Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 19, 2014, 05:32:26 AM
I have to correct you here, the State's own Comptroller found Illegals added 2.1% to their economy in 2006, or $17.2 Billion.

Immigration is immigration, labor is labor, the economy doesn't care what your political status is.

Now there are sociological effects to be concerned about, so I'm not saying this should be taken as an open pass to let this problem grow.

I'm also really not a fan of those Subsidies, a similiar policy in Colorado made my own tuition go up while I was still a student.
I disagree, he shows support for some, but has demonstrated bad instincts for others.

The HPV injections (heck, Palin was nailing him to the wall for just that one), his support of New Deal era-programs like rural electrification and the Bureau of Irrigation, eminent domain use to put up Toll Roads, his "questionable" use of grants to businesses in the State, the State business tax he introduced (oh boy)....

I like his stance on the Fed (End it), and may be willing to vote for him on just that reason, so long as that's made a campaign promise, but I hold no delusions on his... weaknesses.

Sorry, but I must correct you and I certainly don't know where you are getting your factoids that illegals add to the economy ... they are a huge drain.

..."In its section on the income of illegals, CIS reported that public education — at $39 billion to educate illegals — highlights the "fiscal problem" they create.

We estimate the combined total income of illegal immigrant households at about $162 billion. If these estimates are correct, it would mean that just to cover the costs of education they would have to pay 24 percent of their income. Even if illegal immigrants paid all the income and payroll taxes that they should, given their lower income and large household size it seems doubtful that they would pay enough in taxes to cover the education of their children, let alone all the other costs they create.

But again, this is because of the education level of illegals, not because they do not work. The vast majority of working-age illegals work. ... But because of their education levels, a very large share of illegal immigrants have low incomes. This is the primary reason that their presence in the United States tends to strain public coffers...

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/immigration/item/12431-illegal-aliens-a-drain-on-us-taxpayers-report-says

That  is just one current stat for a very limited scenario depicting illegals that are actually working. The negative impact of illegal immigration on various states and our economy in general is something that I have researched for several years.  I am by no means an authority, nor do I claim to be a professional economist, but if you have been brainwashed into thinking that illegal immigrants have a positive impact on our economy you are very sadly mistaken. What you need to take into consideration is that when illegal immigrants enter this country ILLEGALLY, they have NOT paid anything, into the "system" from which they are taking.  The "system" includes; the legal system, jails, prisons, law enforcement, hospitals, medical facilities, schools, food stamps, housing, etc., etc.   

Besides the statistics, very rudimentary mathematics and logic comes into play here.  A very simple example; if you have a $100.00 in the bank and you allow 10 people to borrow $10.00 each and none of those people put any money back and you put another $100.00 back into the bank and another 10 people borrow $10.00 without putting any money back what do you think eventually happens?  Before long, do you think it just may be possible that you just might run out of money to keep supporting those who are borrowing?

Perhaps you are one that thinks that with redistribution of wealth we will be able to support all those illegals. 

Quote from: Solar on August 19, 2014, 06:22:38 AM
As I suspected, it's all based on "assumption", they had to guesstimate the initial figures, then going off the bogus numbers, created a false conclusion.

All that aside, these illegals merely displaced people at a lower wage wanting to work, so to subscribe benefit where none exists, is pure bull shit.

The American Enterprise Institute only found very small effect on wages.

Britain, who has had for years a more "neo-liberal" immigration policy than us, saw unemployment shrink as their immigration rate grew.

In truth, either it's positive, or there is no connection between Immigration and unemployment.

To explain:

A job is a zero-sum game, someone takes that job, that job is gone. But when you move to the plural, jobs, you now have to take into account what conditions help to generate jobs.

Having more people, more ideas, more consumers as well as laborers, tends to makes that generating easier.

QuoteNot to mention it's a 14 year old report. One has to wonder how, using these same methods, in other states actually affected by the depression.

Texas is the only State to see Illegal immigration grow since 2008. It's not hard to figure why.

QuoteThat report came assigned an agenda,

It was written by a Republican, who was Perry's replacement as the Texas Agriculture Commissioner. And the stated agenda was to find the opposite of what it concluded.

Yeah, I get this is a hard pill to swallow, really I do. I have family in Arizona, they've seen the Cartel smugglers come past where they're at, and they live in Wickenburg, which ain't exactly a border town.

But at the same time, I'm obligated to say this: economics does not constrain itself to political desires, it has its own laws, and those must be applied to know what it says.

Quote from: suzziY on August 19, 2014, 06:32:50 AM
Sorry, but I must correct you and I certainly don't know where you are getting your factoids that illegals add to the economy ... they are a huge drain.

I'll stop you right here. What you go on to quote are not Economic considerations, rather they're fiscal considerations, and it's important to make that distinction.

If it's fiscal, then it squares back to Government management, not economic productivity or lack there of, of the people we're speaking to.

Now, Texas estimated in 2005, just the year before of the Texas Comptroller report, that they were spending $4.5 Billion on illegal Immigrants, $3.5 Billion after outlays.

Tagged with the $17.2 Billion, this means that there's a net benefit, even if we were to contrast the two figures like this.

Overall, the picture looks like this: Some states which are benefit-heavy, like New York and California, are giving more than they're getting back, while the Federal Government programs are drawing a net-benefit.

To be honest, on the State-side of things I'm alright with this: New York and California are suffering from their own decisions. They wanted the immigrants there, dished out packages to attract them, so they can pay out the nose for however long they want. Their choice, their failure.

The Federal Government concerns me more, but the American Enterprise Institute, and CATO both say that immigrants in general, and illegals specifically take less than they put back in, and they this is because of the Social Security "Suspense" account, payments that cannot be matched to SS numbers, and the ITINs, or the IRS' Individual Tax Identification Numbers that many illegals use instead of a SS number in many transactions (and to use it, you have to pay). CATO even says that they take less than the poor native-born, though others they say they're roughly equal.

Regardless, the welfare system certainly needs reform, even without considering immigrants.

Awww geeeeez (Archie Bunker voice).....another troll, dragging cherry-picked assumption / estimate / modeling-heavy "proof" that disproves every tenet of common sense and basic math  ?  Yeah, we need another one of those.

Please find us more of these.  Can't have enough of them.

Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 19, 2014, 07:26:36 AM
I'll stop you right here. What you go on to quote are not Economic considerations, rather they're fiscal considerations, and it's important to make that distinction.

If it's fiscal, then it squares back to Government management, not economic productivity or lack there of, of the people we're speaking to.

Now, Texas estimated in 2005, just the year before of the Texas Comptroller report, that they were spending $4.5 Billion on illegal Immigrants, $3.5 Billion after outlays.

Tagged with the $17.2 Billion, this means that there's a net benefit, even if we were to contrast the two figures like this.

Overall, the picture looks like this: Some states which are benefit-heavy, like New York and California, are giving more than they're getting back, while the Federal Government programs are drawing a net-benefit.

To be honest, on the State-side of things I'm alright with this: New York and California are suffering from their own decisions. They wanted the immigrants there, dished out packages to attract them, so they can pay out the nose for however long they want. Their choice, their failure.

The Federal Government concerns me more, but the American Enterprise Institute, and CATO both say that immigrants in general, and illegals specifically take less than they put back in, and they this is because of the Social Security "Suspense" account, payments that cannot be matched to SS numbers, and the ITINs, or the IRS' Individual Tax Identification Numbers that many illegals use instead of a SS number in many transactions (and to use it, you have to pay). CATO even says that they take less than the poor native-born, though others they say they're roughly equal.

Regardless, the welfare system certainly needs reform, even without considering immigrants.

One thing that perhaps you don't realize and really needs to be considered here is the "re-organization" or "re-naming" of illegal immigrants as defined by the Federal Government and CATO and other entities in certain studies and reports.  Right now there is a push to "re-name" illegal children as homeless, so indeed when the reports or government stats comes out the "illegal" population numbers changes only slightly.  In some past studies, Hispanic illegals  for instance have been re-categorized as non-Whites (yet they list blacks) which obviously is a much broader category and skews the accuracy of reports.  Again, simple logic and math don't lie.  You can't take more out of the system then you put in without it becoming depleted. I am not saying that illegal immigration is the sole problem of our economic downward spiral but a huge part.  Last numbers I had when I was really into research showed in 2008, the estimated illegal immigration population was at 20,000,000!  However, the Washington Times reported in 2013 that same number.  So, as you can see there is a drastic variation in numbers and I doubt that in 5 years that virtually no illegals have come across our borders. A report by the PEW Hispanic Center reports that are an estimated half a million illegal entries into the U.S. per YEAR.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/9/nearly-20m-illegal-immigrants-us-ex-border-patrol/

http://www.pewhispanic.org/2013/01/29/a-nation-of-immigrants/

Social Security benefits to illegals, stolen identities, fake social security numbers, voter fraud, fake driver's licenses, bank fraud, loan fraud, crimes committed against legal citizens by illegals etc., etc., all have a negative impact on our economy that most reports tend to fail to recognize or include.  Those issues in themselves are a whole other discussion.

Quote from: AndyJackson on August 19, 2014, 07:58:03 AM
Awww geeeeez (Archie Bunker voice).....another troll,

Not so, I will gladly go through each point if you wish it. I did not come to this conclusion lightly, nor did I start at.
What I learned of economics gradually showed it to me. It's somewhat counter-intuitive, and you'd only realize it if you're familiar with more than a few core concepts to economics. Not something I picked up right away, no sir.

Quotedragging cherry-picked assumption / estimate / modeling-heavy "proof" that disproves every tenet of common sense and basic math  ?

I apply both.

Immigration is a net benefit to economy, that is common sense. There is no economist on this planet that isn't of heterodox persuasion that would try to deny it.

The question is if Illegal immigration differs sufficiently from immigration in general to say it does not offer this benefit.

The conclusion that it does unfortunately has several obstacles, ones that I don't see it overcoming.

Quote from: suzziY on August 19, 2014, 08:14:16 AMAgain, simple logic and math don't lie.  You can't take more out of the system then you put in without it becoming depleted.

Yes that's true, but you're still fixated on the Fiscal side.

Economics, is not fixed, because wealth is not fixed. You can always make more of it. And since wealth creation and job creation are correlated, you can always make more jobs.

QuoteI am not saying that illegal immigration is the sole problem of our economic downward spiral but a huge part.

You're reading the Government as the economy in that statement. So I must ask: do you truly think that? Do you think our economy rises and falls by the fiscal state of our Government? As I would prescribe the opposite: the Fiscal stability of our Government is dictated (in part) by the economy, which is a connected but separate entity.

QuoteLast numbers I had when I was really into research showed in 2008, the estimated illegal immigration population was at 20,000,000!  However, the Washington Times reported in 2013 that same number.  So, as you can see there is a drastic variation in numbers and I doubt that in 7 years that virtually no illegals have come across our borders.

I'm not saying that, I'm saying that in everywhere but Texas, which is where all the new guys are going, the illegal population has either fallen or stagnated.

You should read my link, it was PEW they were quoting, we are not in conflict.

Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 19, 2014, 06:00:05 AM
The same way all immigrants have been doing it for centuries "with nothing but the shirts on their backs".

Either they start new businesses, or they fill pre-existing labor needs.

Here's the Comptroller's report.

Their stated objective was to find that the illegals were a net drag on the State's economy, but they didn't.


I'm economically minded before I'm political, and even though I don't like what's going on, especially with the kids wondering over here in this most recent bout, I can't ignore what Supply & Demand tells me.

"Either they start businesses or they fill an existing labor need......"  How are the minor children doing either?   Tooooooo damned many of 'em, most of which are illegal to start with. 

What does the law of supply and demand tell you about "kids" who wandered over here?  How are they helping the economy of any state?  Do states have funds set aside to take care of illegal minors or even illegal adults?  I'm talking the whole nine yards of food, medical, housing, transportation, education?  Heck most states are trying to figure out by a yearly budget of how they are going to be able to care for its own citizens and aren't prepared to handle the influx of ILLEGALS, no matter if they are poor little degraded curtain climbers that are here without their moms and dads. 

Quote from: keyboarder on August 19, 2014, 08:29:15 AM
"Either they start businesses or they fill an existing labor need......"  How are the minor children doing either?   

That's a recent thing, and they aren't illegal immigrants: They're asylum seekers.

I don't mean to nitpick, but since our own system commands that we make distinctions, well..:

Immigrant Eligibility for Public Assistance Benefits

Immigrants' eligibility for public benefits is based on specific aspects of their immigration status and state policies.9 Some key elements of the rules are:

1. Citizenship.

Naturalized citizens and U.S.-born children in non-citizen families are citizens. They are fully eligible for public benefits like Medicaid, the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), SNAP, cash assistance, and SSI, if they meet other program eligibility criteria.10

2. Refugees and Asylees.

Immigrants granted refugee or asylee status are generally eligible for public benefits if they meet program eligibility criteria.


3. Lawful Permanent Residents.

Lawful permanent residents (LPRs) must wait at least five years before they are eligible for benefits, but states have the option of providing them earlier.11 After five years, LPRs are eligible for federal benefits if they meet the program eligibility criteria. As exceptions, LPR children have been eligible for SNAP benefits since 2003 and states have been able to restore Medicaid benefits for children and pregnant women since 2009.

4. Temporary/Provisional Immigrants.

Temporary immigrants (e.g., work or student visa holders) are generally ineligible for public benefits, including the youth who are categorized as "Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals."

5. Undocumented Immigrants (aka, illegal Aliens).

Undocumented immigrants are generally ineligible for the public assistance programs mentioned above.

For more details on this last part, go here:

Poor non-Native born Americans Use Less Welfare | Sunshine State News

QuoteWhat does the law of supply and demand tell you about "kids" who wandered over here?

They're mostly coming here to be with their parents. Their parents are here because they're looking for work, and we pay more than most nearby-nations, and have a domestic demand for their labor.

Also... the Latin countries they're largely coming from have a violence rate even worse than that of Iraq during the height of the insurgency. Pretty strong motivator to get out, that.

QuoteHow are they helping the economy of any state?  Do states have funds set aside to take care of illegal minors or even illegal adults?

We do that, because we're not letting them go to their parents. We're taking care of them, with the eventual goal of sending them back. And I'll be honest, I don't which is the right decision here. I'm leaning towards the deportation.

Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 19, 2014, 08:15:43 AM
Not so, I will gladly go through each point if you wish it. I did not come to this conclusion lightly, nor did I start at.
What I learned of economics gradually showed it to me. It's somewhat counter-intuitive, and you'd only realize it if you're familiar with more than a few core concepts to economics. Not something I picked up right away, no sir.
I apply both.

Immigration is a net benefit to economy, that is common sense. There is no economist on this planet that isn't of heterodox persuasion that would try to deny it.

The question is if Illegal immigration differs sufficiently from immigration in general to say it does not offer this benefit.

The conclusion that it does unfortunately has several obstacles, ones that I don't see it overcoming.

Perhaps the progressive liberalism that has been shoved down your throat while attending college has affected your ability to think clearly.  Good grief ....  illegal immigration differs sufficiently from immigration?  No sh**! What a concept! We are talking about ILLEGAL immigrants and the negative effect they have on OUR economy.   

Scenario to consider (yes, it does happen):

Juan, a resident of Mexico crosses over into the United States illegally.  He is apprehended and processed (all costing tax payers money) and told to show up in court in 14 days.  14 days pass and he doesn't show up a summons is issued (all costing taxpayer money)  He later manages to steal a gun and robs a store and resells the items for a few bucks (costing the store owner money).  Juan later attacks a homeowner and robs their house (costing the homeowner money, insurance company money and law enforcement money).  Juan is caught and thrown in jail where he is serving a sentence of 3 years (all at the expense of the taxpayers).

So .... what part of illegal immigration has a negative impact on our system don't you get?

Perhaps this scenario:

Camila a resident in Mexico now 6 months pregnant crosses over into the U.S. illegally, she is apprehended, processed and told to show up in 14 days (cost to taxpayers).  Meanwhile, she has some complications with her pregnancy and goes to the E.R. where she is treated (cost to taxpayers).  She never shows up to court, but lo and behold several months later she returns to the E.R. to deliver her baby (cost to taxpayers).  Her baby is born on American soil and is now an American citizen ... both receive housing, food stamps, medical, etc.

In both scenarios NEITHER Juan or Camila or her baby of course have paid a penny into the system.  So again, what part of, if you take more out of the system than you put in, you will eventually create economic havoc on the system don't you get?

Enough said.

Without the government's restructured provisions, they'd still be illegals getting over. 
Don't you get it?  We've been in an economic downward state for quite a few years and the idea that you can print money and enact new laws to cover an even less important agenda does not sit well with conservative Americans.  Liberal Americans are quite the opposite

Got a question.  Does changing the status of illegals to homeless or immigrants take away the criminal aspect of their character?  You can paint a leopard but sooner or later the spots will come thru.  If these folks are willing to break our laws to gain access to our country, what situation will arise when they will decide to trample our laws again and again?  Is this not what they are being taught?  That all they have to do is show their ass and everything will come their way? 

Sorry but I failed to hit the quote function in reply to a post by A. Slim

Quote from: suzziY on August 19, 2014, 08:50:18 AM
Perhaps the progressive liberalism that has been shoved down your throat

No, it's free market economics, namely by this organization, who I was told by a liberal has a far flung connection to the Koch Brothers. The Kochs contribute money and are board members of their umbrella organization.

Quotewhile attending college has affected your ability to think clearly.

May have, I had a Greek Keynesian professor who proclaimed twice in class "What's the problem with Socialism in America? It works GREAT in my country!"

Well, I knew that was BS at any rate, and this was before *his country* keeled over.

QuoteGood grief ....  illegal immigration differs sufficiently from immigration?  No sh**! What a concept! We are talking about ILLEGAL immigrants and the negative effect they have on OUR economy.   

No, you've only listed Fiscal impacts, and what you mentioned is still mostly just yet more Fiscal impacts. For the crimes, you've gone to an extreme, and acted as if this is the typical behavior.

There are violent illegals, but as a population they aren't nearly so violent as natural-born Hispanic Americans. Or Black Americans for that matter.

In fact, Linda Chavez, who I saw at the Western Conservative Summit this year, spoke about the El Paso Miracle. A town that has had one of the lowest crime rates in the nation, several years running. 

They have a very large Immigrant population, much of whom aren't legal, and they sit directly across from Ciudad Juarez, and yet...

Quote from: Alaska Slim on August 19, 2014, 08:15:43 AM
Not so, I will gladly go through each point if you wish it. I did not come to this conclusion lightly, nor did I start at.
What I learned of economics gradually showed it to me. It's somewhat counter-intuitive, and you'd only realize it if you're familiar with more than a few core concepts to economics. Not something I picked up right away, no sir.
I apply both.

Immigration is a net benefit to economy, that is common sense. There is no economist on this planet that isn't of heterodox persuasion that would try to deny it.

The question is if Illegal immigration differs sufficiently from immigration in general to say it does not offer this benefit.

The conclusion that it does unfortunately has several obstacles, ones that I don't see it overcoming.

Legal immigration has always required -

-You have sponsors who will bankroll and house and feed your ass until you can do it yourself
-You prove to not be disease-ridden, in an actual hospital; go home if you are
-You are not illiterate or retarded in some way, requiring a complete cognitive makeover at our cost
-You are not toting a whole gaggle of freeloaders, standing behind you, hiding in the bushes / border, or in your belly

Today, the illegals are loud & proud that they fail every one of these measures, and loudly demand their free fixes to every one of these conditions.

There is no way to intelligently claim that one is the same as the other, or in the same universe, financially or economically.

I note your smarmy distinction of finance and economics, and sniffy use of "heterodox".....and duly announce that you are a mid 20's, arrogant yet ignorant, know-it-all that knows nothing of life or reality.

Quote from: AndyJackson on August 19, 2014, 09:18:00 AM
Legal immigration has always required -

-You have sponsors who will bankroll and house and feed your ass until you can do it yourself
-You prove to not be disease-ridden, in an actual hospital; go home if you are
-You are not illiterate or retarded in some way, requiring a complete cognitive makeover at our cost
-You are not toting a whole gaggle of freeloaders, standing behind you, hiding in the bushes / border, or in your belly

Today, the illegals are loud & proud that they fail every one of these measures, and loudly demand their free fixes to every one of these conditions.

There is no way to intelligently claim that one is the same as the other, or in the same universe, financially or economically.

I note your smarmy distinction of finance and economics, and sniffy use of "heterodox".....and duly announce that you are a mid 20's, arrogant yet ignorant, know-it-all that knows nothing of life or reality.

Very eloquently said,  Andy.   

Quote from: keyboarder on August 19, 2014, 09:05:58 AM
Without the government's restructured provisions, they'd still be illegals getting over. 
Don't you get it?  We've been in an economic downward state for quite a few years

Yes, and this has nothing to do with immigration, illegal or non.

It has to do with the "stimulus" (that wasn't), keeping interest rates perpetually at 1%, heightening taxes in a recession (even a Keynesian will tell you that's obtuse), adding on yet more regulations onto an already over-regulated industry (banking & finance), and... Healthcare reform (need I say more?).

QuoteGot a question.  Does changing the status of illegals to homeless or immigrants take away the criminal aspect of their character?

If CATO is doing this, then please show it. They've never struck me as the PC sort, not giving a damn about "environmental protection" or being afraid to call a spade a spade when it comes to sociological factors, so it would be news to me.

QuoteIf these folks are willing to break our laws to gain access to our country, what situation will arise when they will decide to trample our laws again and again?  Is this not what they are being taught?  That all they have to do is show their ass and everything will come their way?

I'm not for Amnesty, if that's what you're asking.