Illegal Immigration: What should we do?

[Mr. Kotter]

MODS: I'm interested in finding out what CP members think about this issue, and while I understand it's an issue ripe for political discussion.....I'd ask for it to remain in the Lounge for a couple of days, if at all possible, before moving it to its inevitable death in DC.

Fellow ChiefsPlanet posters: Can we try to have a reasonable discussion over this issue without it becoming too heated and denigrating into purely partisan demagoguery or racist insults? Please?

FWIW, I'm following the debate over immigration legislation somewhat closely, and I'm trying to figure out what the middle ground--if there is any--on the issue might be.

Thanks in advance for you opinions and posts.

Poll to follow, shortly....

[Donger]

Originally Posted by jspchief

And then you get to work tax free when you get here.

My parents were so stupid. I'd be making a fucking killing right now if I didn't have to pay taxes.

[Boozer]

Originally Posted by Donger

It's from the Center for Immigration Studies website. I do not know if they have the raw numbers available.

Well, it looks like Kotter is on the trail. But just thinking it out, it's probably bullshit. It's going to take the raw numbers to convince me I'm wrong, not just the say-so of a lobbying group.

[jspchief]

Originally Posted by Boozer

Would someone who wants to get into the country file an N-400? I'm not up on immigration law, but I'm guessing most illegal workers would probably try to be legally admitted on a non-immigrant basis, not on a naturalization track.

Also, what's the probability that a manual laborer in Mexico would be granted a visa for permanent residence? I don't think it's the cost that's keeping them out (many pay very high amounts to be smuggled in), it's that their applications would either be extremely delayed or denied.

It's definately a slow process, and has become exponentially slower since 9/11.

I had a friend that came here illegally. He ended up having a daughter, and applied for naturalization. He was told the process would take about two years, and that he was not allowed to leave the country while in process or his right to naturalization would be permantly revoked. In other words, he was forced to stay in the US illegally until he was processed. About a year into it, the 9/11 attacks happened. He was then told that the delay would be closer to 5 years. 5 years that he is forced to stay here illegally, while waiting to become legal.

[Donger]

Originally Posted by Boozer

Would someone who wants to get into the country file an N-400? I'm not up on immigration law, but I'm guessing most illegal workers would probably try to be legally admitted on a non-immigrant basis, not on a naturalization track.

Also, what's the probability that a manual laborer in Mexico would be granted a visa for permanent residence? I don't think it's the cost that's keeping them out (many pay very high amounts to be smuggled in), it's that their applications would either be extremely delayed or denied.

When we did it, you had to apply for residency, get a green card and then after seven years of legal residency, you could apply for naturalization. I don't know if that has changed.

Back then, the numbers were limited per country of origin. We had to wait for two years to be granted residency.

[jspchief]

Originally Posted by Mr. Kotter

I've seen those numbers disputed, and countered. I'll see if I can dig them up here today....

I suspect those numbers are on a per family basis.....the Gonzales family, for example, may use $2,700 more in services, but the Rodriguez, Morales, and Sanchez families contribute more than enough to pay for themselves and some of the families who don't pull their own weight. In other words, there are clearly cases where some are a "burden" but the revenues generated by others off-set the "costs" of those that aren't pulling their weight. Overall, there is a considerable net gain, in terms of revenue versus costs.

I'll have to dig for it though....

How is there a net gain?

How can you possibly say we do better getting 75% of the taxes owed instead of 100%

Keep in mind, we're talking about low income families that don't pay their own way even if they are paying 100%.

[Donger]

Originally Posted by jspchief

It's definately a slow process, and has become exponentially slower since 9/11.

I had a friend that came here illegally. He ended up having a daughter, and applied for naturalization. He was told the process would take about two years, and that he was not allowed to leave the country while in process or his right to naturalization would be permantly revoked. In other words, he was forced to stay in the US illegally until he was processed. About a year into it, the 9/11 attacks happened. He was then told that the delay would be closer to 5 years. 5 years that he is forced to stay here illegally, while waiting to become legal.

Yes. I case people don't know, ANY child born on US soil is immediately granted citizenship, even those born of illegals.

[Mr. Kotter]

Originally Posted by jspchief

How is there a net gain?

How can you possibly say we do better getting 75% of the taxes owed instead of 100%

Keep in mind, we're talking about low income families that don't pay their own way even if they are paying 100%.

I'm looking for the site, and the numbers...but I've gotta duck out for awhile.

Suffice it to say, we aren't just talking about income taxes here....and I'm talking about OVERALL costs for services given to illegals (as a group), compared to OVERALL revenues from all taxes paid by illegals. It's pretty clearly a net gain, according to the stuff I've seen.

[Donger]

Originally Posted by Mr. Kotter

I'm looking for the site, and the numbers...but I've gotta duck out for awhile.

Suffice it to say, we aren't just talking about income taxes here....and I'm talking about OVERALL costs for services given to illegals (as a group), compared to OVERALL revenues from all taxes paid by illegals. It's pretty clearly a net gain, according to the stuff I've seen.

From what I remember, that's true of LEGAL immigrants. The data for illegals is, of course, spotty at best.

Here's something:

Although immigrants receive less assistance from the federal government, the average immigrant family pays more in taxes than the average American-born family. The SIE reported in 1976 that the average American-born family paid $3,008 in taxes per year. In comparison, immigrant families who had been in the United States 10 years or less paid $3,369. Those living here 11 to15 years paid $3,564 and those here 16 to 25 years paid $3,592. Also, a 1996 Heritage Foundation study reported that immigrant men had a slightly higher labor force participation rate than American-born men (77 percent vs. 74 percent), so a larger proportion paid employment-related taxes. Among the largest group of recent immigrants - Hispanics - the proportion of men who work was 83 percent.

All numbers mentioned above are for legal immigrants. However, the available numbers for illegal immigrants, while spotty, do not show a negative economic effect. A 1995 Cato Institute study found that illegal immigrants paid approximately 46 percent as much in taxes as American-born citizens, but they received only 38 percent as much from the government. Also, contrary to popular belief, the majority of illegal immigrants were not destitute fence-jumpers but were middle-class tourists or students who overstayed their visas.

[Inspector]

Originally Posted by jspchief

There's no question that these people have broken the law. But arresting them all and deporting them simply is not a viable solution. There's too many of them, and the cost wouldn't jive with the severity of the offense.

You can sit there and cry about them getting away with breaking the law until your dying day, but the simple fact is it's too late to do anything significant about punishing those that are already here. Our government let it go unpunished too long to do anything about it now.

The only thing we can do is take serious steps towards stopping the entry of new illegals, while doing what we can to get current illegals to start contributing to the tax base through legalization.

Naw, no crying here.

I'm just into my own selfish ideas.

And....I want the same treatment as anyone else....when it comes to breaking laws.

[jspchief]

Originally Posted by Mr. Kotter

I'm looking for the site, and the numbers...but I've gotta duck out for awhile.

Suffice it to say, we aren't just talking about income taxes here....and I'm talking about OVERALL costs for services given to illegals (as a group), compared to OVERALL revenues from all taxes paid by illegals. It's pretty clearly a net gain, according to the stuff I've seen.

Considering there isn't a net gain from most low income families, regardless of legal status, I have serious doubts about any net gain from only a percentage of illegals.

I know there's stuff about how employers pay into SS for illegals that will never collect, but I seriously doubt it equates to a net gain across the board. And besides, I don't think that's the way we should be propping up our broken SS system anyway.

[Mr. Kotter]

Here's one excerpt from the Cato Institute site, a longitudinal study of immigrantion since the 1940s, including "illegals:

http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/pr-imtax.html

Net Balance for Undocumented Aliens

In the previous chapter, the expenditures on illegal aliens
were estimated to be about $1,390 per capita, which is
considerably less than for legal immigrants and about 38 percent
of the level for natives. This means that, if, on average,
illegal immigrants pay at least 38 percent as much taxes as
natives, they will be paying their own way.

Clark et al. (Table 6.2) estimate that the 2.8 percent of
the undocumented population in the seven states pays 1.3 percent
of the total of sales, income, and property taxes, or 1.3/2.8 =
46 percent as much taxes as natives. If--and there seems little
reason to estimate a higher or lower figure--the same proportion
holds for total taxes, then taxes paid by illegals more than
offset the costs of the services that they use. That is, the 46
percent of the average natives' inflow that immigrants pay in
taxes is a greater amount than the 38 percent of the average
natives' outlays on the illegals. And assuming that total U.S.
inflows balance total outlays, and that other public outlays on
account of illegals are not greater than for natives (indeed,
they surely are much less), illegals are more than paying their
own way and are contributing to the public coffers. If one were
to make any reasonable accounting for the low marginal
expenditures on public goods such as defense and foreign
activities in connection with illegals, the accounting would look
even more favorable for illegals.

EDIT: I see Donger just cited the same study.....I'll have to examine it more closely to see the distinction between immigrants and illegals they are making....

[Boozer]

Originally Posted by Mr. Kotter

I'm looking for the site, and the numbers...but I've gotta duck out for awhile.

Suffice it to say, we aren't just talking about income taxes here....and I'm talking about OVERALL costs for services given to illegals (as a group), compared to OVERALL revenues from all taxes paid by illegals. It's pretty clearly a net gain, according to the stuff I've seen.

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

I've just had a few minutes to glance through it, and here are some things I noticed:
1. The raw data does not identify which households were illegal and which weren't. The researchers used probabilities to estimate which households were illegal and which weren't. I'm no statistician, but I don't think this technique is totally off the wall. On the other hand, this report didn't appear in a peer-reviewed journal,* so there weren't other stats guys looking at it and approving of their methods.

2. The report attributes costs of citizen children to their illegal parents. This one's kind of a toss-up. Their costs are arguably the costs of illegal immigration, even if they're not the costs of illegal immigrants. Still, seems kinda weird to identify costs that citizens are entitled to as "illegal immigrant costs."

3. The report reaches its ultimate result by attributing the "overhead" portion of the federal budget (defense, highway funds, etc.) equally to all households. This is pretty weak, as at best, we're dealing with marginal costs here, not average costs. All 10 million or whatever illegals could disappear tomorrow and it wouldn't make our defense budget any smaller, and our highway expenditures wouldn't need to be lessened by 3%.

4. The report doesn't even try to determine secondary benefits of illegals on the federal budget. Higher profitability and therefore taxes on employers is the most obvious example.

5. Not so much a problem with the report, but some people use its figures to say "Illegals are a drain on the economy." No, supposing the report is accurate, they're a drain on the federal budget, not the economy. The relationship of the two is a little more complex than "budget deficit up, economy go down" that politicians (on either side of the aisle, when convenient) like to throw around.

It looks like the report basically takes the noncontroversial position that poor households are a net drain on the federal budget, and because we know X percent of poor households are illegal, we know that illegal households are a net drain on the federal budget.

*At least, I don't see any indication of that on the website.

[Boozer]

One more point:
The study used many upward adjustments to increase immigrant costs. Again, these could be valid statistical methods, but I don't think you can automatically assume that when it's produced by an interest group, rather than an independent researcher publishing in a peer reviewed journal.

[Mr. Kotter]

Originally Posted by jspchief

Considering there isn't a net gain from most low income families, regardless of legal status, I have serious doubts about any net gain from only a percentage of illegals.

I know there's stuff about how employers pay into SS for illegals that will never collect, but I seriously doubt it equates to a net gain across the board. And besides, I don't think that's the way we should be propping up our broken SS system anyway.

Those I've read and heard are adamant about the fact it's a net gain. I'll have to scrutinize their numbers more closely here as I dig into this...

I agree this isn't the solution to SS either--not even close. But I also wonder about a system that devalues wages in jobs the illegals are working, by ignoring the law, winking, and looking the other way....is that the way to go? At a minimum, wouldn't that suggest a major reform of guest worker programs? I just think we gotta come up with a long-term solution to this worsening problem.

[jspchief]

Originally Posted by Boozer

It looks like the report basically takes the noncontroversial position that poor households are a net drain on the federal budget, and because we know X percent of poor households are illegal, we know that illegal households are a net drain on the federal budget.

That's pretty much what I was trying to say when I doubted they were a net gain. Especially in the case of illegal hispanics, who are made up of mostly low income households.

Regardless, I don't see how people not paying taxes could possibly be better than people paying taxes.

Also, I don't know how recent those studies are, but I wonder if they take into account the amount of tax dollars that are now being spent on making everything bilingual. I know that schools in my area didn't have ESL teachers 10 years ago. I also know that things like the IRS publishing their forms in a second language has to have been an added expense for the government.