• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

New DHS rules cancel deportations

RiverDad said:
It's all a part of the grand scheme. First we get the left to acknowledge that the Right has superior arguments. Then when they're demoralized from losing arguments on the internet, we plan to strike by implementing those grand schemes in the halls of power.

Hey, if you're going to set em up, I'll be happy to hit the ball.
Click to expand...

Thanks for admitting that the right only cares about winning arguments on the internet, and cares nothing about principles :lamo
 
sangha said:
Thanks for admitting that the right only cares about winning arguments on the internet, and cares nothing about principles :lamo
Click to expand...

Hey, I never said the Right wasn't Evil, I just said that the Left was stupid.
 
jamesrage said:
Enforcing the law is never cheap.So cost is not a issue. Telling illegals that we will not deport you send the message to them to come right in and not even worry about getting caught.
Click to expand...

RiverDad said:
The whole point of government is to protect the nation, not to be an insurance company. Border protection and national defense are Mission #1. Without the government doing it's job on its prime mission, the government loses its credibility. Oh wait . . . never mind, it's too late.
Click to expand...

These slogans sound catchy and all, but really, is illegal immigration really your highest priority for that money? We currently spend approximately $40 billion/year on immigration enforcement. How much would you propose we increase that? Double it to $80 billion? That would probably reduce the number of undocumented immigrants here maybe, what, 10%? Are you sure that is worth $40 billion to you? There is nothing you'd rather do with that money? Lower taxes $40 billion? Reduce the deficit $40 billion? Mission to Mars? Massive cancer research? Cut starvation worldwide dramatically? None of those things are more important to you than a measly 10% or so reduction in undocumented immigrants? Mostly ones that aren't bothering anybody and are not considered high priority by ICE?

I'm just not buying that it makes sense to place that high of a priority on it. There are much more important things we need to be doing with our limited resources.
 
sangha said:
That was a pretty stupid thing to admit, so you're really not making your case here
Click to expand...

When I wrote "Hey, if you're going to set em up, I'll be happy to hit the ball" didn't that give you a clue that I was engaged in light-hearted banter with you?
 
teamosil said:
These slogans sound catchy and all, but really, is illegal immigration really your highest priority for that money? We currently spend approximately $40 billion/year on immigration enforcement. How much would you propose we increase that? Double it to $80 billion? That would probably reduce the number of undocumented immigrants here maybe, what, 10%? Are you sure that is worth $40 billion to you? There is nothing you'd rather do with that money? Lower taxes $40 billion? Reduce the deficit $40 billion? Mission to Mars? Massive cancer research? Cut starvation worldwide dramatically? None of those things are more important to you than a measly 10% or so reduction in undocumented immigrants? Mostly ones that aren't bothering anybody and are not considered high priority by ICE?

I'm just not buying that it makes sense to place that high of a priority on it. There are much more important things we need to be doing with our limited resources.
Click to expand...

It's priority number 1. I can defend the position by appeal to principle and by appeal to economics.
 
RiverDad said:
It's priority number 1. I can defend the position by appeal to principle and by appeal to economics.
Click to expand...

Yes, by ignoring the appeal to decrease spending and appealing to the bigots who don't care what it costs
 
sangha said:
Yeah it did. So what?
Click to expand...

This comment "so you're really not making your case here" seemed like it didn't fit with your previous comments, which I took to be light-hearted banter as well. I don't know, it just seemed like you thought I was advancing a serious point of view. Maybe it was too subtle for me and it was meant as humor.

Screw it, you ruined the mood. If we have to analyze our relationship like this, I'm going bowling.
 
sangha said:
Yes, by ignoring the appeal to decrease spending and appealing to the bigots who don't care what it costs
Click to expand...

What part of Mission # 1 didn't you understand?
 
teamosil said:
Please, give that a shot.
Click to expand...

Any group that forms a nation reserves unto itself the authority to decide who shall join the nation. The integrity of the group is diminished when they relinquish control over group definition and allow outsiders to decide whether they will join the group and impose their presence on the group.

Has the US Government, as the representative of the people, decided to review the applications of these illegal aliens and admit them into the body politic or has that admissions decision been turned over to anyone who wants to cross the border and await an amnesty?

As to finance, the National Research Council has calculated the net present value cost of each illegal alien without a high school level of education actually makes the US $122,000 poorer over the lifetime of that illegal alien, which is a net calculation, meaning that all of the value that they create for themselves and their employers is overshadowed by the costs that they impose on the rest of us, netting out to $122,000 of costs. We're actually better off without them here. The costs directed at subsidizing them could be allocated to other social transfers that citizens find desirable. This is the very reason that we put so much effort into insuring that American citizens increase their human capital levels and not stop their education at mid-high school. High school drop-outs require heavy levels of subsidy from the rest of society, greater in fact than the cost of illegal aliens, for illegal aliens don't qualify for a host of social welfare transfer schemes that citizens qualify for. If these illegal aliens ever qualify for amnesty, then that $122,000 lifetime cost to society will sky-rocket upwards as these new permanent residents and citizens qualify for a whole host of programs that are reserved for permanent residents and citizens.

$122,000 per illegal * 20,000,000 illegals= $2,440,000,000,000

Two and a half trillion dollars of money that could be spent on the needs of American citizens is being spent on the needs of illegal aliens.
 
RiverDad said:
Any group that forms a nation reserves unto itself the authority to decide who shall join the nation. The integrity of the group is diminished when they relinquish control over group definition and allow outsiders to decide whether they will join the group and impose their presence on the group.

Has the US Government, as the representative of the people, decided to review the applications of these illegal aliens and admit them into the body politic or has that admissions decision been turned over to anyone who wants to cross the border and await an amnesty?
Click to expand...

That's just an argument for why the government should consider immigration enforcement a priority, not a higher priority than everything else. IMO, sure, it'd be nice if we could magically have total control over who is in the US. But that's a pipe dream. A pipe dream that we could blow our entire GDP on every year and still never accomplish. So it's about weighing money spent on it vs other priorities.

RiverDad said:
As to finance, the National Research Council has calculated the net present value cost of each illegal alien without a high school level of education actually makes the US $122,000 poorer over the lifetime of that illegal alien, which is a net calculation, meaning that all of the value that they create for themselves and their employers is overshadowed by the costs that they impose on the rest of us, netting out to $122,000 of costs. We're actually better off without them here. The costs directed at subsidizing them could be allocated to other social transfers that citizens find desirable. This is the very reason that we put so much effort into insuring that American citizens increase their human capital levels and not stop their education at mid-high school. High school drop-outs require heavy levels of subsidy from the rest of society, greater in fact than the cost of illegal aliens, for illegal aliens don't qualify for a host of social welfare transfer schemes that citizens qualify for. If these illegal aliens ever qualify for amnesty, then that $122,000 lifetime cost to society will sky-rocket upwards as these new permanent residents and citizens qualify for a whole host of programs that are reserved for permanent residents and citizens.

$122,000 per illegal * 20,000,000 illegals= $2,440,000,000,000

Two and a half trillion dollars of money that could be spent on the needs of American citizens is being spent on the needs of illegal aliens.
Click to expand...

False. Here is what the National Research Council actually found:

In one table, the NRC report computes the net present value of immigrants is computed according to their years of education. According to the table, the NPV of immigrants with less than a high school education is -$13,000, which means that, over their lifetimes, they will impose a net cost of $13,000 on the US in today's dollars. The NPV of an immigrant with more than a high school education is $198,000--this large positive sum explains why immigration overall is considered a net economic plus for the US despite the arrival of so many immigrants with less than a high school education.

NRC on Immigration - Migration News | Migration Dialogue
Click to expand...
 
RiverDad said:
Border protection and national defense are Mission #1.
Click to expand...

Is that in the Constitution? I missed the part where it said that border protectionwas Mission #1.
 
RiverDad said:
Any group that forms a nation reserves unto itself the authority to decide who shall join the nation. The integrity of the group is diminished when they relinquish control over group definition and allow outsiders to decide whether they will join the group and impose their presence on the group.

Has the US Government, as the representative of the people, decided to review the applications of these illegal aliens and admit them into the body politic or has that admissions decision been turned over to anyone who wants to cross the border and await an amnesty?

As to finance, the National Research Council has calculated the net present value cost of each illegal alien without a high school level of education actually makes the US $122,000 poorer over the lifetime of that illegal alien, which is a net calculation, meaning that all of the value that they create for themselves and their employers is overshadowed by the costs that they impose on the rest of us, netting out to $122,000 of costs. We're actually better off without them here. The costs directed at subsidizing them could be allocated to other social transfers that citizens find desirable. This is the very reason that we put so much effort into insuring that American citizens increase their human capital levels and not stop their education at mid-high school. High school drop-outs require heavy levels of subsidy from the rest of society, greater in fact than the cost of illegal aliens, for illegal aliens don't qualify for a host of social welfare transfer schemes that citizens qualify for. If these illegal aliens ever qualify for amnesty, then that $122,000 lifetime cost to society will sky-rocket upwards as these new permanent residents and citizens qualify for a whole host of programs that are reserved for permanent residents and citizens.

$122,000 per illegal * 20,000,000 illegals= $2,440,000,000,000

Two and a half trillion dollars of money that could be spent on the needs of American citizens is being spent on the needs of illegal aliens.
Click to expand...

Well,there's one study, and it only addresses undocumented aliens who aren't highschool graduates. There are many other studies which show that illegal immigration is a net positive for the economy, e.g. http://www.cfr.org/content/publications/attachments/ImmigrationCSR26.pdf

Most of the negative aspects noted by the NRC could be resolved by passing immigration reform which would greatly reduce the shadow economy.
 
teamosil said:
That's just an argument for why the government should consider immigration enforcement a priority, not a higher priority than everything else. IMO, sure, it'd be nice if we could magically have total control over who is in the US. But that's a pipe dream. A pipe dream that we could blow our entire GDP on every year and still never accomplish. So it's about weighing money spent on it vs other priorities.
Click to expand...

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.


False. Here is what the National Research Council actually found:
Click to expand...

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:

nrcimmigrantcost.jpg

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.
 
RiverDad said:
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.
Click to expand...

Dude, we're currently deporting people at about 6 times the rate they did during "Operation Wetback".

RiverDad said:
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:

View 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.
Click to expand...

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.

Also, there are only just over 10 million undocumented immigrants and a good portion of them have high school degrees, which is why the exact report you are citing to says they are a net positive.

Total fail on so many levels...
 
nearly a third of illegal-immigrant adults have less than a ninth-grade education, and only slightly more than half graduated from high school. In fact, more than one of every five adult high-school dropouts in the U.S. is an illegal immigrant.
 
cpwill said:
nearly a third of illegal-immigrant adults have less than a ninth-grade education, and only slightly more than half graduated from high school. In fact, more than one of every five adult high-school dropouts in the U.S. is an illegal immigrant.
Click to expand...

Ok, so lets combine your figures with Riverdad's source. You're saying more than half of undocumented immigrants have high school degrees. So, that means there are about 5 million undocumented immigrants without high school degrees and 5 million with. Riverdad's source says that every undocumented immigrant without a high school degree costs us $13,000, but every one with a high school degree benefits us by $198,000. So, the ones without high school degrees cost us 5m * $13,000 = -$65m, but the ones with high school degrees benefit us 5m * $198,000 = + $990m. So according to the sources the conservatives are providing on this thread, the net economic effect of undocumented immigrants on the US would be a benefit of $925,000,000.

That is somewhat lower than some sources estimate. I've seen estimates of the economic benefit as high as $1.7 trillion. But either way, we're all in the same ballpark: massive economic benefit.
 
Last edited:
teamosil said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
cpwill said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
RiverDad said:
Take a look at the assumptions that the study uses . . .
Click to expand...

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?
 
RiverDad said:
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:

View 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.
Click to expand...

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."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom