kurtster wrote:

Wow, could this be true? Kurt is making a clean break with Trump's deportation policy? 

In case you haven't noticed, Trump is not making any distinction between legal & illegal immigration these days. Anyone in the country that has not secured citizenship is fair game to be kicked out. This includes immigrants who have come here legally and may be fleeing war, or persecution due to their ethnicity or beliefs and looking for a better life and were taking the necessary "legal" steps to become citizens.

 kurtster wrote:
I found other studies with more-recent data, but they aren't as thorough (or transparent) as the Cato study and they tend to be fairly partisan. This one, for instance, from the Foundation for American Immigration Reform (an anti-immigration think tank) lists the total federal cost of illegal immigrants in 2024 at $66B. How do they get that number? It's not entirely clear, but it includes over $14B for CBP, ICE, and other enforcement costs, $5.4B for Medicaid birth expenses for US-born children of undocumented parents, $8B for "Medicaid fraud", and $6.6B for education. I covered the education bit earlier, and their number is high by at least $1B. They also include things like $200M for showboating the National Guard at the border, but that's chump change in these calculations.

At least they acknowledge that illegal immigrants pay taxes—$24.6B worth. They subtract out $8.4B for tax credits for a net of $16.2B. They also claim other estimates of illegal immigrant taxes paid are way too high but don't show their methodology so there's no way to compare their figures, we're just supposed to trust them on that.

By their numbers illegal immigration is a net federal cost of $50.2B.

But illegal immigrants don't impose a cost on us for hunting them down, rounding up grad students for protesting the wrong ethnic cleansing, incarcerating them, paying tin pot dictators in Central America to jail them in inhuman conditions, or military transports to fly them there—we impose those costs on ourselves. If we look at just the direct costs (that is, money spent for the benefit of illegal immigrants) what are American taxpayers paying for?

Again using FAIR's numbers it breaks down to $25.1B net cost. They also claim there are 15M illegal immigrants in the US (a number about 3M higher than most everybody else claims) but let's roll with that. That net benefit to each is $1,673*.

To combat that we are spending (at the federal level) more than $25.1B, ironically the same amount per person. 

I have a suggestion: allow legal immigration. Take away the incentive to cross illegally, let them work aboveboard (which will cause them to pay even more taxes), and make it possible for them to return to their home countries like they used to**. This would also reduce the social impact by giving them an incentive to come out of the shadows, do things like buy their own insurance, and report crimes to the authorities—but that won't come out of budget numbers.

*For the record I think FAIR exaggerates costs and underestimates taxes paid by illegal immigrants, but I'm using numbers generated by people who oppose immigration in general so you have less to whine about.

**For details on how US immigration policy and border crackdowns caused this shift see here.

 kurtster wrote:
Going out on a limb here but...

Your side (e.g. Stephen Miller) think that if it gets rid of illegal immigrants, the labor market for the jobs they held will necessarily tighten and cause a rise in wages for those jobs. That thinking assumes that wages for those jobs rise and fall freely according to supply of and demand for the relevant pool. But wages, esp. at the low end, are kept artificially low by large employers. So there's no guarantee that native workers will see their wages rise after mass deportations. 

And as islander and others have pointed out, working illegal immigrants grow the American economic pie more than they take from it. Get rid of those working immigrants and the economy shrinks. 

 kurtster wrote:
Again, you're wrong (and apparently not tired of it yet).

Again, here's the study I mentioned. It had negative impacts on everyone when they deported undocumented workers. 

https://www.chloeneast.com/uploads/8/9/9/7/8997263/ehlmv_draft_7-20.pdf

We find that SC is associated with a significant decrease in the employment share
of low-educated non-citizen male workers, who are likely to be undocumented. We find
no evidence that SC increased the employment rates of citizens. In fact, we estimate a
statistically significant decline in citizen employment. While this may be surprising when
compared to the predictions of the canonical labor supply and demand model, the results are
consistent with assuming that some citizen workers are complements for likely undocumented
workers. We provide empirical support for such complementarities by showing that the
effects on citizens are concentrated among workers in medium-skilled occupations and in
sectors that historically rely on low-educated non-citizen labor. Overall, the findings suggest
that immigration policies aimed at reducing the number of undocumented immigrants should
take into account the potential negative spillover effects on the labor market outcomes for
citizens.

Workers are a benefit to the economy whether they are documented or not. In fact, most of the licensing BS that I'll assume you support, does more to artificially tighten markets and distort the value of services provided. 

 kurtster wrote:
Comrade Kurt!

 islander wrote: 
Yes the loss of cheap and easily intimidatable, controllable labor.  It also keeps the wages down for those here legally. Not a benefit; to the illegal and us as a society. You want us to be dependent upon this type of labor which distorts the reality of what the actual costs for goods and services are.  If things cost more because citizens get paid the correct wages, so be it.

 Lazy8 wrote:

Most of them had a fondness for the jack boot all along, as long as they were the ones wearing them. Evidenced now by the proud boys being deputized as ICE... They also have discovered that they 'DO' like masks now.

 kurtster wrote:

There are several studies showing that both legal and illegal immigrants improve their local economies. I recently posted one that demonstrated significant losses when Obama deported large numbers of illegal immigrants.  You are the one who continues to cherry pick or use completely disingenuous studies to support your wrongheaded ideas.  I'm really surprised you don't get tired of being wrong all the time.  You're worse than a blind squirrel. 

 Lazy8 wrote: 
It is a nice report and it highlights the benefits of immigration, legal that is.  Yes legal immigrants greatly benefit the country.  I am all for legal immigration.  We need them as long as they come in legally.

This study does not include illegal immigrants in their data.  I found zero mention.  Perhaps you can help me out on that.

The study makes mention of the parameters for inclusion in their study.

One of them is this :

Our sample is restricted to 1994–2018 for several reasons. Before 1994, questions on birthplace, citizenship, and parental birthplace were not included in the survey.

Elsewhere it mentions the inclusion data for 2019 and 2020, but only in the Cato Model IIRC.

What that tells me is that only legal immigrants are being counted.   That citizenship status is recorded, yet there is no breakdown anywhere for those here illegally, allows this very reasonable conclusion.  Which is the subject of this particular discussion.  The expenses incurred on the US as a whole by illegal immigrants. Therefore it has no relevancy at all.

Also missing is any data involving the last 4 years which is when all hell broke loose.

Again, it is a fine study and shows the benefits of legal immigration.  But irrelevant.  Try again.  Or not.

 kcar wrote:

Starting with: is it OK to put your daughter and son-in-law in the White House as advisors when they have zero experience?

That is, is it even OK for Barack to put Michelle (a six-figure lawyer, so no slouch) in the White House? Would that have been OK? (Please, no squirrels)

 kcar wrote:

Because Trump is his Fuehrer, and can do no wrong.

It's interesting, Kurt, that you have so much to say about immigrants and government benefits but you're as silent as a ghost when it comes to Trump's corruption and cutting of those government benefits. 

Why don't you talk about the Trump Crime Family? 

 kurtster wrote:
Well, small-l libertarian, here's an exhaustive report from the Cato Institute.  It's about the fiscal impacts (not just on government budgets, but on the economy as a whole) of immigration. It deals mostly with legal but also illegal immigration.

And before you start: legal immigrants have access to government services that illegal immigrants do not, but both pay taxes. 

It goes into massive detail about the math and methodology of their results. It is, in a word, transparent. It uses historical data because when you do real social science you have to use the data you can actually get. This puts them at a disadvantage to groups like the Center for Immigration Studies—they can use more current data because they make it up. Good luck finding out their methodology.

You can lie in real time. Actual social science research can't keep up with that.

And yes, I advocate for open borders. I consider that to be the only position consistent with my commitment to human rights, which include the rights to live, work, and travel. These rights do not depend on where you were born, who your parents are, what you look like, or what language you grew up speaking.

And small-l libertarians are generally in opposition to the prosecution of victimless crimes and the jack-booted thugs that enforce them, but for some of them when it's brown people under the heel suddenly they get a taste for those boots.

 kurtster wrote:
And anyone with more melanin than you should be deported. Got it. 

 Isabeau wrote: 
FYT's

 kurtster wrote:

OOoo. Let's conflate compassion with 'open borders!' Magat monkeys are so fekking predictable.

 Lazy8 wrote: 
Then show them.  Something current that you consider to be correct.

And I did not call anyone a whacko.  Fringe as in small is what I said.

Myself, I have quite the small l libertarian bent.  You claim that you like borders, you just want them to be open and unrestricted based on comments over the years.

 kurtster wrote:
Yes, as I pointed out, there are people pulling numbers out of their asses. Center for Immigration Studies isn't just "hawkish", they're partisan anti-immigration nativists. And they make up numbers no one outside nativist circles believes, and people with similar agendas quote them. There are people doing actual research on this topic to find the truth, and their numbers look nothing like these.

Oh, we absolutely have (and need) borders. Borders are the divide where one government's jurisdiction ends and another's begins. 

And yes, I belong to a fringe minority that believes that rights (like the right to travel, to work, to live unmolested) don't come from a status granted by government, they come from being human. You know, like the people who wrote the founding documents of our republic. Whackos like that. Proud to stand with their legacy, however unfashionable it has become.

 Lazy8 wrote: 
Here is something more recent than 2018.  I am surprised that you would try and sneak something so outdated and essentially irrelevant to back up your argument.

This is from a House report in 2023.  And it provides the range of number I cited.

What They Are Saying: Homeland Majority’s Fourth Interim Report on the Financial Cost of Secretary Mayorkas’ Border Crisis 

“A new House Homeland Security Committee report has found that the ongoing migrant crisis at the southern border could cos taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars each year, as Republicans blame what they say are ‘open borders’ policies from the Biden administration.

“It cites studies by the hawkish Center for Immigration Studies, which found that the annual cost to care for and house illegal immigrants could reach up to $451 billion. It separately cites estimates from the Federation for American Immigration Reform, which advocates for lower immigration levels, that the annual net burden as of 2022 is more than $150 billion.

“The report points to health care costs, including Medicaid expenditures for illegal immigrants estimated at over $5 billion a year, the costs of the fentanyl crisis, law enforcement costs, and costs for states to educate migrant children. It also points to the costs of housing and sheltering— particularly in the enormous costs seen in cities like New York City where tens of thousands of migrants have traveled after being released into the U.S., and the costs to ranchers and local businesses near the border. New York City Mayor Eric Adams earlier this year estimated the city’s crisis alone could cost $12 billion by 2025.”
...

“The population of the United States is roughly 330 million, plus perhaps 15 million illegal migrants. Even if the federal and state governments are spending only $160 billion per year, the spending would be the equivalent of $500 per American man, woman, child, and retiree.

“If the $500 per American was not spent on migrants, it would otherwise go to Americans’ needs, via higher wages, lower taxes, and lower rents, reduced government deficits, or more investment in Americans’ schools, technology, and infrastructure.

“The huge cost of Biden’s migration is driven by the daily welfare cost of caring for poor migrants. Even when migrants get jobs, their wages are often too little to pay off their smuggling debts, their rental checks, and their basic needs.”

I know, you don't believe that there is such a thing as an illegal immigrant or that we even should have a border.  But that is you.  You do belong to a certified minority fringe group so there is that, too.  Do you even believe in private property ?

 kurtster wrote:
Welcome to federalism. States are sovereign, not subordinate, and some of them will do things you don't like. Like supporting people you don't like.

Yes, money is fungible, but the feds only pay the states for the portion of Medicaid recipients that qualify for federal funds. If the states stopped paying for Medicaid for the undocumented the federal contribution would not change at all. Yes, those programs are costing some taxpayers somewhere, but they aren't costing the country as a whole. And we're talking about federal policy here. If you want to argue that the 6 states that cover Medicaid for the undocumented then take it up with them.

There are federally-supported government activities (like K-12 education) where eligibility isn't checked, and some fraction of the portion of the budget (currently about 13.6%) is coming from the feds. Total federal payments to the states for K-12 education (and Headstart) is $268B, so do the math.

Oh right, you're on Team MAGA—I'll do the math for you. New America estimates that undocumented students make up about 1% of all students in public schools. As a check, high-end estimates are about 14 million undocumented immigrants here, out of a population of 340 million, about .4%. Immigrants skew younger (childbearing age) so doubling that number would give us .8% of the school-aged children. Some of the children of the undocumented were born here, making them citizens*, which would bring that number down, but we'll ignore that for now.

But let's say New America is way off—factor of two, say—so let's double that again to 2%. So you could credibly claim that $5.36B of the federal education spending goes to people you would rather drag off in an unmarked van and ship to a for-profit gulag in San Salvador.

The undocumented are paying a heroic share of the Social Security and FICA taxes, especially considering that they'll never get a dime of that money back, as they are ineligible for those benefits. So is there a net cost to taxpayers? Maybe, but it's nothing—like absolutely nothing—like the numbers you're quoting.

Yes, there are people who are lying about how much that is, pulling numbers out of their ample asses with absolutely nothing to back them up. It's like looking at a puddle on the sidewalk and saying "Some people are saying this puddle is miles deep. Miles. So deep. You know, and the crooked press will tell you it's just a puddle, but it's more like the ocean—and I live by the beach, so I know—lived there for years. Years and years. And the ocean is big. So big. We have the biggest ocean, and I renamed it because it's ours, not Mexico's. We're taking back the ocean! And the women! On the beach. The way they dress, it's very distracting.  But the water—there's a lot of it. Way more than they said. Yuge."

And then someone actually measures the puddle and it's like a quarter inch deep, so what the heck, we'll graciously compromise and call it one mile.

No, you don't get to split the difference between a lie and reality and claim you're being generous. You're just lying a little less.

*No, you're wrong, they are in fact citizens, just like the plain language of the 14th amendment (and the people who drafted it) say. Jeebus.