Amnesty: Do You Support It Or Deprecate It?

[David]

Amnesty:

Do you support granting amnesty to illegal immigrants in the United States? Why or why not?

[irishgrl]

I am against it for the reasons that the House stipulated, primarily it favors one so-called minority over all others by granting them citizenship by virtue of their ability to have evaded legal citizenship all this time. It is unconstitutional in that respect and I sincerely hope the House prevails.

I firmly believe our borders need more guard, if not outright closure. Many countries dont allow people in unless they can prove they have a place to live, a visible means of support, etc.

I also believe companies who exploit illegal labor should be fined so severely they will never think of repeating the offense.:nod:

[Rickypt]

Totally support it. These folks are here and better to legalize their status so they can be better integrated into our society and less exploited.

Our immigration laws discriminate against gays and lesbians by not giving their foreign partners immigrant status. I experienced this firsthand several years ago with my first boyfriend and it basically destroyed the relationship. At a minimum, amnesty will right that wrong.

It's way more than that, though. If people have been here illegally for some time, they have done so at a sacrifice. Constantly in fear of being deported, often refusing to access the healthcare system, don't report crimes. Many have left families behind as they seek work.

The whole idea that these are freeloaders coming for our so-called fabulous social benefits is a load of crap, in my opinion.

[sparky]

I think it is a disaster, and am furious that the senate passed this. There are already laws about immigration and they are not enforced. Does our country essentially want and need slave labor ? Clearly. Are other laws just tossed aside when the problem is too big to fix ? Nope. Los Angeles has changed dramatically since I have been here, and mostly it has gotten worse. It is dirtier, the traffic is apocalyptic, and the health care system is in free fall. Illegal immigration has contributed mightily to the slide of this city. I think it is the friggin fall of Rome.

[irishgrl]

Totally support it. These folks are here and better to legalize their status so they can be better integrated into our society and less exploited.

Our immigration laws discriminate against gays and lesbians by not giving their foreign partners immigrant status. I experienced this firsthand several years ago with my first boyfriend and it basically destroyed the relationship. At a minimum, amnesty will right that wrong.

It's way more than that, though. If people have been here illegally for some time, they have done so at a sacrifice. Constantly in fear of being deported, often refusing to access the healthcare system, don't report crimes. Many have left families behind as they seek work.

The whole idea that these are freeloaders coming for our so-called fabulous social benefits is a load of crap, in my opinion.

if you worked in Social Services, as I do, you'd know better. The majority of the hispanic applicants are undocumente/illegal aliens. they still qualify for some aid because of their children and they benefit as a result. in addition, there are programs like CAPI that assist illegals. Thats taxpayer dollars that could have been better spent to help with the huge homelessness problem for instance.

In addition a form of Amnesty was offered 20 years ago (1986) and all it did was exacerbate the problem!
Amnesty is basically a green light for MORE people to come across the border!! Absolutely a mistake!!

[BTFLCHLD]

Are other laws just tossed aside when the problem is too big to fix ? Much like that insurance reform bullchit?

IMO I have no opinion. :D

No, seriously, if you want to be in this country one had best be born here or legally have gained the right to live here prior to entry.

What about the Oregon coast? I watched a documentary on that. One man patrolling hundreds of beach miles!

Edit: ____________

[Rickypt]

if you worked in Social Services, as I do, you'd know better. The majority of the hispanic applicants are undocumente/illegal aliens. they still qualify for some aid because of their children and they benefit as a result. in addition, there are programs like CAPI that assist illegals. Thats taxpayer dollars that could have been better spent to help with the huge homelessness problem for instance.

In addition a form of Amnesty was offered 20 years ago (give or take a year) and all it did was exacerbate the problem!
Amnesty is basically a green light for MORE people to come across the border!! Absolutely a mistake!!

Don't tell me about knowing better.

If you worked in HIV/health care, you would see women who came here to make a better life for their kids, but are afraid to access the healthcare system, and presented at the hospital with full-blown AIDS. You know nothing about their lives.

The reason homelessness doesn't get the money it deserves is NOT because of the undocumented. That is right wing talk show radio propaganda. I didn't say that the undocumented don't get social benefits. I said that those who claim the reason they come to this country is because of our supposedly fantastic social benefits are wrong.

They come here to help their families. They work harder than anyone here on this board who has the luxury of owning a computer and posting during their coffee break, if not all day long at work.

They are not the problem in this country, and I think it is shameful that people are falling into the neo-con trap of finding a scapegoat. Two years ago it was queers who want to get married, this year it is "illegals".

You are wrong--amnesty from 20 years ago caused absolutely no problem. I know several people who are now functioning, productive residents because of that law. It is all smoke and mirrors.

[Rickypt]

and the health care system is in free fall. .

You think that's because of illegal immigration? :laugh:

[Rickypt]

Are other laws just tossed aside when the problem is too big to fix ? Nope.

Not tossed aside. Amended. It happens all the time.

[irishgrl]

Don't tell me about knowing better.

If you worked in HIV/health care, you would see women who came here to make a better life for their kids, but are afraid to access the healthcare system, and presented at the hospital with full-blown AIDS. You know nothing about their lives.

The reason homelessness doesn't get the money it deserves is NOT because of the undocumented. That is right wing talk show radio propaganda. I didn't say that the undocumented don't get social benefits. I said that those who claim the reason they come to this country is because of our supposedly fantastic social benefits are wrong.

They come here to help their families. They work harder than anyone here on this board who has the luxury of owning a computer and posting during their coffee break, if not all day long at work.

They are not the problem in this country, and I think it is shameful that people are falling into the neo-con trap of finding a scapegoat. Two years ago it was queers who want to get married, this year it is "illegals".

You are wrong--amnesty from 20 years ago caused absolutely no problem. I know several people who are now functioning, productive residents because of that law. It is all smoke and mirrors.

I beg to differ! here is a small blurb from Wikipedia:

Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

For information on International Railway of Central America (IRCA), see Rail transport in Guatemala.

The Immigration Reform and Control Act ('Simpson-Mazzoli Act, IRCA, Pub. L. 99-603, Nov. 6, 1986, 100 Stat. 3359) is an American law that was created in order to stop illegal immigration from Mexico, which were seen as a threat to the economy.

There were a great deal of immigrants in the United States at the time who were either illlegal or unemployed. The law criminalized the act of knowingly hiring an undocumented worker and established financial and other penalties for those employing illegal aliens, because it was thought that not as many people would be attracted to enter the U.S. illegally if the prospects for employment were low. A one-year amnesty program for illegal aliens who had already worked and lived in the U.S. since January 1982 was established. Those eligible could apply for regularization of status and eventually full citizenship. The law also mandated the intensification of Border Patrol activities including the auditing of employer I-9 forms. Over 2.7 million illegal aliens and others not qualifying for visas were legalized under the 1986 IRCA amnesty. This piece of legislation is frequently cited by opponents of illegal immigration as a failure in that for each illegal alien amnestied under the plan, approximately four new ones have since replaced them. Hence, these critics point to the IRCA of 1986 as proof in their view that amnesty is not the solution for the large number of illegal aliens currently in the United States.

while no one knows the true numbers, illegal immigrants number in the double-digit MILLIONS:
As the U.S. Congress grapples with controlling illegal immigration, the actual number of illegal immigrants in the country is a wide-ranging mystery. As of 2003, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services put the number at 7 million, and say the number has grown by as much as 500,000 a year since. But the U.S. Border Patrol union Local 2544 in Tucson, says the total number of illegal immigrants in the United States is somewhere between 12 million and 15 million, the Christian Science Monitor reported Tuesday.
The mostly widely quoted figure comes from the Pew Hispanic Center, a non-partisan research organization in Washington, that estimates 11.5 million to 12 million "unauthorized migrants" live in the United States today.
A 2005 report by Bear Stearns Asset Management Inc. in New York said that's too low, and estimates there may be as many as 20 million illegal immigrants, based on the amounts of money being sent home. "Between 1995 and 2003, the official tally of Mexicans has climbed 56 percent, and median weekly wage has increased by 10 percent," the researchers found. "Yet total remittances jumped 199 percent over the same period."

for anyone who cares, here is a site that analyzes the numbers:
Number of illegal aliens in the US (http://www.theamericanresistance.com/ref/illegal_alien_numbers.html)
and another:
Amnesty is not the solution (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1627786/posts)

Ryan, this isnt an aids/hiv issue! its an issue of ILLEGAL ALIENS staying here and accessing benefits they arent entitled to, and clogging up a system that is already clogged up! Your whole premise seems to revolve around HIV/AIDS and that is quite apart from the illegal alien problem. How you can even tie the two together is beyond me! And YES the problem WAS exacerbated when amnesty was offered 20 years ago--it just signalled to others that it was OK if you didnt have a green card/visa/alien card come on in anyway, if you stay here long enough with a fake ID you can eventually be a citizen! and if you lived in CA then you'd KNOW how bad it is!

Anyone who knows me knows Im as far away from right wing as you can get. But lets face it, this country is FULL! there is a breaking point and our borders have been porous for far too long. I think we need stricter security and fences and patrols, and we need to prosecute and deport any illegals that we find here. period. You dont have to like it but the fact remains, they are ILLEGAL and shouldnt be here

[irishgrl]

You think that's because of illegal immigration? :laugh:

you think it isnt? what about all the mexican women that come over the border to have their babies in California hospitals because they know the care is better? All those doctors/nurses/supplies used for people that dont even live here/shouldnt be here!

here is an interesting article from a LEGAL Immigrant:
Illegal Immigration Costs California $10.5 Billion Annually
Tony Dolz

Immigration and its consequences has become a serious concern for liberals, conservatives, environmentalists, the elderly who are dependent on affordable healthcare and families with school children. The “Mervin Field Poll” taken in September of 2005 indicates that 81% of Californians are concerned about the impact of illegal aliens on the State and that 49% are alarmed.

The overwhelming majority of Californians are now aware that the State's "cheap labor" costs the average household $1,183 a year. It is harder to put a cost on the “dumbing-down” of our schools to accommodate a massive number of non-English speakers, the closing of 60 Los Angeles County emergency rooms due to uninsured illegal aliens as reported by Dr. Madeleine Melner Cosman) , the clogging of our highways where thousands of drivers are illegal aliens, most driving without insurance; which makes uninsured motorist coverage more expensive. Can we put a price on the harm of over-population on the environment?

America and certainly California is addicted to cheap desperate labor, which is allowed to pour illegally through our broken borders. Unlike what most Americans believe, our border security relies on thousand of miles of mostly un-maintained rusted wires nailed to 4x4 stakes. This flimsy excuse for America’s border security in the post 9/11 era might be disgraceful, but it is not by accident. America turned a blind eye to the exploitation of desperate workers once before in its history when 10% of its population were slaves. Many free citizens before the Civil War would have picked cotton for a fair free-market wage, but not for a slave's wage. Before the Civil War, slave owners argued that without slavery, agriculture in the South would collapse. Following emancipation they were proven wrong. In a free marketplace, the price of all commodities, including labor, raise and fall under the influence of demand and supply until it reaches a fair and natural equilibrium. This is what we can call a “fair wage”.

Today, thanks to a cozy collaboration between some of our elected officials on one hand and on the other the unethical employers and criminal cartels that line our elected representative's pockets, our country is awash with illegal aliens that have been allowed to pour in by the millions through our broken borders. The numbers are staggering. The accounts range from 11 million to 20 million or more. No one can say for sure, because the government does not know who they are or where they are, or how many of them are criminals or potential terrorist – our government doesn't want to know! Why? Because, the drug cartels do a brisk 140 billion dollars per year while the traffickers in humans rack in 10 billions; and unethical employers and their lobbyist enrich our politicians campaign coffers unabashedly. Others who rather leave things as they are include the Feds that through the Internal Revenue Service pockets the taxes collected on 9 million bogus Social Security numbers. Among the usual suspects is the government of Mexico which relies on 17 billion dollars in remittances from illegal aliens (Mexico’s second larges source of income after oil) to bolster their economy. Naturally Mexico opposes any threat to a sizeable source of national income. The most despicable are the politicians who engorged themselves with contributions from employers of low-skilled cheap illegal workers in the likes of agriculture and construction and from unpatriotic employers of H1B visa high-skilled foreign worker who earn their way into our economy by paying Congress for their visas. Yes, our high paying technical jobs are for sale to foreigners who then work on the cheap for the likes of Microsoft Corp!

The number of illegal aliens already in the shadows of our cities, the kitchens of our restaurants, and our construction sites is not just huge, it is exploding. The under-funded Border Patrol arrests over 1.5 million aliens per year, but the most conservative estimates are that 2.5 million slip through annually and disappear among the now visible massive underclass. The numbers do not swell just on account of those that violate our borders. This illegal cheap–labor underclass burdens our healthcare system giving birth to hundreds of thousands of anchor babies, who automatically become United States citizens. Los Angeles County spent $340 million to treat the uninsured – roughly $1,000 for every taxpayer – while illegal immigrants receive medical treatment for free. Even if both parents are in the country illegally many in our government believe that the 14th Amendment gives their United State born children automatic citizenship – some legal authorities dispute that right. To put the automatic citizenship provision of the 14th Amendment in context, the United States born children of foreign diplomats legally residing in the United States are NOT granted automatic United States citizenship, so why should law-breakers avoiding detection and apprehension by illegal and mischievous means be given special treatment? Anchor babies are the illegal alien's most obvious ticket to the tax-payer footed social support services that cost us billions of dollars. (Which is exactly what I said.)

A new study from the Center for Immigration Studies is one of the first to estimate the impact of illegal immigration on the federal budget. Based on Census Bureau data, the study estimates that households headed by illegal aliens used $10 billion more in government services than they paid in taxes in 2002. These figures are only for the federal government; costs at the state and local level are also likely to be significant. Among the largest federal costs: Medicaid ($2.5 billion); treatment for the uninsured ($2.2 billion); food assistance programs ($1.9 billion); the federal prison and court systems ($1.6 billion); and federal aid to schools ($1.4 billion). The study also finds that if illegals were given amnesty, the fiscal deficit at the federal level would grow to nearly $29 billion. The estimated cost for the State of California alone is 10.5 billion dollars or $1183 per household. The breakdown includes $7.7 billion a year to school the children of illegal aliens; $1.4 billion toward providing health care and $1.4 billion is spent incarcerating illegal aliens criminals.

On December 16th the House of Representatives passed HB 4437 which is a good attempt at putting an end to the real cost of the proverbial “cheap” illegal alien picked tomatoes. The debate on border security and immigration law enforcement will pass on to the Senate in mid February. The Senate seems bent on granting guest-worker-amnesty to 15 to 20 million illegal aliens so that crooked employers do not loose a single day of labor from their present day illegal alien worker force.

There comes a time when having an opinion is not enough, there is a time when incessantly demanding accountability from our elected representatives is not enough. I personally arrived at that point. On December 30 I filed to run for California State 41st Assembly District, which includes the cities of Santa Monica, Malibu, Malibu Heights, Topanga, Westlake Village, Agoura, Agoura Hills, Hidden Hills and Calabasas.

I am a foreign born Hispanic legal immigrant who attained naturalized citizenship through the legal process. Like most Americans, I favor legal immigration and oppose illegal immigration. Although I have compassion for the five billion people who live outside of the industrialized world who would like to live in California, I believe that the immigration process must be sustainable, orderly and in observance of the law. I will work diligently to ensure that the State of California collaborates with the Federal Government in securing our borders and in enforcing immigration law. We must be especially vigilant that the corrupt politicians under pressure from crooked employers do not add betrayal to their failure to enforce the law. Make no mistake; guest-worker-amnesty is a betrayal. Lets not accept a Guest Worker-Amnesty Program for the 15 to 20 million foreigners who have already violated our borders and taken advantage of the tax-payers. Let the employers who are addicted to cheap labor pay living wages and medical insurance to Americans instead. The net result will be less congestion, lower taxes, living wages for both low-skill and technical workers, higher quality of education moving at a faster pace and in less crowded classrooms, better and lower-cost healthcare for the elderly and solvent hospitals.

Tony Dolz

Candidate for the State of California 41 st Assembly District
Tel. 310 371 7500
Fax 320 923 6566
Email [email protected]
Web www.dolz.com


Granted, this article is written by a political candidate, but he DOES use real numbers, not rhetoric. I dont know if he was elected or not (maybe in June?) but I hope he is!

[irishgrl]

Here's another article from the Center for Immigration Studies (http://www.cis.org/articles/1998/IR32/impact.html)

The Impact of Immigration on California
Summary and Analysis of Immigration in a Changing Economy: California's Experience

by Steven A. Camarota

Immigration Review #32
Summer 1998

Earlier this year, Rand released an extensive new study on immigration's impact on California. The report, authored by Kevin F. McCarthy and Georges Vernez, contains both new research as well as information drawn from several recent monographs published by Rand and concludes that immigration has both positive and negative effects on the states economy. The authors specifically do not explore the potential impact of immigrant-induced population growth on the environment or the general quality of life in the state. This article examines the report's findings, which include:

*

Immigration to California in the last three decades has been extraordinary. By the mid-1990s, California's eight million immigrants represented one in four state residents and fully one-third of all immigrants in the United States.

*

Of the 16-percentage-point advantage in the creation of jobs California enjoyed in the 1980s over the rest of the nation, two percentage points can be attributed to immigration; however, few of these jobs went to natives; overall, in fact, immigration reduces job opportunities for natives.

*

Immigration in the 1970s lowered the wages of high school dropouts by between 10 and 16 percent annually ($2,250 to $3,800) and, in the 1980s, immigration primarily affected employment, with between 128,000 and 195,000 natives in California either unemployed or withdrawn from the labor force because of immigration.

*

Immigration is increasingly out of step with the needs of the state's economy. Few if any new jobs are created that require only a high school degree or less, yet most immigrants are either high school dropouts or have a high school education.

*

Immigrants as a group do not pay enough in taxes to cover their consumption of public services, though the size of the impact is undetermined and varies considerably by country of origin, education level, and admission category.

*

The authors suggest reducing immigration to the United States to between 300,000 and 800,000 annually and selecting more immigrants based on needed skills and fewer based on family relationships.

Demographic Effects

As the report makes clear, immigration to California in recent years has been unprecedented. Between 1960 and 1995, the number of immigrants living in the state increased six-fold, from 1.3 million to eight million, and tripled as a percentage of the state's population, from 8.2 percent to 24.1 percent. Relative to the rest of the country, growth in California's immigrant population has been just as dramatic. In 1960, California had 8.8 percent of the nation's total population and was home to 13.9 percent of its immigrants. By 1995, California accounted for 12.1 percent of the country's population and 32.7 percent of the nation's immigrants.

The high concentration of immigrants in California makes the state unique: Immigrants account for less than five percent of the population in 33 states. In addition to their high concentration, California's immigrants differ from the rest of the country in a number of important ways. Compared to immigrants in the rest of the country, California's 1995 immigrants had a much higher percentage of Mexican and Central Americans (50 percent in California vs. 23 percent nationwide), Asian immigrants (33 percent vs. 21 percent) illegal aliens (20 percent vs. 14 percent), amnesty recipients (19 percent vs. 7 percent), and refugees (9 percent vs. 6 percent). California's immigrants also had lower rates of naturalization (29 percent vs. 41 percent).

Not only has the level of immigration changed, there has also been a significant shift in the countries sending immigrants to the state. In the 1950s, half of California's immigrants came from either Canada or Europe and the majority of the remainder came from Mexico. By 1990, the number of European and Canadian immigrants had fallen dramatically, to less than 10 percent, and the number of immigrants from Mexico and Central America had climbed to well over half of the total. Additionally, California's share of Asian immigrants doubled and now accounts for 40 percent of new immigrants in the state. These trends have transformed California into the most racially and ethnically diverse state in the country, so that by the year 2000, if not already, no racial/ethnic group will constitute a majority.

Economic Effects

Table 1 (below) provides information about the educational level of immigrants and natives. It indicates that there is a sizable gap between the educational attainment of natives and that of immigrants both for the nation as a whole and for California, though the difference is much greater in California. Compared to immigrants in the rest of the country, California's immigrants are much more likely to lack a high school degree and have one year less of schooling on average.

http://www.cis.org/articles/1998/table32-1.gif

Table 1 also indicates that, while the educational level of both immigrants and natives has improved significantly since 1970, the increase has been more rapid for natives. As a result, the educational gap between immigrants and natives has grown more pronounced nationwide, almost entirely because of the relative deterioration in California. The larger educational gap in California is caused primarily by the high concentration of immigrants from Mexico and Central America, who tend to have much lower levels of educational attainment than other immigrant groups.

This high concentration of low-education immigrants in the state has supplied California's businesses with a large pool of unskilled labor. In addition, the authors found that California's immigrants earn lower wages than natives in almost all educational categories and occupations. This pattern contrasts sharply with the pattern observed nationally, where immigrant wages either exceed or roughly equal those of similarly skilled natives.

While the reasons for this disparity are not entirely clear, the report suggests that it is due to the younger age, lower English proficiency, and higher percentage of illegal aliens and immigrants educated abroad living in the state as well as increased competition among immigrants for jobs. The authors do not think that discrimination accounts for the difference because there is no systematic evidence that it is more prevalent in California and because surveys of employers generally find that immigrants are viewed as reliable and hard working. The authors conclude that employers' ability to pay immigrants less than natives coupled with the fact that there is no indication that immigrant labor is less productive than native labor, gives businesses in California a competitive advantage. The authors state: "Although the characteristics of immigrants have changed... the state's economy continues to benefit from immigration."

Based on a cross-industry comparison of the concentration of immigrants and job creation, the report estimates that, in the 1980s, about two percentage points of the 16 percentage point advantage that California enjoyed in employment growth was attributable to immigration. While the authors acknowledge that comparisons of this kind do not establish causality and the effect appears small, their analysis suggest that the arrival of immigrants in an industry is positively associated with growth.

This positive effect on job growth does not, however, seem to translate into more jobs or higher wages for native-born workers. In fact, the labor market opportunities available to less-educated natives are reduced by immigration. Thus, by "benefit" to the economy the authors mean that the immigrants and employers are better off. Native-born workers either are unaffected or are harmed by immigration.

The negative effect on native workers has varied over time and is dependent on education level. The report controls for a variety of factors and compares differences between California and the rest of the country. The authors conclude that, in the 1970s, the wages of native-born high school dropouts were between 10 and 16 percent lower ($2,250 to $3,800) in California because of immigration. In the 1980s, the negative effect primarily took the form of reduced job opportunities for natives, with perhaps 200,000 natives in the state either unemployed or withdrawn from the labor force because of immigration. Table 2 (see below) reports the job displacement effect of immigration on native workers using two different estimation methods. The study also concluded that the presence of immigrants does not negatively affect natives with a college degree and may actually improve the job prospects for this group.

The reason that immigration's effect on native workers was different in the 1970s and 1980s is not entirely clear. The most likely explanation is that there was higher overall employment growth in the 1970s than in the 1980s, allowing for easier incorporation of immigrants into the labor force — though wages for native-born dropouts declined significantly because of immigration. In the 1980s, wages declined for the less-educated for a number of reasons and, as a result, less-educated workers withdrew from the work force. Increased competition from immigrants exacerbated this trend.

The authors acknowledge that the estimates found in Table 2 probably understate the size of the impact of immigration. They point out that many less-educated natives either left the state or did not come to California because of immigrant competition, the same conclusion reached by the National Research Council in its report last year (see Immigration Review Nos. 29, 30, and 31). Thus, because it changes the internal migration patterns of natives, immigration alters the supply of labor throughout the country. As a result, the effect of immigration is likely to be felt nationally, not simply in areas of high immigration. The authors also concluded that African-Americans were more adversely affected by immigration than any other racial/ethnic group because they are more likely to be in the adversely affected educational categories and because employers may view immigrants as more desirable workers.

http://www.cis.org/articles/1998/IR32/table32-2.jpg

In addition to the reduction in labor market opportunities available to natives, the second economic problem identified in the study is that there is an increasing discongruity between the kinds of jobs being created in the state and the skills of entering immigrants. The number of jobs for persons with only a high school degree or less has held steady or declined in the last 20 years and immigrants have, in effect, been "back filling" less-skilled jobs as the number of natives doing such work has declined; however, this cannot continue indefinitely. Moreover, this process has caused a slow and steady "downskilling" of California's work force relative to the rest of the country. Whereas the state's work force was once more educated on average than the rest of the country, this advantage has now been entirely eliminated by immigration (see "California's Labor Force" on page 1).

In addition to expressing concern about the competitiveness of the state's economy, McCarthy and Vernez also point out that the low educational level of immigrants may adversely affect the social mobility of today's immigrants and perhaps their children. More than at any time in the past, earnings and employment are dependent on educational level. What's more, one of the best predictors of the future labor-market performance of children is the educational level of their parents. Immigration policy, therefore, may be setting the stage for large ethnic differentials in economic outcomes that could have important socio-economic and political implication for decades to come.

Fiscal Effects

The report does not contain any new research on the fiscal impact of immigration; instead, the chapter on the public sector summarizes the authors' previous study of the issue (Vernez and McCarthy, 1996), which explored the relevant questions and reviewed findings from a number of different studies. As in their earlier work, the authors conclude that there is no consensus regarding the budgetary consequences of immigration in California, as different studies have produced a wide range of estimates. The reason for the divergent findings stems from a number of factors: In many cases there is no agreement on how to estimate immigrant and native tax revenue and public service use from existing administrative and survey data. There is also a disagreement on whether to count public services, such as welfare, used by the U.S.-born minor children of immigrants as a cost attributable to immigration.

Despite a wide range of estimates from various studies, the authors draw a number of general observations. First, the average tax revenue from all residents, immigrant or native, is generally found not to equal average expenditures in the state. This is because not all sources of revenue to state and local government are included in any of the studies. At both the state and local level, revenue from the federal government and from other sources such as the taxation of businesses are used to close this "deficit." Second, no matter how it is defined, the size of the deficit is larger in California for immigrants than it is for natives. Third, the deficit is larger for illegal aliens than for legal residents.

The authors also point out that the larger fiscal burden created by immigrants is explained almost entirely by educational and other socio-economic characteristics of immigrants and not by their immigrant status per se. In other words, immigrants create a burden on public coffers in California because they are less educated, hold lower paying jobs, and have larger families than natives. This means that they generally pay less in taxes and have a greater propensity to consume public services than natives. It is also clear that the large differences between immigrants from different countries is almost entirely due to differences in socio-economic characteristics.

Policy Recommendations

The authors make a number of policy recommendations in the final chapter of their report. Partly out of concern for less-skilled natives, the social mobility of immigrants, and the competitiveness of the California economy, the authors suggest increasing the number of immigrants admitted based on needed skills and admitting fewer based on family relationships. The authors do not provide much guidance on what specific changes should be made to immigration policy, nor do they provide a specific number, except to suggest that the annual level of immigration be set at between 300,000 and 800,000. The authors also suggest several other changes, including: special treatment for Mexico, establishing specific programs designed to facilitate the incorporation of immigrants, and more flexibility in immigration policy to meet changing circumstances. While the authors acknowledge that illegal immigration is a significant problem, both for economic and non-economic reasons, the report contains no new suggestions on how to deal with this issue.

Conclusion

Immigration in a Changing Economy is clearly an important work. Though at times the narrative tends to be more positive than the data warrant, the report provides the most detailed picture of California's immigrant population produced to date. Moreover, their general observation that immigration should not be seen as inherently positive or negative, but instead that its effects are dependent on the volume and characteristics of the immigrants, is unassailable. Anyone seeking to better understand the implications of immigration for California, the largest and most important state in the country, would do well to read this book.

— Steven Camarota

To obtain a copy of Immigration in a Changing Economy: California's Experience, contact Rand at (310) 451-7002 or http://www.rand.org The cost is $20.

[irishgrl]

Yet another article by the Center for Immigration Studies (http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalrelease.html):

The Costs of Illegal Immigration
Illegals Cost Feds $10 Billion a Year; Amnesty Would Nearly Triple Cost

Read the Report

WASHINGTON (August 25, 2004) — A new study from the Center for Immigration Studies is one of the first to estimate the impact of illegal immigration on the federal budget. Based on Census Bureau data, the study estimates that households headed by illegal aliens used $10 billion more in government services than they paid in taxes in 2002. These figures are only for the federal government; costs at the state and local level are also likely to be significant. The study also finds that if illegals were given amnesty, the fiscal deficit at the federal level would grow to nearly $29 billion.

Among the findings:

*

Illegal alien households are estimated to use $2,700 a year more in services than they pay in taxes, creating a total fiscal burden of nearly $10.4 billion on the federal budget in 2002.
*

Among the largest federal costs: Medicaid ($2.5 billion); treatment for the uninsured ($2.2 billion); food assistance programs ($1.9 billion); the federal prison and court systems ($1.6 billion); and federal aid to schools ($1.4 billion).
*

If illegal aliens were legalized and began to pay taxes and use services like legal immigrants with the same education levels, the estimated annual fiscal deficit at the federal level would increase from $2,700 per household to nearly $7,700, for a total federal deficit of $29 billion.
*

With nearly two-third of illegals lacking a high school diploma, the primary reason they create a fiscal deficit is their low education levels and resulting low incomes and tax payments — not their legal status or their unwillingness to work.
*

Amnesty increases costs because illegals would still be largely unskilled, and thus their tax payments would continue to be very modest, but once legalized they would be able to access many more government services.
*

The fact that legal immigrants with little schooling are a fiscal drain on federal coffers does not mean that legal immigrants overall are a drain. Many legal immigrants are highly skilled.
*

Because many of the costs are due to their U.S.-born children, who are awarded U.S. citizenship at birth, barring illegals themselves from federal programs will not significantly reduce costs.
*

Although they create a net drain on the federal government, the average illegal household pays more than $4,200 a year in federal taxes, for a total of nearly $16 billion.
*

However, they impose annual costs of more than $26.3 billion, or about $6,950 per illegal household.
*

About 43 percent, or $7 billion, of the federal taxes illegals pay go to Social Security and Medicare.
*

Employers do not see the costs associated with less-educated immigrant workers because the costs are spread out among all taxpayers.

Why Legalization Is So Costly. Costs rise unavoidably because amnesty will not change the low education levels of illegal aliens or the fact that the American economy offers such workers very limited opportunities, regardless of legal status. The vast majority of illegal aliens will continue to have very low incomes, and make very modest tax payments. However, legal status would allow them to use many more programs. We know that costs would rise dramatically because legal immigrants with the same levels of education make extensive use of public services. Thus, even though we estimate that average tax payments would rise by 77 percent, we also find that costs would rise 117 percent. To understand why this happens, it is helpful to consider a program like the Earned Income Tax Credit, which pays cash to low-income workers. Illegals currently account for only 1.5 percent of the program’s total costs, but if they were legalized their use of the program would grow tenfold because with legal status they would no longer need stolen or bogus Social Security numbers to get the credit. This dramatic rise in costs is not due to laziness on the part of immigrants. In fact, only those who work receive the EITC. The dramatic rise in costs simply reflects the low educational attainment of illegals and their resulting low incomes.

If Illegals Stay, So Will the Costs. To the extent that policy makers have considered the fiscal costs of illegal immigration, they have generally tried to reduce the costs while allowing illegals to remain. But this strategy has not been effective because the average illegal already receives less than half as much in services from the federal government as do other households. Moreover, many of the costs are due to their U.S.-born children, who are awarded American citizenship at birth under current law. Other programs are simply too politically sensitive to cut, such as the Women, Infants and Children nutrition program. And others costs are unavoidable, such as incarcerating illegals who have been convicted of crimes. Conversely, enforcing immigration laws is both popular with voters and administratively more feasible. There are really only two options: either we begin to enforce the law, significantly reducing the number of illegals in the country, or we accept the costs created by the presence of a large pool of unskilled workers.

Results Similar to Other Studies. A 1997 report by the National Research Council (NRC) on the fiscal impact of immigrants concluded that education levels and resulting income are the primary determinants of tax payments and service use, which is also a central finding of this report. The results of this study closely match the findings of a 1998 Urban Institute study. Our estimated average tax payment for illegal households in New York State is almost identical to that of the Urban Institute, when adjusted for inflation. The results of this study are also buttressed by an analysis of illegal alien tax returns done by the Inspector General’s Office of the Department of Treasury in 2004, which found that about half had no federal income tax liability, very similar to our findings of 45 percent.

The panel discussion is open to the public. For more information, contact Steven Camarota at (202) 466-8185 or [email protected].

[irishgrl]

back to the issue of Amnesty, here are Senator Chuck Hagel's proposed fixes to what he identifies as flaws with the Senate Bill (obviously, the Senate didnt heed him, more's the pity):

GRASSLEY UNVEILS TOP 10 FLAWS WITH AMNESTY AND GUEST
WORKER OF COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM BILL


WASHINGTON --- Sen. Chuck Grassley today said the immigration reform bill being debated in the U.S. Senate is riddled with loopholes and flaws. During a speech on the Senate floor, he outlined for the American people nearly 30 flaws within only two sections of the bill.



“I was burned once in 1986 when I voted for amnesty believing that it would solve our problems. Now, we have a 12 million illegal immigrant problem. I’m not getting burned again,” Grassley said. “Not only do we have a glide path to citizenship, but it’s a glide path with plenty of loopholes that don’t meet the common sense test.” Grassley has a number of amendments that would help fix the shortcomings in the bill. It’s expected that debate on the bill will conclude this week.

Here is a list of Grassley’s “Top 10.”



1. $2,000 Fine -- Under the bill, an illegal alien can go from illegal to legal by paying a small fine of $2,000. Often, illegal aliens will pay more than five times this amount to a smuggler to get across the border. Also, the $2000 fine may not have to be paid until year eight, which allows the illegal alien to live, work, and play in the United States for years free from deportation. This imposes a financial burden on the American taxpayer for health, education, and infrastructure costs that aren’t reimbursed for five or ten years.

2. Taxes -- Under the bill, illegal aliens get an option to only have to pay three of their last five years in back taxes. Law-abiding American citizens do not have the option to pay some of their taxes. The bill would treat lawbreakers better than the American people. The bill also makes the IRS prove that illegal aliens have paid their back taxes. It will be impossible for the IRS to truly enforce this because they cannot audit every single person in this country.

3. Security Clearances in 90 days – Under the bill, the Department of Homeland Security must perform background checks on illegal aliens in the United States. It also encourages the federal government to complete the background checks on 10 million illegal aliens in 90 days. This is a national security concern because Homeland Security will be pressured to complete these checks without doing a thorough job.

4. Work Requirements – Under the bill, illegal aliens must prove they’ve worked in the United States for three of the last five years. It also says they have to work for six years after the date of enactment of the bill. However, there is no continuous work requirement for amnesty. They could work for 30 days, take off 30 days, work for 30 days. The bill also says that illegal aliens have to prove that they’ve worked in the United States for three of the last five years by showing IRS or Social Security records, or records maintained by federal, state, or local governments, employers, unions or day labor centers. However, the bill also allows illegal aliens to ask anybody to attest that they have been employed. This invites fraud, and the government cannot realistically investigate all these cases.

5. Confidentiality – Under the bill, if an illegal alien applies for amnesty, the federal government cannot use information provided in the application for anything but adjudicating the petition. For example, if illegal aliens write in their applications that they are related to Osama Bin Laden, then our government cannot use that information. In fact, it says that the Secretary of Homeland Security can only share that information if someone requests it in writing. This provision severely handicaps national security and criminal investigators. Also, if a federal agent does use information provided by an illegal alien in an application for amnesty the agent would be fined $10,000. This is five times more than the alien has to pay to get amnesty.

6. Social Security to illegal aliens -- Under the bill, illegal aliens are not prohibited from getting credit for the money they’ve put into the Social Security system if they’ve worked in the U.S. illegally. Illegal immigrants who paid Social Security taxes using a stolen Social Security Number did not do so with the expectation that they would ever qualify for Social Security benefits. (The Ensign amendment would have taken care of this, but it did not pass.)

7. Employers get a tax pardon for hiring illegal aliens -- Under the bill, employers of aliens applying for adjustment of status “shall not be subject to civil and criminal tax liability relating directly to the employment of such alien.” Businesses that hired illegal workers would now get off scott-free from paying the taxes that they owe the government. This encourages employers to violate our tax laws and not pay what they owe the federal government. In addition to not having to pay their taxes, employers are also off the hook for providing illegal aliens with records or evidence that they have worked in the U.S. The employer is not subject to civil and criminal liability for having employed illegal aliens in the past, or before enactment.

8. Family Members of H-2C Visa Holder need not be healthy -- Under the bill, spouses and children of H-2C visa holders are exempt from a requirement proving that they meet certain health standards. The visa holder is required to undergo a medical exam, but their family members are not which potentially puts Americans at risk.

9. Mandatory Departure isn’t really Mandatory -- Under the bill, the Secretary of Homeland Security “may grant” Deferred Mandatory Departure to illegal aliens in the 2-5 year category. The Secretary “may” also waive the departure requirement if it would create substantial hardship for the alien to leave.

10. No Interview Required. – Under the bill, illegal aliens in the 2nd tier who are required to leave the country can re-enter the United States on a visa. However, the bill does not require these individuals to be interviewed. The bill doesn’t give discretion to our consular offices to require an interview. The 9/11 hijackers weren’t subject to appear in person. Today, the State Department requires most applicants to submit to interviews, and waives them only for children and the elderly.

------------------------------------
I personally think the Senate goofed. I hope the House manages to eliminate this "guest worker" program, does away with amnesty, tightens border security and severely penalizes companies who hire illegal labor.

[JazmenFlowers]

geez, this is such a sensitive topic for me as well. I have mixed feelings both on Rickypt's side and irishgrl's side with a little bit of sparky thrown in. so, I can't really make a definitive decision. at this point I do not support it for the reasons irishgrl pointed out, specifically the fact that it would allow those who broke the law and have fallen through the cracks to be pardoned...um, no...

I also agree that we should control our borders more and screw making those that are already here feel comfortable. sorry, we have legal citizens that need help and need the assistance the illegal aliens are looking to receive.

They come here to help their families. They work harder than anyone here on this board who has the luxury of owning a computer and posting during their coffee break, if not all day long at work.
I don't think this is entirely true and certainly don't appreciate the assumption that it insinuates.

and I don't think it's accurate to compare this to the fight for equality...by a long shot.

[irishgrl]

geez, this is such a sensitive topic for me as well. I have mixed feelings both on Rickypt's side and irishgrl's side with a little bit of sparky thrown in. so, I can't really make a definitive decision. at this point I do not support it for the reasons irishgrl pointed out, specifically the fact that it would allow those who broke the law and have fallen through the cracks to be pardoned...um, no...

I also agree that we should control our borders more and screw making those that are already here feel comfortable. sorry, we have legal citizens that need help and need the assistance the illegal aliens are receiving now.


I don't think this is entirely true and certainly don't appreciate the assumption that it insinuates.

and I don't think it's accurate to compare this to the fight for equality...by a long shot.


I just want to point out that I have major amounts of sympathy for GLBT issues, and HIV/AIDS related concerns. I dont want anyone to suffer this horrible disease, or be discriminated against because of sexual preference.

but that, IMO, is completely separate from using tax dollars to feed/clothe/house/support ILLEGALS. "Anchor babies" are a bad bad precedent, and very stupid fiscal policy. I could name more examples, but I'll take pity on y'all and refrain :D

[skcin]

My dad escaped from a communist country in late 1962, and spent 6 months in a refugee camp in Greece. He probably could have escaped from the camp, stowed away on a boat & come over to the U.S. right away if he wanted to. BUT he waited until he was legally able to come to the U.S. He got off the boat in 1963, the very day President Kennedy was assassinated.

Years later, my half brother & his family decided to move here. They had been professional dancers for years, travelling the world. They could have come here & stayed illegally dozens of times. But they didn't. They waited patiently, and it took over 3 years for the U.S. government to approve their immigrating here. They worked full time, put the kids in school & built a beautiful life here. LEGALLY.

Now, to hear people say everyone should automatically be given amnesty if they come to the U.S. is appalling to me. My dad didn't have much money, but he saved up & paid his way here. My family paid for my brother & fam to come here, and my dad eventually went broke in part because if it. Why should they have had to wait for approval, and pay their way, and pay taxes & medical insurance, when everyone else is just walking in and getting these things for free? Sorry, but no.

[chiliD]

I think the way to solve the problem is to just ANNEX Mexico...we have the people, now we want the real estate.

[jannieC]

I have a hard time with this, because whenever I talk about it, I feel as though I'm coming across as some big racist a$$hole. But I have such a major problem with illegal people in our country. I completely understand the need to get out of where they are, but to do it illegally, IMO, is just wrong. (irishgrl- you have given me SO much reading material- which I thank you for- I'm still recovering from my surgery).

I guess I have a crappy attitude, but I think if you want to live in this country, you need to do so legally, learn our language, and pay taxes. I do not think it makes sense to legalize the ones who are already here, just because they're already here. That's like saying that since they got away with it already- it's okay. But then what happens to the American born children of the illegal citizens?

[bretonbanquet]

There is talk of a similar amnesty for illegal immigrants here in the UK, where it is also a big issue. Lots of people conclude that an amnesty would be a real hand in the face for all those immigrants who settled legally - if you're going to have an amnesty every few years, there is absolutely no incentive for people to go through the proper channels.

Furthermore, if there is an amnesty every few years, there is just no point whatsoever in having immgration laws in the first place. You might as well have an open door policy for anyone who wants to come over, since in effect, that is what repeated amnesties create.

If you live in a country that attracts immigrants, then either you have immigration law or you don't. If you don't, then fine. If you do, you really have to enforce it, or the whole thing is just a very expensive waste of time, which winds up being of no benefit to anyone.

I was in a part of North London today where you don't really hear English spoken, and which resembles a sort of generic third world country. But it's a fact of life, and you have to accept it. They make their arrangements and the rest of us make ours. For now, it basically works. Is it good or bad? God knows, but it exists and it will undoubtedly continue to do so.

[sparky]

You think that's because of illegal immigration? :laugh:

I have a few friends who work in emergency rooms here and guess what ? An enormous number of illegals come through and they CAN'T TURN THEM AWAY.
Guess who pays for that ? How many hospitals have closed this past few years in California ?
I forget how many billion this costs a year, but it certainly isn't helping. I think the feds should come down on them like a ton of bricks. Every other civilized country has immigration laws that make ours look like a joke. And ours are a joke. Coming to this country should be a privilege. You should actually have something of value to bring to the table. Take a look at the immigration laws in Mexico. That country is a shambles, and it is extremely difficult to move there. Here? Just walk over. Climb in the trunk of a car. Stay here and then we'll forgive you. Pitiful.

[amber]

I think the way to solve the problem is to just ANNEX Mexico...we have the people, now we want the real estate.

:lol:

Now you're talking.

I might have to turn in my super liberal card, but I'm not too hot for immigration either. But I'm against human population growth in general. I want less people here overall, and less people here having kids. And I surely don't want people to move here illegally and then have billions of kids. However, if they are here, I don't want their children or them to be denied health care or education, because with poor and uneducated people comes crime. It's just generally bad for the whole country to have less educated people. So that is a quandry for me. A quandry which could probably be solved with stronger immigration law enforcement.

[cliffdweller]

:lol: But I'm against human population growth in general.

Me too. If everyone stopped having babies right now MAYBE our earth could survive a couple hundred more years :rolleyes:. Over population is killing this planet. For the love of all that's holy, STOP BREEDING!! :laugh: :nod:

[jannieC]

Me too. If everyone stopped having babies right now MAYBE our earth could survive a couple hundred more years :rolleyes:. Over population is killing this planet. For the love of all that's holy, STOP BREEDING!! :laugh: :nod:
Infertiles like me help in this area. ;)

[cliffdweller]

Infertiles like me help in this area. ;)

And pedophobes like me! :laugh:

[Rickypt]

Sorry if my posts last night were snarky. This is an emotional issue for me and pushes my buttons. Better for me to stay out of this thread. There are very few people "in the middle" on this one.

[skcin]

Sorry if my posts last night were snarky. This is an emotional issue for me and pushes my buttons. Better for me to stay out of this thread. There are very few people "in the middle" on this one.


Nothing wrong with having an opinion, different POV, whatever. I don't think you were being snarky at all.

[JazmenFlowers]

Nothing wrong with having an opinion, different POV, whatever. I don't think you were being snarky at all.
I was about to say the same thing.

In fact, differing opinions can open up a whole side of an issue that one may have never thought about before...so, as long as it's as constructive as possible, it's a good thing.

[estranged4life]

I received today:

"Cheap Labor"

"Isn't that what the whole immigration issue is about?

Business don't want to pay a decent wage, consumers don't want expensive produce, Government will tell you Americans don't want the jobs but the bottom line is cheap labor.

"The phrase "cheap labor" is a myth, a farce, and a lie.
There is no such thing as "cheap labor."

Take, for example, an illegal Mexican who sneaks in here with his
wife and five children. He takes a job for five or six dollars an hour.

At that wage with six dependents he pays no income tax, yet at the
end of the year if he files income tax he gets an earned income
credit" of up to $3,200 free.

He qualifies for Section 8 housing and subsidized rent, He qualifies for food stamps. He qualifies for free (no deductible, no co-pay) health care. His children get free breakfasts and lunches at school. He requires bilingual teachers and books. He qualifies for relief from high energy bills.

If they are or become, aged, blind or disabled they qualify for
SSI. Once qualified for SSI they can qualify for Medicare. All of this
is at that taxpayers expense.

He doesn't have to worry about car insurance, life insurance, or
homeowners insurance. Taxpayers provide Spanish language signs, bulletins and printed material.

He cannot be fired, harassed, or sued. He and his family receive the equivalent of $20 to $30 an hour in benefits.

Working Americans are lucky to have $5 or $6 an hour left after
paying their bills and his. They also pay for increased crime, graffiti, and trash cleanup.

Cheap labor? YEAH RIGHT!"

[JazmenFlowers]

I received today:
very interesting read for sure. can't say I agree with everything 100%, but it does suck to make, say $3000 a check and only bring home $2300. that stings. big time. and then to see folks I know for a fact don't make nearly what I make or have an education living at home driving an Escalade or a Tahoe Z71 burns my grits.

[sparky]

I received today:



Dude, I must have a toaster oven around here I can send you.:blob2:

[Rickypt]

I don't think this is entirely true and certainly don't appreciate the assumption that it insinuates.

Right, this is what I meant about my snarkiness. It was an unnecessary comment on my part. I'd like to blame the pre-posting cosmos, but I'll take responsibility.

and I don't think it's accurate to compare this to the fight for equality...by a long shot.

I wasn't trying to make an equal comparison. I was trying to describe what I see as horrible flaws in our immigration policies and how I think amnesty can address some of them, even if temporarily.

The HIV example I used (which is all too real) was trying to say that on one hand people think undocumented come here to take advantage of our social/medical benefits, but the reality is that many don't even try to access healthcare or benefits because they are afraid of being "caught" and deported. Fact is, even a "legal" immigrant can't get Medicaid until 5 years after coming here.

I just don't think "illegals" (I hate that word) can or should be lumped together as freeloaders or causing all the problems in this country. And I think they have become this year's scapegoat. Not by people on this board, necessarily, but by politicians.

It's not like the immigration problem is any worse this year than the past few years, but suddenly it has become this urgent problem that must be addressed in a sweeping reform bill. I didn't see a lot of major concern with the issue in the late 90's when the economy was doing well. If amnesty in the 80's was such a horrible mistake, then why wasn't there such noise being made about it several years ago?

I deal with a lot of undocumented people in my work and simply from living in San Francisco. Mainly Chinese and Mexican. I admire them; they take care of their families, work hard, and add to the culture and flavor of the city. They never would be able to immigrate here legally under current rules and law. If I thought this Congress would come up with fair immigration reform that would allow for significant numbers of people to come legally from these countries, then I might think differently about amnesty. That'll never happen, though, so I think acknowleding that these folks are here and integrating them into our society is the best way to go.

[estranged4life]

Dude, I must have a toaster oven around here I can send you.:blob2:

whatever ya mean by that...I have a workin' oven so no, But thanks for asking!

Btw, Now that I think about it I have dual citizenship-US Citizen & the Cherokee Nation...One works & the other is broken beyond abso-tive repair, Wanna guess which is which?

[sparky]

whatever ya mean by that...I have a workin' oven so no, But thanks for asking!

Just an offer of a prize and an indication of the pleasure the post gave me.

[estranged4life]

Just an offer of a prize and an indication of the pleasure the post gave me.

that is what I figured ya meant.

[BTFLCHLD]

Right, this is what I meant about my snarkiness. It was an unnecessary comment on my part. I'd like to blame the pre-posting cosmos, but I'll take responsibility. Off topic...but this is really cool for you to take responsbility for your posts...I like that a lot. Mucho respect for you! ;)

Mucho?! I never say that! :shocked:

[sparky]

that is what I figured ya meant.

Not to threadjack, but BTW I was in OKC last fri-tues for a big gay rodeo. I am sure people were scandalized.:laugh:

[Rickypt]

I received today:

"Cheap Labor"

"Isn't that what the whole immigration issue is about?

Business don't want to pay a decent wage, consumers don't want expensive produce, Government will tell you Americans don't want the jobs but the bottom line is cheap labor.

"The phrase "cheap labor" is a myth, a farce, and a lie.
There is no such thing as "cheap labor."

Take, for example, an illegal Mexican who sneaks in here with his
wife and five children. He takes a job for five or six dollars an hour.

At that wage with six dependents he pays no income tax, yet at the
end of the year if he files income tax he gets an earned income
credit" of up to $3,200 free.

He qualifies for Section 8 housing and subsidized rent, He qualifies for food stamps. He qualifies for free (no deductible, no co-pay) health care. His children get free breakfasts and lunches at school. He requires bilingual teachers and books. He qualifies for relief from high energy bills.

If they are or become, aged, blind or disabled they qualify for
SSI. Once qualified for SSI they can qualify for Medicare. All of this
is at that taxpayers expense.

He doesn't have to worry about car insurance, life insurance, or
homeowners insurance. Taxpayers provide Spanish language signs, bulletins and printed material.

He cannot be fired, harassed, or sued. He and his family receive the equivalent of $20 to $30 an hour in benefits.

Working Americans are lucky to have $5 or $6 an hour left after
paying their bills and his. They also pay for increased crime, graffiti, and trash cleanup.

Cheap labor? YEAH RIGHT!"

This is filled with misinformation. You don't qualify for Medicare if you qualify for SSI. It's Medicaid. Even then, undocumented don't qualify for Medicaid or Medicare. If basic facts are incorrect, how could this be taken seriously?

And an illegal can't be harassed or fired? :confused:

Since the facts are wrong, the piece needs to resort to stereotypes and fear-mongering (i.e., crime, graffiti).

For balance, and not from a liberal organization:

http://www.reason.org/commentaries/dalmia_20060501.shtml

Commentary

Knight Ridder/Tribune News Service
May 1, 2006

Illegal Immigrants are Paying a Lot More Taxes Than You Think
Eight million illegals pay Social Security, Medicare, and income taxes
By Shikha Dalmia


Denying public services to people who pay their taxes is an affront to America's bedrock belief in fairness. But many "pull-up-the-drawbridge" politicians want to do just that when it comes to illegal immigrants.

The fact that illegal immigrants pay taxes at all will come as news to many Americans. A stunning two-thirds of illegal immigrants pay Medicare, Social Security and personal income taxes. Yet, nativists like Congressman Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., have popularized the notion that illegal aliens are a colossal drain on the nation's hospitals, schools and welfare programs — consuming services that they don't pay for.

In reality, the 1996 welfare reform bill disqualified illegal immigrants from nearly all means-tested government programs including food stamps, housing assistance, Medicaid and Medicare-funded hospitalization. The only services that illegals can still get are emergency medical care and K-12 education.

Nevertheless, Tancredo and his ilk pushed a bill through the House criminalizing all aid to illegal aliens — even private acts of charity by priests, nurses and social workers. Potentially, any soup kitchen that offers so much as a free lunch to an illegal could face up to five years in prison and seizure of assets.

The Senate bill that recently collapsed would have tempered these draconian measures against private aid. But no one — Democrat or Republican — seems to oppose the idea of withholding public services. Earlier this year, Congress passed a law that requires everyone who gets Medicaid — the government-funded health care program for the poor — to offer proof of U.S. citizenship so we can avoid "theft of these benefits by illegal aliens," as Rep. Charlie Norwood, R-Ga., puts it.

But, immigrants aren't flocking to the United States to mooch off the government. According to a study by the Urban Institute, the 1996 welfare reform effort dramatically reduced the use of welfare by undocumented immigrant households, exactly as intended. And another vital thing happened in 1996: the Internal Revenue Service began issuing identification numbers to enable illegal immigrants who don't have Social Security numbers to file taxes.

One might have imagined that those fearing deportation or confronting the prospect of paying for their safety net through their own meager wages would take a pass on the IRS' scheme. Not so. Close to 8 million of the 12 million or so illegal aliens in the country today file personal income taxes using these numbers, contributing billions to federal coffers. No doubt they hope that this will one day help them acquire legal status — a plaintive expression of their desire to play by the rules and come out of the shadows.

What's more, aliens who are not self-employed have Social Security and Medicare taxes automatically withheld from their paychecks. Since undocumented workers have only fake numbers, they'll never be able to collect the benefits these taxes are meant to pay for. Last year, the revenues from these fake numbers — that the Social Security administration stashes in the “earnings suspense file” — added up to 10 percent of the Social Security surplus. The file is growing, on average, by more than $50 billion a year.

Beyond federal taxes, all illegals automatically pay state sales taxes that contribute toward the upkeep of public facilities such as roads that they use, and property taxes through their rent that contribute toward the schooling of their children. The non-partisan National Research Council found that when the taxes paid by the children of low-skilled immigrant families — most of whom are illegal — are factored in, they contribute on average $80,000 more to federal coffers than they consume.

Yes, many illegal migrants impose a strain on border communities on whose doorstep they first arrive, broke and unemployed. To solve this problem equitably, these communities ought to receive the surplus taxes that federal government collects from immigrants. But the real reason border communities are strained is the lack of a guest worker program. Such a program would match willing workers with willing employers in advance so that they wouldn't be stuck for long periods where they disembark while searching for jobs.

The cost of undocumented aliens is an issue that immigrant bashers have created to whip up indignation against people they don't want here in the first place. With the Senate having just returned from yet another vacation and promising to revisit the stalled immigration bill, politicians ought to set the record straight: Illegals are not milking the government. If anything, it is the other way around.

Shikha Dalmia is a senior analyst at Reason Foundation, a free-market think tank.

[estranged4life]

Not to threadjack, but BTW I was in OKC last fri-tues for a big gay rodeo. I am sure people were scandalized.:laugh:

didnt hear a thing about it actually...But I did notice, as did Deb, that a well known motel along I-44 that caters to gays/lesbian travelers had a welcome sign for a rodeo.

[estranged4life]

Illegals are not milking the government

the elected politicians are the milkers, they just try to throw blame elsewhere so it doesnt appear too obvious to the dumb American voter :lol:

[irishgrl]

It's not like the immigration problem is any worse this year than the past few years,
actually Ryan, the numbers show that there has been a recent spike in immigration numbers (for a number of reasons, but I will have to address this when I get home) California in particular takes the biggest hit. There's proof of that too...of the 7 majorly impacted states, California is by FAR the most burdened by this issue.....I can post charts, numbers etc, but Im about to leave work, so If you're interested, I'll post when I get home :)

[Rickypt]

actually Ryan, the numbers show that there has been a recent spike in immigration numbers (for a number of reasons, but I will have to address this when I get home) California in particular takes the biggest hit. There's proof of that too...of the 7 majorly impacted states, California is by FAR the most burdened by this issue.....I can post charts, numbers etc, but Im about to leave work, so If you're interested, I'll post when I get home :)

Yes, let me know, thanks. :)

[DrummerDeanna]

I received today:

"
Working Americans are lucky to have $5 or $6 an hour left after
paying their bills and his. They also pay for increased crime, graffiti, and trash cleanup.

Cheap labor? YEAH RIGHT!"


Okay - that article was fine until the end - when it crossed the line. I don't know about where you all live - but around here ALL of the trash, graffiti and crime is comitted by 100% American-Born people.

This is what I hate about this argument - there seems to be this underlying racial thing, and as a Mexican I take a lot of offense to it. Should people break the law and then be rewarded for it? No. But they are people. bottom line. Human beings.

And Americans...poor Americans and others put just as much of a strain on the system as illegal immigrants.

[Rickypt]

the elected politicians are the milkers, they just try to throw blame elsewhere so it doesnt appear too obvious to the dumb American voter :lol:

Yes, the electeds are great at throwing blame around. And there's a lot of milkers out there, from fat-cat corporations that get loads of government contracts, to tax evaders, to your run of the mill welfare-cheat.

It just frustrates me that the nation basically just rolls its eyes at the powerful people and companies that rip off the country, but get so worked up over poor people that come here to make a better life for their families.

[irishgrl]

Yes, let me know, thanks. :)


ok, I hope this works, its a link to a pdf file that gives numbers for LEGAL immigration stats (so you can imagine what the ILLEGAL numbers would be!)
anyway, take a look at this, its from the office of Immigration Statistics:
http://uscis.gov/graphics/shared/statistics/publications/TrendsRpt1980-2004.pdf

[irishgrl]

This is filled with misinformation. You don't qualify for Medicare if you qualify for SSI. It's Medicaid. Even then, undocumented don't qualify for Medicaid or Medicare. If basic facts are incorrect, how could this be taken seriously?

And an illegal can't be harassed or fired? :confused:

Since the facts are wrong, the piece needs to resort to stereotypes and fear-mongering (i.e., crime, graffiti).

For balance, and not from a liberal organization:

http://www.reason.org/commentaries/dalmia_20060501.shtml

Commentary

Knight Ridder/Tribune News Service
May 1, 2006

Illegal Immigrants are Paying a Lot More Taxes Than You Think
Eight million illegals pay Social Security, Medicare, and income taxes
By Shikha Dalmia


Denying public services to people who pay their taxes is an affront to America's bedrock belief in fairness. But many "pull-up-the-drawbridge" politicians want to do just that when it comes to illegal immigrants.

The fact that illegal immigrants pay taxes at all will come as news to many Americans. A stunning two-thirds of illegal immigrants pay Medicare, Social Security and personal income taxes. Yet, nativists like Congressman Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., have popularized the notion that illegal aliens are a colossal drain on the nation's hospitals, schools and welfare programs — consuming services that they don't pay for.

In reality, the 1996 welfare reform bill disqualified illegal immigrants from nearly all means-tested government programs including food stamps, housing assistance, Medicaid and Medicare-funded hospitalization. The only services that illegals can still get are emergency medical care and K-12 education.

Nevertheless, Tancredo and his ilk pushed a bill through the House criminalizing all aid to illegal aliens — even private acts of charity by priests, nurses and social workers. Potentially, any soup kitchen that offers so much as a free lunch to an illegal could face up to five years in prison and seizure of assets.

The Senate bill that recently collapsed would have tempered these draconian measures against private aid. But no one — Democrat or Republican — seems to oppose the idea of withholding public services. Earlier this year, Congress passed a law that requires everyone who gets Medicaid — the government-funded health care program for the poor — to offer proof of U.S. citizenship so we can avoid "theft of these benefits by illegal aliens," as Rep. Charlie Norwood, R-Ga., puts it.

But, immigrants aren't flocking to the United States to mooch off the government. According to a study by the Urban Institute, the 1996 welfare reform effort dramatically reduced the use of welfare by undocumented immigrant households, exactly as intended. And another vital thing happened in 1996: the Internal Revenue Service began issuing identification numbers to enable illegal immigrants who don't have Social Security numbers to file taxes.

One might have imagined that those fearing deportation or confronting the prospect of paying for their safety net through their own meager wages would take a pass on the IRS' scheme. Not so. Close to 8 million of the 12 million or so illegal aliens in the country today file personal income taxes using these numbers, contributing billions to federal coffers. No doubt they hope that this will one day help them acquire legal status — a plaintive expression of their desire to play by the rules and come out of the shadows.

What's more, aliens who are not self-employed have Social Security and Medicare taxes automatically withheld from their paychecks. Since undocumented workers have only fake numbers, they'll never be able to collect the benefits these taxes are meant to pay for. Last year, the revenues from these fake numbers — that the Social Security administration stashes in the “earnings suspense file” — added up to 10 percent of the Social Security surplus. The file is growing, on average, by more than $50 billion a year.

Beyond federal taxes, all illegals automatically pay state sales taxes that contribute toward the upkeep of public facilities such as roads that they use, and property taxes through their rent that contribute toward the schooling of their children. The non-partisan National Research Council found that when the taxes paid by the children of low-skilled immigrant families — most of whom are illegal — are factored in, they contribute on average $80,000 more to federal coffers than they consume.

Yes, many illegal migrants impose a strain on border communities on whose doorstep they first arrive, broke and unemployed. To solve this problem equitably, these communities ought to receive the surplus taxes that federal government collects from immigrants. But the real reason border communities are strained is the lack of a guest worker program. Such a program would match willing workers with willing employers in advance so that they wouldn't be stuck for long periods where they disembark while searching for jobs.

The cost of undocumented aliens is an issue that immigrant bashers have created to whip up indignation against people they don't want here in the first place. With the Senate having just returned from yet another vacation and promising to revisit the stalled immigration bill, politicians ought to set the record straight: Illegals are not milking the government. If anything, it is the other way around.

Shikha Dalmia is a senior analyst at Reason Foundation, a free-market think tank.
this article has some good points but its major downfall is that it doesnt take into account the fact that illegal aliens use "anchor babies" (babies that are born in the US to illegal aliens) to receive public assistance benefits. I suppose in THEORY, a fake ID wouldnt do you much good, but in PRACTICE, especially in impacted counties like Los Angeles and others, Social Services workers do not have the ability to verify all the documents they get from these aliens. For example: a worker may have an hispanic applicant that produces an alien/green card. The worker is supposed to request verification from INS. I can tell you that response times are piss poor, and oftentimes, workers are so impacted by huge caseloads (anywhere from 600-1000+) that they cannot follow through with the proper actions. The net effect is that many times, illegal aliens are getting away with receiving benefits they arent entitled to...I know of cases from my past caseload that had an admitted illegal alien and admitted fake ID using that status as a barrier to getting employment and therefore avoiding the work requirement. The mother was receiving SSI and cash aid for 3-4 kids. if it happens in my little backwater county, I know it is happening in bigger counties...

I also want to point out that in reality, since many of these jobs held by illegals are under the table, they arent actually paying any taxes....In any event the amount of taxes paid doesnt begin to equal the benefits they receive. Please go back and read the articles I posted on the first page.

[Rickypt]

This is what I hate about this argument - there seems to be this underlying racial thing

I did some searching, and shocked by how many websites posted the email you are referring to. If I were against illegal immigration, I would not think that an erroneous posting filled with stereotypes about dirty, criminal Mexicans with five kids is a good way to further the argument.

[Rickypt]

I also want to point out that in reality, since many of these jobs held by illegals are under the table, they arent actually paying any taxes....In any event the amount of taxes paid doesnt begin to equal the benefits they receive. Please go back and read the articles I posted on the first page.

I'm not very familiar with the "anchor baby" issue, and will go through the links you have posted.

I do agree with you that the argument that the undocumented pay a lot of taxes is not a very sound one. My first partner ("illegal") worked under the table and didn't pay taxes (he also never once used a public benefit).

My argument is legalize them, take away the need to pay under the table, and then they will be part of the system and paying taxes. I don't think it is feasible, nor humane, to round them up and send them home. I recognize that this creates an incentive for more people to come illegally, but I really think that is going to happen regardless of amnesty. When people are poor and desperate, they will find a way.

When I said I support amnesty, I didn't elaborate to say I support some measures to slow (will never be stopped) illegal immigration. I completely support cracking down on big businesses that hire and exploit the undocumented, as well as reasonable methods of improving border security. Building a big ass fence doesn't qualify as reasonable, in my opinion.

Supporting amnesty means wiping the current slate clean, acknowledging that these people exist, and choosing to help them become legal, productive residents instead of thinking somehow you will be able to send them all home. Then, reform immigration laws and the system to address future illegal immigration issues. The latter never happened after amnesty in the 80's.

[DrummerDeanna]

... I would not think that an erroneous posting filled with stereotypes about dirty, criminal Mexicans with five kids is a good way to further the argument.

:nod: That's all I'm saying.

[irishgrl]

Center For Immigration Studies Article (http://uscis.gov/graphics/shared/statistics/publications/TrendsRpt1980-2004.pdf)
The High Cost of Cheap Labor
Illegal Immigration and the Federal Budget

Findings

Demographic Overview
Characteristics of Illegal Households. Table 1 reports demographic information for households headed by illegal immigrants and all other households. Not surprisingly, it shows that on average households headed by illegal aliens have much lower average incomes and are somewhat larger in size than the average household in America. The lower income reflects not simply their legal status, but more importantly the fact that such a large share of illegals have little formal education. An estimated two-thirds of illegals who are household heads lack a high school diploma. This is important because it means that even if the illegal aliens were legal residents, their income still would be dramatically lower than the rest of the population. There is no single better predictor of income in the modern American economy than one's education level. As a result, a large share of illegals are likely to remain poor even if given legal status. Table 1 also shows the share of households in which at least one person works. A much larger share of illegal households had at least one person working in 2002 than non-illegal households. Thus, any costs associated with illegal aliens do not reflect low rates of employment.

Illegal Household Use of Services. The lower portion of Table 1 shows the percentage of illegal households receiving Social Security and means-tested programs. There are very large differences in program usage between illegals and the rest of the population. Just as important, illegals' use of different types of programs vary enormously. Only a tiny fraction of illegal households use Social Security or cash welfare programs compared to other households. One source of public dissatisfaction with illegal immigration is that some Americans believe that many illegal aliens are getting cash welfare payments. Table 1 shows that this is not the case. However, the share using Medicaid and food assistance welfare programs is quite high and substantially more than the share of non-illegal households.

http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscal2.gif

It must be remembered that, for the most part, illegal households using programs like free school lunch or Medicaid are receiving these benefits on behalf of U.S.-born children, who under current law are awarded citizenship at birth. Of course, the costs of providing services to these children are very real for taxpayers and result from illegals having been allowed to enter and stay in the country. And having the federal government feed or provide medical care to their children is an enormous benefit to illegal aliens. Thus, in considering the consequences for public coffers, counting the costs of these programs is necessary, otherwise one would gain a very false sense of illegal immigration's present costs. Nonetheless, the fact that it is the U.S.-born children receiving the benefits is still important, because it means that barring illegals from using programs would not significantly reduce costs. Their citizen children would continue to receive them. On the other hand, if the illegal families were made to return home, the costs would be eliminated.

Estimated Tax Payments
Payroll Taxes. Table 2 shows a breakdown of the estimated tax payments and services used by illegal alien-headed households. (More details about illegals' payment of specific taxes and use of specific programs use can be found in the Appendix on p. 39.) In terms of tax payments, the table shows very large differences between illegal households and other residents. The largest difference is in federal income taxes. Illegal households pay only about one-fifth as much as other households. This is not surprising given their much lower incomes and larger family size. By design, households with modest incomes and large size are supposed to pay relatively little in taxes. This, coupled with the fact that only a little over half of illegals make payroll contributions, is the reason their payments are very low relative to other taxpayers. For taxes other than income tax, the difference between illegal households and all others is not quite as large. Because Medicare and unemployment are more regressive in nature than federal income tax, the contribution of illegals for these two taxes is about 37 percent that of other households' contributions. And for Social Security, which is even more regressive, illegals pay 40 percent of the average household's contribution.

http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscal3.gif

It must be remembered that tax payments in the table are based on the assumption that only 55 percent of illegals pay payroll taxes, comprised of income tax, Social Security, Medicare, and unemployment insurance. If all of their income were subjected to taxation, illegals' tax payments would rise significantly. Of course, if they paid all of their payroll tax liability, this would imply that they have legal status, which would also dramatically increase use of public services. This issue will be discussed later in this report.

Excise and Other Taxes. For excise and estate taxes, which are the most regressive, illegals pay 55 percent as much as other tax payers. In Table 2, estate and excise taxes are grouped together. Because illegals are very young on average, they pay very little in estate taxes. If only excise taxes are considered, the average tax payment of illegal households is 69 percent that of all households. Thus, there are significant differences in the relative size of payments illegals make to the various programs. The more regressive the tax, the closer the relative payments of illegal households are to the rest of the population. While the tax payments made by illegal aliens are much smaller on average than those of other households, illegals still do pay billions of dollars in taxes to Washington. In 2002, illegal households paid a total of nearly $16 billion to the federal government. The far right column in Table 2 shows that illegal alien tax payments constitute about 0.9 percent of all taxes collected. Because persons in illegal households constitute 3.6 percent of the nation's total population, their tax payments are clearly less than their representation in the population as a whole. This fact by itself does not mean that they create a fiscal deficit, because the net effect of illegal households on public coffers also depends on their use of public services, which is discussed below.

Costs by Household
Social Security and Medicare. The lower half of Table 2 reports the estimated costs illegals impose on public coffers. The table shows that, in general, illegal households use much less in almost every type of service. In the case of Social Security and Medicare, illegal households use about one-twentieth as much as other households. And they account for less than two-tenths of 1 percent of the total cost of these very large programs. Moreover, it is also clear that illegals pay substantially more in Social Security and Medicare than they use, creating a net benefit for these two programs of over $1,800 a year per illegal alien household. This calculation actually understates the benefit illegals create for the trust funds of these two programs because Table 2 includes costs for Medicare part B, which is paid for by general funds. If only Medicare part A (the part of Medicare covered by the trust fund) and Social Security are considered, illegal households create a net benefit well in excess of $7 billion dollars a year for the trust funds of these two programs. (Ryan, this part seems to support your article's position)

Welfare Programs. Table 2 shows that illegal households receive much less in cash assistance welfare programs. As already discussed, persons in illegal households comprise 3.6 percent of the total population, but their use of cash welfare accounts for 0.3 percent of costs for these programs. For food assistance programs, however, illegal households actually receive more of this type of program than non-illegal households, accounting for 5.6 percent of federal costs for these programs. This is mainly due to heavy use of the WIC and school lunch programs. For Medicaid, illegals receive less than other households, but their use of this very expensive program is still significant. It's worth noting that although Table 1 showed a larger share of illegal households using Medicaid, figures in Table 2 show that on average they receive a lower payment. This mainly reflects the fact that it is typically only the U.S.-born children in the illegal households who are on Medicaid, while in other households with low incomes both parents and children can qualify for the program. Table 2 also shows that illegal use is much lower for all other welfare programs. But the table still shows that illegal households do use these programs to some extent.(which is what I was saying...)

Other Transfers to Households. For other transfers to households, the $442 illegal households are estimated to receive is about half of what non-illegal households get and certainly much less than their share of the total population. The programs included under this category are listed at the bottom of the table. Eligibility and use vary a great deal. For example, illegal aliens who work in the United States illegally are explicitly allowed to receive the Additional Child Tax Credit, which pays out a total of $5 billion a year to low-income workers with children. On the other hand, programs such as student loans can only be used by the tiny number of citizen children in illegal households who are enrolled in college. As is the case with most means-tested programs, illegals use considerably less than other households, but their use is not zero. Overall, illegal households account for less than 2 percent of the costs of these programs.

Prisons, Schools, the Uninsured, and Immigration. There are four areas where the estimated costs illegal households impose are much larger than for other households--treatment for the uninsured, federal aid to schools, federal prisons/courts, and the immigration system. Figures for the uninsured simply reflect the fact that such a large share of illegal aliens and their children lack health insurance. With more than half of persons in illegal households lacking health coverage, illegal households account for a very large share of the costs of treating the uninsured. As for schools, although they are primarily paid for by state and local governments, the federal government now provides more than $28 billion for primary and secondary education. Moreover, Washington gives schools some assistance in paying for children with limited English and for the children of agricultural workers. Not surprisingly, illegal households account for a disproportionate share of these programs. Illegal households impose very significant costs on the federal education budget, however, mainly because illegal households have more school-age children on average. The costs for the federal prison and court system are also significant because, although persons in illegal households account for about 3.6 percent of the nation's total population, illegals now account for almost one-fifth of those in federal prison and others processed by the federal courts. Thus, they impose costs on that system that are disproportionally high relative to their share of the total population.. This is also true for the immigration system. As indicated in the methodology section, the costs of the immigration system are assigned based on the distribution by household of post-1980 non-citizens. This probably understates the costs of illegals to the immigration system because enforcement alone, which is directed specifically at illegal aliens, accounts for two-thirds of the immigration budget. Nonetheless, it is certainly not surprising that illegal aliens account for a large share of the costs of the immigration system because so much of that system is focused specifically on them.

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.

The Fiscal Implications of Amnesty
So far we have only considered the current fiscal impact of illegal alien households. In the following section we run two different simulations to estimate what would happen if illegal aliens in the United States were legalized. We assume that any amnesty that passes Congress will have Legal Permanent Residence (LPR, colloquilly known as a "green card") as a component. It is true that President Bush's amnesty proposal in January 2004 envisioned temporary worker status for illegal aliens. At present, however, every major legalization bill in Congress provides illegals with LPR status at some point in the process. Moreover, because Republicans are divided between those favoring enforcement of immigration laws and those who want an amnesty, any legalization must have significant Democratic support to pass. But Democrats have made clear than they can only support an amnesty that gives permanent residence. While a two-step legalization -- one that grants temporary status before permanent residence -- is certainly possible, such a system would still result in permanent residence. Politically, it seems almost certain that any amnesty that actually passes Congress will award LPR status to illegals. But even if one makes the very unlikely assumption that an amnesty will be a pure guestworker program, the net fiscal deficit imposed by illegals indicates that unskilled workers who are not permanent residents still create large fiscal costs. As we have seen, this is partly because of their U.S.-born children, partly because like all people they necessarily place some demands on government, and partly because their low-income results in very low tax payments. All these things would still be true of unskilled guest workers.

General Impact of Amnesty. It is important to consider the likely outcomes of any amnesty: First, there should be a significant increase in tax compliance. (In the simulations below we assume that compliance rises from 55 percent to 100 percent.) Second, the average income of illegals should rise, as they would be freer to make decisions about employment and less likely to be exploited by employers. Third, use of public services will increase as the now-legal immigrants are eligible for many services from which they were barred as illegals. The actual size of these changes and their impact on the fiscal bottom line are explored below. It is also very important to realize that, if legalized, illegal aliens would not simply become just like legal immigrants in general because illegals are much less educated on average than legal immigrants. To run our legalization simulations we use the characteristics of illegals who are household heads and then assume that if they were legalized, they would pay taxes and use services like legal immigrant households headed by persons with the same characteristics.

Simulation One. We first report the education levels and country of birth of illegal households based on the education and country of the household head. Figure 1 reports the Mexican and non-Mexican share by education level of the illegal alien population. We divide illegals by their education level because, as already discussed, the single most important determinant of one's income, and thus service use and tax payments, is education. This was one of the most important conclusions of the aforementioned NRC study. We further divide them by whether they are Mexican because all research, including this report, indicates that about 60 percent of illegals are from that country. Moreover, the NRC study found significant differences between households headed by Latin American immigrants and those from the rest of the world. Figure 1 reports the distribution of illegal alien household heads by their educational attainment and if they are Mexican. We then assume that if illegals were legalized they would use services and pay taxes like all legal immigrants with the same characteristics.32

http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscal4.gif

Simulation Two. In the second simulation we again divide the illegal population by education and whether they are Mexican, but this time we assume that they would pay taxes and use services like legal immigrants who arrived in 1986 or after. That is, we again use the results from Figure 1 and assume that if legalized, they would use services and pay taxes like legal immigrants who have the same characteristics, but have arrived since 1986. The reason we assume that they would be like post-1986 legal immigrants is that illegals themselves are almost all post-1986 arrivals, the year the last amnesty for illegals was passed. Illegals are much more like recently arrived legal immigrants then they are like legal immigrants in general, who are older and have higher income but also use programs like Social Security. In addition, we exclude persons from the main refugee-sending countries because it is well established that refugees have the highest rates of public benefit receipt of any group of immigrants. These countries include: Poland, the former Yugoslavia, the Former Soviet Union, Afghanistan, Cambodia, Iraq, Laos, Vietnam, Nicaragua, Cuba, and Ethiopia. This second simulation is probably the most plausible.

Fiscal Impact of Legal Immigrants. Table 3 shows estimated federal taxes paid and services used in 2002 for legal immigrant households by education level and whether a person is from Mexico. The left side of the table is the basis for Simulation 1 and shows all legal immigrants regardless of when they arrived; the right side of the table shows the same figures for post-1986 non-refugees. One interesting finding of the table is that estimated tax payments are higher for all categories of legal immigrant households than the roughly $4,200 paid by illegal households in Table 2. The only exception is for post-1986 Mexicans without a high school education. Thus, those who contend that legalization would increase tax revenues are probably correct. Almost every category of legal immigrant pays more in taxes than do illegal households. Unfortunately, the table also shows that, in every case, total federal costs are also higher than the roughly $6,900 a year reported for illegal households in Table 2. Thus, those who are concerned that legalization would increase costs are also almost certainly correct.

http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscal5.gif

(click on Table for a larger version) (http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscaltable3.jpg)

As expected, Table 3 shows that there is very wide variation in public service use and tax payments between groups. Overall service use and tax payments by household closely correlates with education levels of household heads. In both simulations, those with more than a high school degree are a large net fiscal benefit to the federal government, while those with only a high school education or less are a net fiscal drain. This is true whether the legal immigrant is from Mexico or not. It is also true whether one considers all legal immigrants or only post-1986 non-refugees. The difference between immigrants by education is truly enormous. For example, looking at households headed by post-1986 non-refugees, a legal immigrant without a high school degree creates a fiscal deficit on the federal government of more than $15,000 a year if he is Mexican and almost $11,000 if he is from the rest of the world. Conversely, for those with more than a high school degree, the benefit is over $5,000 a year if they are Mexican and more than $12,000 for non-Mexicans. The same pattern holds when all immigrant households are considered, regardless of year of arrival. Without question, the education level of legal immigrants is a key determinant of their fiscal impact. However, being from Mexico seems to matter as well.

Legalization Would Dramatically Increase Costs. Using the education levels and the share that is Mexican found in Figure 1 and combining them with the results from Table 3, we can then estimate the likely impact of legalization. Table 4 reports the estimated federal taxes paid and services used by legalized illegal alien households assuming they would pay taxes and use services like households headed by legal immigrants with the same characteristics. The first simulation assumes that illegals would pay federal taxes and use services like all legal immigrants with the same education level, regardless of when they arrived, while the second simulation assumes that they would have the impact of post-1986 legal non-refugee immigrants. Both simulations show that legalization would increase the net fiscal costs dramatically. Simulation 1 shows that the net fiscal costs to the federal government would increase from $2,736 to $6,022 per household. Simulation 2 shows the net fiscal cost would be even larger, increasing to $7,668 per household. Although net costs rise, estimated tax payments increase dramatically with legalization. They more than double in Simulation 1 and increase by 77 percent in Simulation 2. However, costs rise significantly as well. In both cases costs more than double, creating an average net fiscal deficit per household that is significantly more than that estimated for illegal alien households.

http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscal6.gif

Interestingly, total costs per household are roughly the same in both simulations. In Simulation 1, legal immigrants are making significantly more use of Social Security and Medicare, while in Simulation 2 use of welfare, education, and other transfers to households are much higher. This reflects the different age structure of post-1986 immigrants compared to all immigrants. In effect, one can see Simulation 2 as the more immediate impact of a legalization, while Simulation 1 reflects the likely fiscal impact of legalized aliens in the long term. Either way, the results indicate that legalization would cause the net fiscal burden on taxpayers to increase substantially. It should be noted that, although legalization would substantially increase costs, this does not mean that legal immigrants overall are net drain on the federal government. It also worth noting that if only the relatively small share of illegal aliens with more than a high school degree were legalized, then there would be no fiscal deficit. But since so many illegals have only a high school degree or less, legalizing all illegals would create a large fiscal deficit.

Would Welfare Reform Hold Down Amnesty Costs? In 1996, Congress passed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA), which barred some legal immigrants who arrived after 1996 from using certain welfare programs. Since many legal immigrants used in Simulation 2 to estimate the costs of amnesty arrived before 1996, perhaps our estimates overstate the costs, at least with regard to welfare programs. Table 5 provides a detailed breakdown by program for all of the costs estimated in this study. The table shows that legalization under Simulation 2 would increase costs by a total of $8,173 per household. (The same total found in Table 4) Of that increase, $5,588, or about 68 percent, is the result of increased costs due to cash payments from TANF, SSI, and in-kind benefits received from food stamps and Medicaid, the four main programs covered by PRWORA. While certainly a large share of the costs, it still leaves an increase of $2,585 per household in non-PRWORA covered programs.

http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscal7.gif

More importantly, analysis of the CPS shows that households headed by recently arrived legal immigrants actually do make significant use of these welfare programs. Table 6 reports estimated use of these four programs for households headed by legal immigrants from Mexico and the rest of the world, excluding refugee countries. The table shows that, in 2002, households headed by a legal immigrant from Mexico who arrived in 1996 or later and who lacks a high degree received $7,900 on average from these four programs and those with only a high school degree received $3,817.33 For post-1996 households headed by legal non-refugees from countries other than Mexico without a high school degree, the figure is $5,464 per household, and for those with only a high school degree the figure is $2,462. By contrast, the figure for illegal aliens is only $860 per household.

http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscal8.gif

Table 6 also shows that if we assume that illegal households, once legalized, would use welfare like non-refugee legal immigrants who arrived in 1996 or later with the same education, then welfare costs would be $5,430 per household, very similar to the $5,588 in Simulation 2. It must be remembered that, as originally shown in Table 3, legal immigrants with little education make very extensive use of welfare programs because their incomes are very low and because they receive these programs on behalf of their U.S.-born children. This is especially true for Medicaid, by far the costliest program. Welfare reform has not changed these basic facts. Given this reality, it is very difficult to see how a dramatic rise in welfare costs could be avoided if there was a legalization.

Amnesty Would Increase Incomes. Although the net fiscal burden would increase dramatically as a result of a legalization, this does not mean that the income of illegals would remain unchanged. Table 4 shows a dramatic increase in payroll taxes and this partly reflects increases in household income that would occur if illegals were legalized. In fact, analysis shows that whether they are Mexican or not and no matter what their educational attainment, legalization would significantly increase the income of illegal aliens. Figure 2 reports the estimated income of legalized illegal households under Simulations 1 and 2. Like the estimates in Table 4, they are based on the assumption that, if legalized, illegal households would have average incomes like their legal counterparts controlling for whether the household head is Mexican and for education levels. Under Simulation 1, their income would be 29 percent higher, and under Simulation 2 incomes are 15 percent higher. Of course, the much higher incomes in Simulation 1 partly reflect the longer time that all immigrants have lived in the United States and not simply the fact that they have legal status. But Simulation 2 shows that even when analysis is confined to more recent arrivals, incomes still increase substantially. While our overall conclusion indicates that legalization would increase fiscal costs, perhaps the improvement in the income and economic well being of illegal households could be used to justify legalization. Certainly, Figure 2 indicates illegals would likely benefit significantly from obtaining legal status.

http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscal9.gif

Comparisons to Other Studies
There is always some uncertainty associated with any fiscal estimate of immigrants, especially illegal aliens. However, the overall results of this study are consistent with other work that has looked at this question.

NRC Study. As mentioned at the beginning of this report, the 1997 study by the National Research Council (NRC) is probably the most sophisticated report ever to examine the impact of immigration on public coffers in the United States. While that report did not consider the legal status of immigrants, it did divide immigrants by education. The overall findings of that report showed that the education level of immigrants was critically important in determining their income, tax payments, service use, and resulting net fiscal impact. They found that during his lifetime an immigrant without a high school education imposed a net fiscal drain on taxpayers of $89,000; for those with only a high school degree it was $31,000. The NRC study also found that for those immigrants with more than a high school degree the fiscal benefit was $105,000. While we report estimates for only legal immigrants for a single year, our analysis by education found in Table 3 is strongly supported by the NRC's findings.

Urban Institute Study of New York State. One of the few studies to specifically estimate illegal immigrant tax payments at the federal level by household was done by the Urban Institute in 1998. That study used the CPS to estimate 1994 tax payments for illegal households in New York State, including some federal taxes. Although our study is designed to measure the fiscal impact of immigration at the national level, we ran separate estimates for federal tax payments for illegal-headed households in New York State so we could compare them to those of the Urban Institute. The Urban Institute only examined federal income tax, Social Security, and unemployment insurance, and we did the same. We estimated that the average illegal household in New York State paid $5,538 in these three taxes in 2002, compared to $4,568 estimated for tax year 1994 by the Urban Institute. Adjusted for inflation between 1994 and 2002, this is $5,463 or only 1.4 percent less than our estimate for 2002.34 Of course, illegal immigration to New York State and the federal tax code has changed since 1994. Nonetheless, our average estimates are very similar to those developed by the Urban Institute when adjusted for inflation.

Treasury Department Report. The results of our study are also buttressed by an analysis of illegal alien tax returns done by the Inspector General's Office of the Department of Treasury in 2004.35 That study found that 55 percent of illegal aliens who filed income tax returns using tax identification numbers had no federal income tax liability. While higher than the 45 percent estimated in this study, it must be remembered that this figure was only for those who filed tax returns using a tax identification number. These are all individuals who expected refunds, otherwise they would not have gone to the trouble of getting tax identification numbers and filing a return. But like our estimates, the Inspector General's report indicates that roughly half of illegals have no tax liability, reflecting their very low incomes and large number of dependents.

Return to Table of Contents

Continue to Conclusion

32 Although we included them in the costs for non-illegal households in Table 2, we exclude costs for the small number of federal programs that specifically aid refugees because if legalized, illegals should not access these programs.

33 These recently arrived unskilled legal immigrants are relatively small in number and so the survey should be interpreted with some caution, but in the case of both Mexicans and non-Mexicans, use of welfare programs by recently arrived unskilled immigrants (excluding refugees) is quite high.

34 Table 6 on page 103 of the Urban Institute study has the estimates by type of tax.

35 The Inspector General's Office of the Department of the Treasury report # 2004-30-023 can be found at http://www.treas.gov/tigta/2004reports/200430023fr-redacted.html

[Rickypt]

^Holy crap, I've been given homework. :laugh:

Give me a day or two to read this over and respond appropriately?

[irishgrl]

^Holy crap, I've been given homework. :laugh:

Give me a day or two to read this over and respond appropriately?

but wait! theres more! (there's ALWAYS more with me!!!)

here's the conclusion: (http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalconclusion.html)

The High Cost of Cheap Labor
Illegal Immigration and the Federal Budget

Conclusion

It is often suggested that "matching a willing worker with a willing employer" is all that matters when it comes to immigration policy. The fiscal costs of illegal immigration indicate that focusing only on workers and employers is grossly inadequate. If the presence of large numbers of unskilled workers lowers prices for some goods and services, but at the same time increases the burden on taxpayers, then this may not be a good deal for the country. Put simply, the mere fact that employers want more workers, and foreigners wish to work in this country, does not mean that Americans necessarily benefit from their coming. This fact must be considered when formulating policy.

Low Levels of Education Create Deficit. The findings of this study show that the primary reason illegal households create a fiscal deficit at the federal level is that their much lower levels of education result in low incomes and tax payments that are only 28 percent that of other households. Thus, even though the costs they impose are estimated to be only 46 percent those of other households on average, there remains a significant net deficit. Whether one considers their use of services low is a matter of perspective. Because illegals are not even supposed to be in the country, many Americans are angered by the fact that they receive any services at all. This is especially true of transfers to households like food stamps or cash payments from the Child Tax Credit. Although many Americans are upset about their use of public services, there is little evidence that illegals come to America to take advantage of public benefits. Most illegal aliens come for jobs, and the vast majority are in fact employed. But low levels of education mean they unavoidably create large costs for taxpayers.

As Long as Illegals Remain, So Will Costs. The relatively low receipt of services by illegals is important from a policy perspective because it means that the amount of money that can be saved by further efforts to curtail their use of public services is probably very limited. As already discussed, the average illegal household is estimated to receives less than half as much in services from the federal government as do other households, even though their households are 17 percent larger on average. This, coupled with the fact that benefits are often received on behalf of their U.S.-born children who are awarded citizenship at birth under current law, means that it is very difficult to avoid many of the costs as long as the illegal aliens remain in the country. In addition, if they are allowed to stay, most of the costs they impose will be for programs whose use is difficult to prevent politically or as a practical matter. For example, denying illegals benefits such as the Women, Infants, and Children nutrition program might encounter significant political opposition. And incarcerating illegals who have been convicted of crimes is an unavoidable cost of having a large illegal population. Thus, if we want to avoid the costs, we must look to alternatives other than trying to cut them off from public services.

Amnesty Would Dramatically Increase Costs. One of the key findings of this report is that legalization would dramatically increase the costs of illegal immigration. If illegals were given green cards and began to pay taxes and use services like legal immigrants with the same education levels, the net annual fiscal deficit at the federal level would likely increase from $2,736 to $7,668 per household under the most likely scenario. Total costs could grow from $10.4 billion a year to $28.8 billion. The costs increase dramatically because unskilled immigrants with legal status, which is what most illegal aliens would become, can access government programs but still tend to make very modest tax payments. This is because the modern American economy offers very limited opportunities to those with little education, regardless of legal status. Though we estimate that household income might rise by 15 percent with legalization and average tax payments would increase by 77 percent as more illegals would be paid off the books, their average household incomes would still remain one-third below that of other households. At the same time, service use would rise dramatically because legal immigrants are eligible for most programs, and they typically have much less fear about using them than illegal aliens. This does not mean that low-income legal immigrants use more in services than low-income native-born Americans. The fiscal deficit is created by the fact that so many illegal aliens are unskilled and thus have low income.

What's Different About Today's Immigration. Many native-born Americans observe that their ancestors came to America and did not place great demands on government services. Perhaps this is true, but the size and scope of government was dramatically smaller during the last great wave of immigration -- not just means-tested programs, but expenditures on public schools and roads were only a fraction what they are today. Thus the arrival of unskilled immigrants in the past did not have the negative fiscal implications that it has today. Moreover, the American economy has changed profoundly since the last great wave of immigration, with education now the key determinant of economic success. The costs that unskilled immigrants, or unskilled natives for that matter, impose should not be seen so much as a failings on their part, but instead as a reflection of the nature of the modern American economy. Put simply, large-scale unskilled immigration is incompatible with current economic conditions and an extensive welfare state. If the fiscal costs are to be avoided, then our immigration policies need to reflect current fiscal and economic realities and the number of unskilled immigrants, legal or illegal, should be reduced.

The Bottom Line. This report has focused on only the fiscal impact of illegal aliens at the federal level. It is almost certain that they also create a large fiscal deficit at the state and local levels.36 Thus, the results in this report only deal with part of the costs of illegal immigration. On the other hand, it must be remembered that this report says nothing about the overall fiscal impact of households headed by legal immigrants. The fact that unskilled immigrants who are legal residents impose large fiscal costs on federal coffers does not mean that legal immigrants overall are a drain on federal coffers. Many legal immigrants are highly skilled. That having been said, we find strong and convincing evidence that the costs of illegal immigration are significant at the federal level and those costs would grow dramatically if illegals were legalized. Of course, there are many other issues to consider when deciding what do to about illegal immigration. But given the costs of illegal aliens and of any amnesty, it would probably make more sense to enforce immigration laws and reduce illegal immigration. Reducing the supply of unskilled labor would force employers to increase wages and invest in labor-saving devices in order to meet their labor needs.

If we instead chose to increase the number of unskilled workers in the country through immigration, then we at least have to understand that such a policy has negative fiscal consequences. Perhaps legalizing illegal aliens may be justified on humanitarian grounds, or as a way to improve relations with other countries. Conversely, enforcement might make more sense because it reduces job competition for unskilled Americans, or for national security reasons. But this analysis shows that, at least with regard to the federal budget, there is a high cost to unskilled illegal alien labor and this must be part of any policy discussion.


36 Although they did not look at illegals separately, the NRC study found that in California and New Jersey (the two states they examined) immigrants from Latin America and the Caribbean, where the vast majority of illegals come from, were a significant fiscal drain. By using Census Bureau data that include both illegals and legals, their fiscal analysis is really a combined estimate of the entire foreign-born population both legal and illegal.

[Rickypt]

^Good god, okay I oppose amnesty! :laugh:

This might need to wait until the weekend.

[irishgrl]

For the record, this is NOT about RACE for me. This is about lawbreakers costing taxpayers monies that should have rightfully been used to help legal citizens. For me its about the fact that there is only so much room, so much money, so much housing, so much resources that can be used to serve the needs of the population. I personally have a problem allocating funds/services to those folks who chose to circumvent the process and cheat their brethren and our own children. It just STINKS to me.

[irishgrl]

^Good god, okay I oppose amnesty! :laugh:

This might need to wait until the weekend.


you'll be heartened to see that some of the material in your article is supported here, however the conclusion is pretty hard to argue with IMO.....


btw: glad to see you have a sense of humor :xoxo:

[Rickypt]

I personally have a problem allocating funds/services to those folks who chose to circumvent the process and cheat their brethren and our own children.

I understand your take on this. My question is what do you see as the solution? For example, identify and deport the 14 million who are here illegally? Put them in jail?

Also, would you agree that the majority of these folks would never have a shot at the legal process of immigrating here? Would you support any changes to immigration law that would improve that situation?

Nothing loaded in these questions, just curious how you would go about addressing the problem.

[irishgrl]

I understand your take on this. My question is what do you see as the solution? For example, identify and deport the 14 million who are here illegally? Put them in jail?

Also, would you agree that the majority of these folks would never have a shot at the legal process of immigrating here? Would you support any changes to immigration law that would improve that situation?

Nothing loaded in these questions, just curious how you would go about addressing the problem.

Jail is not the answer, our jails are already overcrowded with a disproportionate number of illegals as it is. I DO think these illegals should be presented with a choice of going back voluntarily or risking deportation with no hope of return. If they cooperate, then they should have some sort of reward...(thats not the word Im looking for but I cant think of the one I want...)

For some possible solutions, you might look at my post on page 1 that has suggestions by Senator Chuck Hagel....

[estranged4life]

It just frustrates me that the nation basically just rolls its eyes at the powerful people and companies that rip off the country, but get so worked up over poor people that come here to make a better life for their families.

is that if you want to come to this country, please do so legally as have many of other immigrants (From all corners of the world and of ALL beliefs, ethnicities & faiths) have before.

Do the paperwork, do all the things to prepare to become an American citizen and earn that right....As had many of OUR ancestors beforehand.

Oh, by the way...There's not many jobs in Oklahoma for any illegal immigrants, moreless legal immigrants thanks to everyone's beloved President Clinton & his BS known as NAFTA!

[irishgrl]

Schwarzenegger to order troops to border

By AARON C. DAVIS, Associated Press Writer 1 hour, 21 minutes ago

SACRAMENTO, Calif. - Gov.
Arnold Schwarzenegger agreed Thursday to send the California National Guard to the Mexican border, ending a 17-day standoff with the Bush administration.

The two sides had been at odds over whether California Guardsmen would join the effort to bolster the Border Patrol and who would pay for it.

They reached an agreement under which California will contribute about 1,000 Guardsmen for border duty and the federal government will pick up the full cost, Schwarzenegger said.

"It is not my preference to send the National Guard, but there's an important need to protect the border," he said.

However, in a separate act that was not part of the agreement with the federal government, Schwarzenegger will sign an executive order that ends the California National Guard's participation on Dec. 31, 2008, state officials said.

Schwarzenegger intends for the mission to be carried out mostly by troops who volunteer for six- to 12-month assignments. The Bush plan called for sending Guardsmen on border duty instead of their annual two-and-three week training exercises.

The state would have to pay for normal training sessions, while long-term assignments are funded by the federal government.

Altogether, President Bush has proposed sending 6,000 National Guardsmen to the U.S. border with Mexico. The overall cost of the multiyear deployment has been put at more than $1 billion.

In California, National Guard officials have said the mobilization could begin immediately.

A planning force could reach the border within days and the full deployment could be in place by July 15, but California Guard officials said they would not send anyone until Congress approves funding for the operation.

Schwarzenegger said he would sign a memorandum of understanding between the federal government and the governors of the four southern border states. It serves as a federal promise to repay the cost of the deployment.

It also establishes rules of engagement prohibiting Guardsmen from handling detainees, but allowing them to carry guns. The rules are similar to those the California Guard follows when deploying to a riot, officials said.

The document also contains a provision allowing the border governors to decline to participate in any part of the mission they deem inappropriate.

Schwarzenegger's decision ended an awkward period for the Republican governor. He held out longer than Democratic governors in Arizona and New Mexico before saying he would send troops.

He also had risked alienating voters in a state that has repeatedly backed a tough approach on immigration — although his reluctance to send troops had been seen as popular among Hispanics.

Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano signed an agreement Thursday for her state to participate in Bush's plan, with 300 Arizona National Guard soldiers set to take part beginning in mid-June.

National Guard troops will be used for engineering, road and fence building, transportation, logistics and surveillance, reconnaissance and port-of-entry duties but not direct law enforcement.
************************************

the finger in the dike? We'll see...

[Rickypt]

Hey Irishgrl:

This was an interesting read. It's a busy week, but I will respond. In the meantime, I have a clarifying question:

I thought your argument was that illegal immigrants become eligible for benefits if they have a baby in the United States. Did I understand that incorrectly? Because this article (and what I previously thought) is that the child becomes eligible, but not the parents.

I just want to know the specifics before I respond. Thanks. :)

[irishgrl]

Hey Irishgrl:

This was an interesting read. It's a busy week, but I will respond. In the meantime, I have a clarifying question:

I thought your argument was that illegal immigrants become eligible for benefits if they have a baby in the United States. Did I understand that incorrectly? Because this article (and what I previously thought) is that the child becomes eligible, but not the parents.

I just want to know the specifics before I respond. Thanks. :)
Im going to get you factual info, so I'll be back.

in cases where parents are ineligible for one reason or another, the family still receives cash assistance for the children, (that is the "anchor baby" phenomenon) and in any case, the parents are eligible to medi-CAL benefits. The reality is, many of these (primarily Hispanic) families have several kids, and that increases the cash grant amount. Oftentimes, it is enough to pay the rent even without the parents being cash aided. I think you did misunderstand me to the extent that I didnt mean the illegals received cash aid. They do, however, receive other benefits in the form of WIC and student lunches which are also costly...

ok, I have to go to Court right now, but you may find this article helpful:
Patchwork Policies: State Assistance for Immigrants under Welfare Reform (http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=309007&renderforprint=1)

(note: I havent scanned it, but it looked pertinent.)

[irishgrl]

From the article I posted:
Overview

For immigrants, the passage of federal welfare reform meant much more than ending the entitlement to cash assistance. The law restricted noncitizen eligibility for a wide range of public programs, including Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), food stamps, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), and Medicaid, and it gave states broad new authority to set social welfare policy for immigrants.

Since the law's enactment, the President and Congress have restored many, but not all, of the benefits from which immigrants were originally barred. Many children, elderly, and disabled immigrants have had their eligibility for food stamps and SSI restored. But most working-age adults remain ineligible for food stamps and most immigrants entering the United States after the law's passage are ineligible for the major federal assistance programs for at least five years.

Although the Congress has gone a long way toward undoing the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act's (PRWORA) immigrant restrictions, it has left another of the law's legacies intact: the devolution of authority from the federal government to the states to determine immigrants' eligibility for public benefits.

Unqualified Immigrants

Another of PRWORA's legacies is the new distinction drawn between "qualified" and "unqualified" immigrants. Undocumented or illegal immigrants have long been ineligible for most public benefits, but this new classification broadens both the groups of immigrants ineligible for assistance and the set of public programs from which they are barred. The law barred undocumented immigrants as well as certain lawfully present immigrants from most federal, state and local public benefits. Consequently, while PRWORA broadened states' authority to set policy for qualified immigrants, it narrowed states' authority to make policy for unqualified immigrants.

California is the only state to take an aggressive approach to implementing the new restrictions on unqualified immigrants. Under the leadership of former Governor Pete Wilson, at least 20 California agencies have issued regulations to bar unqualified immigrants from public services, ranging from the Lead Hazard Control Program to the issuance of commercial driver's licenses. Like his earlier efforts under Proposition 187, which sought to bar undocumented immigrants from public education and other services, most of the state's efforts have been stymied by court challenges. A handful of other states that provided state and local cash or health assistance to immigrants regardless of legal status have since barred the undocumented, but none has attempted to impose restrictions as wide-ranging as California's.

California is different

Despite its anti-immigrant rhetoric, California provides more assistance to immigrants than almost every other state. At the same time, California stands out as the only state to aggressively pursue cutting unqualified immigrants off state and local benefits. This divided approach to immigrant policy reflects the unique politics of immigration in California, where increasing numbers of immigrants are naturalizing in order to vote and immigrant advocacy organizations are growing in strength, yet ballot initiatives such as those limiting affirmative action and bilingual education are approved by the public.

Ryan, it should be noted that the above comments are generalized toward ALL programs. I can tell you that the "anchor babies" practice is very much an issue (especially with TANF or cash aid), primarily because California DOES try to assist immigrants. Illegal immigrants have more than one option, if they dont qualify for TANF, or General Assistance, they can always apply for CAPI, which pays quite a bit more on a monthly basis...

[DrummerDeanna]

Puleeeze! Immigration is SO yesterday...we're back to fighting the REAL enemy again..the gays :p


....I'm totally kidding....

[irishgrl]

Puleeeze! Immigration is SO yesterday...we're back to fighting the REAL enemy again..the gays :p


....I'm totally kidding....
the gays were never MY enemy :shrug: (I know you're kidding!)
Deanna, I know this is a sensitive topic for you but believe me, my objection to the issue is not racist but rather economic, and ideological, as Ive said. Please try not to take my posts personal, because as a CA resident, Im more aware than most people of the valuable contribution of our Hispanic/Mexican citizens...I hope you know that...

[estranged4life]

Puleeeze! Immigration is SO yesterday...we're back to fighting the REAL enemy again..the gays :p


....I'm totally kidding....

who'll be the enemy next week?

[DrummerDeanna]

the gays were never MY enemy :shrug: (I know you're kidding!)
Deanna, I know this is a sensitive topic for you but believe me, my objection to the issue is not racist but rather economic, and ideological, as Ive said. Please try not to take my posts personal, because as a CA resident, Im more aware than most people of the valuable contribution of our Hispanic/Mexican citizens...I hope you know that...



Oh I know - but as a Mexican American it's sometimes hard to separate the issue from the racial. Although - my family and I are all against illegal immigration. No, in fact I enjoy reading all of the articles and things you have been posting on the topic.

[irishgrl]

Oh I know - but as a Mexican American it's sometimes hard to separate the issue from the racial. Although - my family and I are all against illegal immigration. No, in fact I enjoy reading all of the articles and things you have been posting on the topic.

Thanks sweetie! you've always been fair minded :nod: and I know this is a hard issue but remember the folks that sneak across, or use fake ID, make things harder for those of you that are following the rules! Thats what I'M against: the blatant disregard of the law just to get into this country and take advantage of our social service programs and our employment opportunities (at the expense of legal immigrants or legal citizens, mind you).......so anyway, rest easy. Im not an isolationist.

[Rickypt]

From the article I posted:


Ryan, it should be noted that the above comments are generalized toward ALL programs. I can tell you that the "anchor babies" practice is very much an issue (especially with TANF or cash aid), primarily because California DOES try to assist immigrants. Illegal immigrants have more than one option, if they dont qualify for TANF, or General Assistance, they can always apply for CAPI, which pays quite a bit more on a monthly basis...

Thanks for the additional information. I need to read it all over and it will take some time for me to respond to various items. Maybe I should just PM you when I do so that I don't keep bumping up the thread?

But I'm still trying to understand: are illegal immigrants eligible or not eligible for cash assistance? If yes, is it only if they have an anchor baby? And is it only money for the anchor baby or do they qualify for cash as parents as well?

It's confusing to me, because I thought the long article you posted said that they are not eligible for cash assistance, but their kids are eligible for things like Medicaid and school lunch programs. But if I'm reading correctly, your post above makes it seem like they can qualify for TANF in some cases (TANF is the old welfare, correct?) and CAPI (which I'm assuming is a California cash assistance program?).

[irishgrl]

Thanks for the additional information. I need to read it all over and it will take some time for me to respond to various items. Maybe I should just PM you when I do so that I don't keep bumping up the thread?

But I'm still trying to understand: are illegal immigrants eligible or not eligible for cash assistance? If yes, is it only if they have an anchor baby? And is it only money for the anchor baby or do they qualify for cash as parents as well?

It's confusing to me, because I thought the long article you posted said that they are not eligible for cash assistance, but their kids are eligible for things like Medicaid and school lunch programs. But if I'm reading correctly, your post above makes it seem like they can qualify for TANF in some cases (TANF is the old welfare, correct?) and CAPI (which I'm assuming is a California cash assistance program?).

Ryan, Illegal Immigrants are NOT eligible for benefits for THEMSELVES but if they have babies born here, they are brought in under various other programs, most notably Medi-Cal, WIC and School Lunch programs. All of which are very expensive to operate given the extra numbers, yes? Also, the Children that are BORN here are eligible to assistance . of ALL kinds(CASH AID (aka TANF/Calworks etc). That is why we need to stop the flow of illegals, because their KIDS are going to cost us all a mint! Btw, TANF is the NEW welfare. AFDC is the OLD welfare.
CAPI is a cash assistance program for people who otherwise dont qualify for General Assistance.

[DrummerDeanna]

Thanks sweetie! you've always been fair minded :nod: and I know this is a hard issue but remember the folks that sneak across, or use fake ID, make things harder for those of you that are following the rules! Thats what I'M against: the blatant disregard of the law just to get into this country and take advantage of our social service programs and our employment opportunities (at the expense of legal immigrants or legal citizens, mind you).......so anyway, rest easy. Im not an isolationist.


LOL...well I play by the rules by virtue of the fact that I, my parents and my parents parents were lucky enough to be born here :) Prior to that I think that we may have been down south - but the border crossed us kind of thing - I'm doing some research into that :)

Either way - breaking the law is breaking the law - and that, to me, is the bottom line in this issue - it's illegal and therefore the appropriate action should be taken. What that is...well I don't know...but I do agree that something needs to be done.

[irishgrl]

breaking the law is breaking the law - and that, to me, is the bottom line in this issue - it's illegal and therefore the appropriate action should be taken.
exactly. black is black. (I want my baby back)

[Rickypt]

Ryan, Illegal Immigrants are NOT eligible for benefits for THEMSELVES but if they have babies born here, they are brought in under various other programs, most notably Medi-Cal, WIC and School Lunch programs.

So, it's the children who get Medi-Cal, not the parents? I keep trying to clarify this because it's important in my overall analysis of the situation. Health care for kids is way cheaper than for adults. So while it's one thing to say that all these anchor babies are getting Medi-Cal, it's another to say exactly how much that is costing us. I realize a lot of people, including you, think one dime is too much. I get that argument, but my take on the situation depends how much we are really spending overall.

I just saw a stat that says we spent $2.5 billion on Medicaid for illegal immigrants. Which, yes, is a lot of money that could be spent on other services, and at the same time is a drop in the bucket of the overall federal budget. Bush just cut Medicaid spending by double that in the Deficit Reduction Act.

That is why we need to stop the flow of illegals, because their KIDS are going to cost us all a mint!

I'm still not convinced that it will cost us a mint, but I'm still researching and analyzing. Data I've found shows the difference between costs related to providing benefits to illegal immigrants minus taxes paid by them to be $10 billion. I think that's about what we're paying per month for the Iraq War.

Not trying to compare funding illegal immigration with funding war, as I know many are against both, but I'm just trying to determine what I consider to be a mint, especially when I weigh in the humanitarian factors.

Anyway, so you know, I have learned quite a bit and am considering factors that I hadn't thought about earlier, like the economic impact of having a massive influx of legalized people who are lesser educated. I just haven't had time to think it all through comprehensively.

I don't see it as black is black. I think it's gray. Laws can be amended if they aren't workable or appropriate. And forgiveness is part of a humanitarian response to many issues. The argument that they broke the law therefore they have to go is one that I just don't agree with.

[irishgrl]

So, it's the children who get Medi-Cal, not the parents? I keep trying to clarify this because it's important in my overall analysis of the situation. Health care for kids is way cheaper than for adults. So while it's one thing to say that all these anchor babies are getting Medi-Cal, it's another to say exactly how much that is costing us. I realize a lot of people, including you, think one dime is too much. I get that argument, but my take on the situation depends how much we are really spending overall.

I just saw a stat that says we spent $2.5 billion on Medicaid for illegal immigrants. Which, yes, is a lot of money that could be spent on other services, and at the same time is a drop in the bucket of the overall federal budget. Bush just cut Medicaid spending by double that in the Deficit Reduction Act.



I'm still not convinced that it will cost us a mint, but I'm still researching and analyzing. Data I've found shows the difference between costs related to providing benefits to illegal immigrants minus taxes paid by them to be $10 billion. I think that's about what we're paying per month for the Iraq War.

Not trying to compare funding illegal immigration with funding war, as I know many are against both, but I'm just trying to determine what I consider to be a mint, especially when I weigh in the humanitarian factors.

Anyway, so you know, I have learned quite a bit and am considering factors that I hadn't thought about earlier, like the economic impact of having a massive influx of legalized people who are lesser educated. I just haven't had time to think it all through comprehensively.

I don't see it as black is black. I think it's gray. Laws can be amended if they aren't workable or appropriate. And forgiveness is part of a humanitarian response to many issues. The argument that they broke the law therefore they have to go is one that I just don't agree with.


well.........on the one hand, Im glad you're open minded enough to see this all has a price tag. on the other hand, apparently you dont realize we are talking about ILLEGAL aliens here, not naturalized citizens.........and Yes, it does cost this country $$$$$ whether its paid at the state.fed/local level...

[Rickypt]

on the other hand, apparently you dont realize we are talking aboit ILLEGAL aliens here, not naturalized citizens

Why do you think that? :shrug: I think I've been very clear that this discussion is about illegal immigrants. I yield that it costs the country money, I yield that it is money paying for people here who came to the country illegally, and my argument thus far is that I am not sure the cost is high enough to warrant my own outrage regardless of their status here.

Besides the whole thread is about do we make these 14 million people legal or send them home. I think it is possible to support amnesty for these folks, along with reform that makes it harder for people to keep coming illegally in such large numbers.

Gotta go....

[irishgrl]

Why do you think that? :shrug: I think I've been very clear that this discussion is about illegal immigrants. I yield that it costs the country money, I yield that it is money paying for people here who came to the country illegally, and my argument thus far is that I am not sure the cost is high enough to warrant my own outrage regardless of their status here.

Besides the whole thread is about do we make these 14 million people legal or send them home. I think it is possible to support amnesty for these folks, along with reform that makes it harder for people to keep coming illegally in such large numbers.

Gotta go....


Ok, just to clarify, illegal immigrants who come here and have their children, receive (on behalf of the kids), cash aid, foodstamps and medical. they themselves do not receive cash or foodstamps but they DO get medi-CAL. they can also get WIC and school lunches.

as for the numbers. I posted enough articles that prove that supporting illegal immagrants is an outrage. go back to page 1 and later pages... In my opinion we do NOT foot the bill for people who arent supposed to be here in the first place.

sorry......IMO, they need to go home and start OVER.