Scott's thread. I understand NPV somewhat, but am unsure as to it's plasticity as current costs fluctuate. I'd like to find that study.

---

NPV requires some guesses as to variations in inflation and costs going forward, but attempts to incorporate changes in both.

Most NPV calculations assume inflation stays near the historical norm of 3%.

I have my doubts as to whether the next 40 years will adhere to that norm, but it is as good of a baseline as any.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

NPV requires some guesses as to variations in inflation and costs going forward, but attempts to incorporate changes in both.

Most NPV calculations assume inflation stays near the historical norm of 3%.

I have my doubts as to whether the next 40 years will adhere to that norm, but it is as good of a baseline as any.

---

Thanks for the explanation, RG.:toast

BTW, I heard people speaking spanish yesterday at the party store. It was three dwarfish people (are Mexicans typically that small?) who hopped out of a tricked out Toyota compact, complete with black flames along the sides, a fake hood scoop and oversized spoiler.

FYI

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

We just need to give the illegals anmesty so that "greedy" capitalist can have cheap labor and Democrats can have a massive group of low-income, entitlement-addicted voter cattle.

It's a win-win.

---

:tu

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jack sommerset

I hate the Constitution and think we can write laws that ignore it.

---

... um, yeah. :rolleyes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarkReign

BTW, I heard people speaking spanish yesterday at the party store. It was three dwarfish people (are Mexicans typically that small?) who hopped out of a tricked out Toyota compact, complete with black flames along the sides, a fake hood scoop and oversized spoiler.

FYI

---

Mexicans and others from central and south america, tend to be smaller, mostly due to poor nutrition when younger, to my understanding.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TeyshaBlue

Yeah, I saw that referenced in Scott's thread. I understand NPV somewhat, but am unsure as to it's plasticity as current costs fluctuate. I'd like to find that study.

---

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=5779&page=1

That is it, I think. Hundreds of pages long.

NPV does fluctuate, but generally is dependent on historical average inflation.

Chapter 6 is where they start outlining the assumptions used to derive their figure.

Quote:

---

We can now combine all the benefit profiles (see Figure 7.7). It is striking that the benefit levels appear quite similar across all three groups. First- and second-generation immigrants are somewhat more costly during childhood because of the higher educational expenditures in the states in which they live and the costs of bilingual education, but first-generation immigrants who are of college age or who are old are substantially less expensive. The average immigrant does not receive more costly benefits at a given age than natives do; if anything, the opposite is the case. Note, however, that immigrant households are on average larger than native households, so that they may well receive substantially greater benefits than native households, as in the case study of California.

---

Quite the read. (I skimmed some, but have not read it all)


Seems like the NPV at the time was