Page 8 of 9 FirstFirst ... 6789 LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 82

Thread: New DHS rules cancel deportations

  1. #71
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:10 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,076

    Re: New DHS rules cancel deportations

    i'm not buying the 198,000 number. The average immigrant with only a high school education creates a lifetime fiscal burden of $31,000., and you're not counting remittances. illegal immigrants are especially high-costs on local and state governments.

  2. #72
    Sage
    RiverDad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    04-20-14 @ 02:16 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    5,039

    Re: New DHS rules cancel deportations

    Quote Originally Posted by teamosil View Post
    Uh, it says right on there that my number is correct.... -$13,000.... You're looking at the "immigrants themselves" row, but pretending that is the net figure. It isn't. The net figures are exactly what I said they were: -$13,000 w/o a high school degree, +$198,000 w/ a high school degree.
    The -$13,000 figure is based on a 300 year projection of what the immigrants and their descendants will return to the US. The -$89,000 cost is calculated for the immigrant himself.

    Take a look at the assumptions that the study uses to calculate the descendent net present value. They take the performance seen from past immigrants and their descendents, those who arrived in the early part of the 20th Century - The era of a booming American economy, one where a middle class income could be achieved though income earned via manual labor. The US is not likely to ever again be so dominant in the world economy as it was during the period 1900-1980.

    Secondly, most of those immigrants were from Europe and their descendents climb up the education and social mobility ladders is not being matched by the profiles on Hispanics, who are not matching the profiles of earlier immigrants, even after 4 generations in the United States.

    mexicanamericaneducatio.jpg

    So, if current Hispanic Americans are performing dismally, then the assumption of the study that the descendants of the immigrants would perform to historical standard is unwarranted and because this assumption is the strongest factor responsible for lowering the cost of immigrants from -$89,000 to -$13,000 it's quite likely that, the Hispanic nature of the current illegal alien invasion will make matters even worse than the -$89,000 calculation.

  3. #73
    Sage
    teamosil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    San Francisco
    Last Seen
    05-22-14 @ 12:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,623

    Re: New DHS rules cancel deportations

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    i'm not buying the 198,000 number. The average immigrant with only a high school education creates a lifetime fiscal burden of $31,000., and you're not counting remittances. illegal immigrants are especially high-costs on local and state governments.
    That page you linked to doesn't mention anything about $31,000. Maybe you linked the wrong page?

    Regardless, I'm just repeating Riverdad's source.

    In terms of the safety net costs, they're totally dwarfed by the economic impacts. Total we spend about $40 billion on social services for undocumented immigrants each year, but their economic impact nears $1 trillion if it isn't even over $1 trillion.

  4. #74
    Sage
    teamosil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    San Francisco
    Last Seen
    05-22-14 @ 12:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,623

    Re: New DHS rules cancel deportations

    Quote Originally Posted by RiverDad View Post
    Take a look at the assumptions that the study uses . . .
    Etc. So now that you realize that your own study very strongly supports my position and completely rejects your own, you no longer find it credible eh? Interesting how those things change like that... Ok, well, do you have one you like better?

  5. #75
    Sage
    AdamT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    17,773

    Re: New DHS rules cancel deportations

    Quote Originally Posted by RiverDad View Post
    Operation Wetback


    Operation Wetback was a 1954 operation by the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) to remove illegal immigrants, mostly Mexican nationals from the southwestern United States.

    Some 750 agents targeted agricultural areas with a goal of 1,000 apprehensions per day. By the end of July, over 50,000 illegal aliens were caught in the two states. An estimated 488,000 illegal aliens are believed to have left voluntarily, for fear of being apprehended. By September, 80,000 had been taken into custody in Texas, and the INS estimated that 500,000 to 700,000 had left Texas of their own accord. To discourage illicit re-entry, buses and trains took many deportees deep within Mexican territory before releasing them.


    If they could achieve that level of success in 1954 with their crude technology, then we should have no problem in rounding up 20,000,000 foreign invaders and deporting them out of the country.




    You're going to base your refutation on the assessment offered by a pro-illegal alien advocacy group? Why not go right to the source instead of a biased organization?

    Here is the National Research Council report, published in 1997. Here, I'll even save you the trouble and extract the table which provides the conclusion:

    Attachment 67115078

    Here is an inflation calculator. The $89,000 cost to society was calculated in 1996 dollars. The corresponding value in 2010 is $122,391.64

    What number did I use in my post? I recall that I wrote the following: "netting out to $122,000 of costs."

    Well, would you look at that, what I wrote is exactly what the NRC calculated costs amount to in 2010.
    And here's what the Council on Foreign Relations report said about the NRC's conclusion:

    "For the nation as a whole, the NRC estimated that in 1996 immigration imposed a
    short-run fiscal burden on the average U.S. native household of $200, or 0.2 percent of
    U.S. GDP.42 In that year, the immigration surplus was about 0.1 percent of GDP.43 A
    back of the envelope calculation then suggests that in the short run immigration in the
    mid-1990s reduced the annual income of U.S. residents by about 0.1 percent of GDP.
    Given the uncertainties involved in making this calculation, one should not put great
    stock in the fact that the resulting estimate is negative. The prediction error around the
    estimate, though unknown, is likely to be large, in which case the -0.1 percent estimate
    would be statistically indistinguishable from zero. Using this sort of analysis, we cannot
    say with much conviction whether the aggregate impact of immigration on the U.S.
    economy is positive or negative. What available evidence does suggest is that the total
    impact is small."

  6. #76
    Sage
    RiverDad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    04-20-14 @ 02:16 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    5,039

    Re: New DHS rules cancel deportations

    Paul Krugman on illegal immigration:


    Second, while immigration may have raised overall income slightly, many of the worst-off native-born Americans are hurt by immigration especially immigration from Mexico. Because Mexican immigrants have much less education than the average U.S. worker, they increase the supply of less-skilled labor, driving down the wages of the worst-paid Americans. The most authoritative recent study of this effect, by George Borjas and Lawrence Katz of Harvard, estimates that U.S. high school dropouts would earn as much as 8 percent more if it weren't for Mexican immigration.

    That's why it's intellectually dishonest to say, as President Bush does, that immigrants do "jobs that Americans will not do." The willingness of Americans to do a job depends on how much that job pays and the reason some jobs pay too little to attract native-born Americans is competition from poorly paid immigrants.

    Finally, modern America is a welfare state, even if our social safety net has more holes in it than it should and low-skill immigrants threaten to unravel that safety net.

    Basic decency requires that we provide immigrants, once they're here, with essential health care, education for their children, and more. As the Swiss writer Max Frisch wrote about his own country's experience with immigration, "We wanted a labor force, but human beings came." Unfortunately, low-skill immigrants don't pay enough taxes to cover the cost of the benefits they receive.

    Worse yet, immigration penalizes governments that act humanely. Immigrants are a much more serious fiscal problem in California than in Texas, which treats the poor and unlucky harshly, regardless of where they were born.


    The question now becomes, "why do those who favor the interests of illegal immigrants hate low income African-Americans and other low income Americans so much that they're putting the interests of foreigner law breakers over the interests of their fellow citizens."

  7. #77
    Sage
    RiverDad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    04-20-14 @ 02:16 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    5,039

    Re: New DHS rules cancel deportations

    Quote Originally Posted by teamosil View Post
    Etc. So now that you realize that your own study very strongly supports my position and completely rejects your own, you no longer find it credible eh? Interesting how those things change like that... Ok, well, do you have one you like better?
    Do you have some type of reading comprehension problem?

  8. #78
    Sage
    teamosil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    San Francisco
    Last Seen
    05-22-14 @ 12:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,623

    Re: New DHS rules cancel deportations

    Quote Originally Posted by RiverDad View Post
    Second, while immigration may have raised overall income slightly, many of the worst-off native-born Americans are hurt by immigration — especially immigration from Mexico.[B] Because Mexican immigrants have much less education than the average U.S. worker, they increase the supply of less-skilled labor, driving down the wages of the worst-paid Americans. The most authoritative recent study of this effect, by George Borjas and Lawrence Katz of Harvard, estimates that U.S. high school dropouts would earn as much as 8 percent more if it weren't for Mexican immigration. . . .
    That may well be true. But the solution isn't just short term labor protectionism to try to artificially boost up the value of high school dropout labor, it should be to improve the capabilities of our workforce and create jobs that can take advantage of those capabilities.

    That said, the worst paid Americans make minimum wage. Minimum wage is set by statute.

  9. #79
    Sage
    AdamT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    17,773

    Re: New DHS rules cancel deportations

    Quote Originally Posted by RiverDad View Post
    Paul Krugman on illegal immigration:


    Second, while immigration may have raised overall income slightly, many of the worst-off native-born Americans are hurt by immigration — especially immigration from Mexico. Because Mexican immigrants have much less education than the average U.S. worker, they increase the supply of less-skilled labor, driving down the wages of the worst-paid Americans. The most authoritative recent study of this effect, by George Borjas and Lawrence Katz of Harvard, estimates that U.S. high school dropouts would earn as much as 8 percent more if it weren't for Mexican immigration.

    That's why it's intellectually dishonest to say, as President Bush does, that immigrants do "jobs that Americans will not do." The willingness of Americans to do a job depends on how much that job pays — and the reason some jobs pay too little to attract native-born Americans is competition from poorly paid immigrants.

    Finally, modern America is a welfare state, even if our social safety net has more holes in it than it should — and low-skill immigrants threaten to unravel that safety net.

    Basic decency requires that we provide immigrants, once they're here, with essential health care, education for their children, and more. As the Swiss writer Max Frisch wrote about his own country's experience with immigration, "We wanted a labor force, but human beings came." Unfortunately, low-skill immigrants don't pay enough taxes to cover the cost of the benefits they receive.

    Worse yet, immigration penalizes governments that act humanely. Immigrants are a much more serious fiscal problem in California than in Texas, which treats the poor and unlucky harshly, regardless of where they were born.


    The question now becomes, "why do those who favor the interests of illegal immigrants hate low income African-Americans and other low income Americans so much that they're putting the interests of foreigner law breakers over the interests of their fellow citizens."
    Perhaps you should have posted a link to the full piece so that people could have read this paragraph:

    "We shouldn't exaggerate these problems. Mexican immigration, says the Borjas-Katz study, has played only a ''modest role'' in growing U.S. inequality. And the political threat that low-skill immigration poses to the welfare state is more serious than the fiscal threat: the disastrous Medicare drug bill alone does far more to undermine the finances of our social insurance system than the whole burden of dealing with illegal immigrants."

    North of the Border - Op-Ed - NYTimes.com

    I think that liberals, for the most part, do not favor the interests of illegal immigrants. Rather, they favor reforming immigration policies to provide a rational level of immigration.

  10. #80
    Sage
    RiverDad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    04-20-14 @ 02:16 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    5,039

    Re: New DHS rules cancel deportations

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    Perhaps you should have posted a link to the full piece
    Huh? I DID post a link to the full opinion piece.

    so that people could have read this paragraph:


    "We shouldn't exaggerate these problems. Mexican immigration, says the Borjas-Katz study, has played only a ''modest role'' in growing U.S. inequality. And the political threat that low-skill immigration poses to the welfare state is more serious than the fiscal threat: the disastrous Medicare drug bill alone does far more to undermine the finances of our social insurance system than the whole burden of dealing with illegal immigrants."
    Krugman shifts gears and talks about the role that immigrants are having on growing inequality. That's not the subject under discussion, so it's irrelevant to the topic. The second part of the paragraph involves Krugman slamming the Bush Administration for their Medicare polices. I realize that that section gave you a woody, but, you know, Bush has been out of office for 3 years, so the issue of liberals reminiscing about getting wood when reading Bush Administration criticisms also doesn't have much to do with the topic.
    Last edited by RiverDad; 08-20-11 at 03:16 AM.

Page 8 of 9 FirstFirst ... 6789 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •