J
Jeffrey
Guest
He has none… for the $$$ the supposedly save us… they cost of FAR more.
- Status
I
Ituyu
Guest
You’re going to quote a group like “FAIR”, oh please!! It’s a fanatic anti-immigrant group bent on seeing the cost side of the issue. Economists including 5 Nobel Laureates know a little more than some extremist group like FAIR. Groups like fair will look only at costs so DUH of course they’ll always only come up with costs! Here’s a little about FAIR:
“FAIR has been more willing to court benefactors on the far right.11 Over the years it accepted more than $1 million from the Pioneer Fund, a foundation created in 1937 to promote ‘racial betterment’ through eugenics. After working to popularize what it called ‘Applied Genetics in Present-Day Germany’ – the Nazis’ Lebensborn and forced sterilization programs – Pioneer broadened its focus to support restrictive immigration policies, anti-busing activities, and research into ‘racial’ differences in intelligence. In the 1980s it financed a publication glorifying the founder of the Ku Klux Klan (Crawford, 1992a). Although Tanton claimed to be unaware of these activities when they came to light, FAIR continued to accept large grants from the Pioneer Fund. It should be noted that such associations hardly prove a unity of purpose with Nazis and Klansmen. On the other hand, they say a great deal about the sensibilities of Tanton and his cohorts, who seem to find racial extremism less worrisome than racial diversity.”
.com/homepages/JWCRAWFORD/anatomy.htmhttp://ourworld.compuserve
Economists look at the whole picture. They look at costs but they also look at the contributions in terms of economic growth. That is people at the bottom create jobs both at the bottom and up the ladder. These are added benefits that we would not have had. Add to that the population growth and consumption and they create still more jobs. Then don’t forget they pay taxes. If you bothered to read the links you would have gotten a little glimpse at what I’m talking about. Anyway, the bottom line is that the vast majority of economists see Illegal Immigration as a good thing for this nation as the 500 economists believe.
Here’s a fact sheet put out by the the Office for Social Justice of the USCCB. But, I’m almost certain that you’ll find fault with it.
osjspm.org/files/officeforsocialjustice/files/immigrationfactsheet.pdf
J
Jeffrey
Guest
Gee… your pro illegal links just might be slanted towards your pro illegal immigrant agenda ya think? DUH!
Nice how they leave out all the negatives and pump up the so called ‘positives’.
We don’t need illegal immigrants btw. They do not pay thier fair share. The little that they do pay is lost with all they take away.
I don’t believe either ramblings. Now spin away.
Nice how they leave out all the negatives and pump up the so called ‘positives’.
We don’t need illegal immigrants btw. They do not pay thier fair share. The little that they do pay is lost with all they take away.
I don’t believe either ramblings. Now spin away.
L
Lance
Guest
No you did not the 500 economist were talking about legal immigration. I do not accept your liberal rags reason.org, CNN and The New York Times anymore than you accept Jeffery’s Fair. I can see that you and I have nothing further to discuss, you are not going to change my mind and I am not going to change yours. In the spirit of Christian charity I think we should ignore each other in the future.
L
Lance
Guest
Households headed by illegal aliens imposed more than $26.3 billion in costs on the federal government in 2002 and paid only $16 billion in taxes, creating a net fiscal deficit of almost $10.4 billion, or $2,700 per illegal household.
Among the largest costs are Medicaid ($2.5 billion); treatment for the uninsured ($2.2 billion); food assistance programs such as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches ($1.9 billion); the federal prison and court systems ($1.6 billion); and federal aid to schools ($1.4 billion).
With nearly two-thirds of illegal aliens lacking a high school degree, 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 heavy use of most social services.
On average, the costs that illegal households impose on federal coffers are less than half that of other households, but their tax payments are only one-fourth that of other households.
Many of the costs associated with illegals are due to their American-born children, who are awarded U.S. citizenship at birth. Thus, greater efforts at barring illegals from federal programs will not reduce costs because their citizen children can continue to access them.
If illegal aliens were given amnesty and began to pay taxes and use services like households headed by legal immigrants with the same education levels, the estimated annual net fiscal deficit would increase from $2,700 per household to nearly $7,700, for a total net cost of $29 billion.
Costs increase dramatically because unskilled immigrants with legal status – what most illegal aliens would become – can access government programs, but still tend to make very modest tax payments.
Although legalization would increase average tax payments by 77 percent, average costs would rise by 118 percent.
The fact that legal immigrants with few years of schooling are a large fiscal drain does not mean that legal immigrants overall are a net drain – many legal immigrants are highly skilled.
The vast majority of illegals hold jobs. Thus the fiscal deficit they create for the federal government is not the result of an unwillingness to work.
The results of this study are consistent with a 1997 study by the National Research Council, which also found that immigrants’ education level is a key determinant of their fiscal impact.
Source:cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html
Among the largest costs are Medicaid ($2.5 billion); treatment for the uninsured ($2.2 billion); food assistance programs such as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches ($1.9 billion); the federal prison and court systems ($1.6 billion); and federal aid to schools ($1.4 billion).
With nearly two-thirds of illegal aliens lacking a high school degree, 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 heavy use of most social services.
On average, the costs that illegal households impose on federal coffers are less than half that of other households, but their tax payments are only one-fourth that of other households.
Many of the costs associated with illegals are due to their American-born children, who are awarded U.S. citizenship at birth. Thus, greater efforts at barring illegals from federal programs will not reduce costs because their citizen children can continue to access them.
If illegal aliens were given amnesty and began to pay taxes and use services like households headed by legal immigrants with the same education levels, the estimated annual net fiscal deficit would increase from $2,700 per household to nearly $7,700, for a total net cost of $29 billion.
Costs increase dramatically because unskilled immigrants with legal status – what most illegal aliens would become – can access government programs, but still tend to make very modest tax payments.
Although legalization would increase average tax payments by 77 percent, average costs would rise by 118 percent.
The fact that legal immigrants with few years of schooling are a large fiscal drain does not mean that legal immigrants overall are a net drain – many legal immigrants are highly skilled.
The vast majority of illegals hold jobs. Thus the fiscal deficit they create for the federal government is not the result of an unwillingness to work.
The results of this study are consistent with a 1997 study by the National Research Council, which also found that immigrants’ education level is a key determinant of their fiscal impact.
Source:cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html
I
Ituyu
Guest
Sorry Lance but you’re living in denial. There would have been absoutely no reason for the economists to write their letter if they weren’t referring to “ALL” immigration, legal or not.
““Public fears of lost jobs are unfounded and most workers will not experience any negative impact on their wages. Congress would do well to recognize the benefits of immigration and pass a reform that allows greater numbers of legal workers into America,” said signer and Independent Institute Research Fellow Benjamin Powell, Director of the Center on Entrepreneurial Innovation.”
independent.org/newsroom/news_detail.asp?newsID=74
I
Ituyu
Guest
I’m afraid that many people will fall for obvious attempt to link the National Research Council to this blatatnly ANTI- IMMIGRANT wing of FAIR the CENTER FOR IMMIGRATION STUDIES. Your figures ALL come from the Center from Immigration Studies and not the National Research Council. I think you should apologize for attempting to mislead people and in fairness post your link to the information from the National Research Council to which you refer…
“The Center for Immigration Studies describes itself as “the nation’s only think tank devoted exclusively to research and policy analysis of the economic, social, demographic, fiscal, and other impacts of immigration on the United States.” Founded in 1985 as a think tank to support the more activist work of the anti-immigrant FAIR”
rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1452
H
HollysMom
Guest
I guess Harry Lee doesn’t live in my former neighborhood. And neither do you.
Thanks for your thoughts, however uninformed they are–oh, and thanks for the well-wishes for the continued and safe regrowth of the region. Very Christian of you.
God bless and take care!
L
Lance
Guest
County officials testified during a congressional hearing Monday in San Diego that illegal immigrants extract a heavy toll on local governments and law enforcement agencies, especially in North County. But they said they did not know precisely how much.
Officials said illegal immigrants have strained local education, health care and prison resources. Many of the panelists blamed the federal government for failing to secure the nation’s borders.
“San Diego County may be the gateway to Mexico, but my taxpayers in the County of San Diego are the doormat,” said Supervisor Bill Horn, whose district includes most of North County.
source:nctimes.com/articles/2006/08/15/news/top_stories/21_41_238_14_06.txt
During the packed congressional hearing in county supervisors’ chambers, San Diego County Sheriff Bill Kolender said illegal immigrants account for many of the calls law enforcement agencies receive in North County.
He said:
n Nearly 80 percent of gang-related crimes in North County involve illegal immigrants, either as suspects or victims.
n Day laborers and their migrant encampments are a burden on law enforcement. Residents call deputies about day laborers’ aggressive work solicitation, drinking in public and using parking lots as restrooms.
n A recent operation in North County resulted in the towing of more than 100 vehicles due to traffic violations. The majority of the drivers were believed by deputies to be illegal immigrants.
n Protests supporting and opposing illegal immigration cost the Sheriff’s Department $489,000 in 2005.
“The cost of staff hours, equipment and administrative work associated with the detention and/or arrest of undocumented, foreign-born citizens is difficult to approximate, but the figures are in the millions,” Kolender said.
Horn told the congressional panel that the county Board of Supervisors commissioned a study to estimate the cost of illegal immigration on the county’s coffers. His office later clarified that the board has not commissioned such a study but has authorized county staffers to investigate the cost of such an investigation.
“While current law and circumstance make it very difficult to accurately quantify the impact of the problem, it is immense,” Horn said at the hearing.
same source
Officials said illegal immigrants have strained local education, health care and prison resources. Many of the panelists blamed the federal government for failing to secure the nation’s borders.
“San Diego County may be the gateway to Mexico, but my taxpayers in the County of San Diego are the doormat,” said Supervisor Bill Horn, whose district includes most of North County.
source:nctimes.com/articles/2006/08/15/news/top_stories/21_41_238_14_06.txt
During the packed congressional hearing in county supervisors’ chambers, San Diego County Sheriff Bill Kolender said illegal immigrants account for many of the calls law enforcement agencies receive in North County.
He said:
n Nearly 80 percent of gang-related crimes in North County involve illegal immigrants, either as suspects or victims.
n Day laborers and their migrant encampments are a burden on law enforcement. Residents call deputies about day laborers’ aggressive work solicitation, drinking in public and using parking lots as restrooms.
n A recent operation in North County resulted in the towing of more than 100 vehicles due to traffic violations. The majority of the drivers were believed by deputies to be illegal immigrants.
n Protests supporting and opposing illegal immigration cost the Sheriff’s Department $489,000 in 2005.
“The cost of staff hours, equipment and administrative work associated with the detention and/or arrest of undocumented, foreign-born citizens is difficult to approximate, but the figures are in the millions,” Kolender said.
Horn told the congressional panel that the county Board of Supervisors commissioned a study to estimate the cost of illegal immigration on the county’s coffers. His office later clarified that the board has not commissioned such a study but has authorized county staffers to investigate the cost of such an investigation.
“While current law and circumstance make it very difficult to accurately quantify the impact of the problem, it is immense,” Horn said at the hearing.
same source
T
Texas_Roofer
Guest
I read the piece and it is amazingly void of data? It appears flawed but with no data how could one know. For example the piece would indicate that every immigrant brings more than 2 school age children with him, or a husband and wife would need to AVERAGE 5 school age children- that does not make sense. If some immigrant did not bring children or are too old for school age children the numbers would have to grow dramatically. But since they show no data their finding can not be verifiedNope… they are a net loss… nice try on the spin tho.
And this is just California… yup $10.5 billion:
washingtontimes.com/national/20041206-102115-6766r.htm
T
Texas_Roofer
Guest
Wow Horn hates Immigrants now that is news. Did you catch the part were U.S. Citizen protesting in the U.S. are classified as immigrant costs.
C
Contarini
Guest
Aquinas says that an unjust law is no law at all. So unless he was heretical on this point, I question your claim.
It may be wrong to break the law in order to provide more adequately for your family–depending on how dire your needs are (Aquinas also said that taking what you need to live is not stealing). But it’s hard for me to see that breaking laws as unequal and illogical as the laws governing immigration is more than a venial sin at worst. To say that these people are “not good” because they refuse to submit to a racist system is highly dubious. (Do you deny that the immigration system makes it very hard for people from certain nationalities to get into the country legally?)
Edwin
L
Lance
Guest
Our laws are not unjust and yes I deny that they are race, ethnicity, creed or religious based.
J
Jeffrey
Guest
Our laws regarding immigration are not unjust nor are they unequal and illogical. What is unequal and illogical is the fact the illegals don’t try to fix thier country instead of being a drain on our society.
F
Fremont
Guest
Absolutely I deny that our immigration laws make it hard for certain nationalities to get into the US legally.
1 million plus legal immigrants welcomed to the US every year from over 200 countries. The system is set up to promote diversity and provide people from all over the world, from all races, from all ethnic backgrounds an opportunity to immigrate to the US.
Of the 1 million plus, preferential treatment is given to certain countries and this results in over 80% of the immigrants come from countries whose nationals are considered minorities in this country. These preferences are given to Latin America, South America, Asia, India and Africa. By far the largest preference is given to Mexico.
These facts are the basis for my claim that our immigration laws do not make it hard for certain nationalities to get into the US legally.
What is the basis for you claim to the opposite?
F
Fremont
Guest
I do not think anyone is criticizing St. Thomas Aquinas. But using his words in this context is irrelevant and may be a deliberate attempt to obfuscate the facts.
Aquinas did not say that determination whether a law is just or unjust is to be the unilateral decision by each individual, that each individual is empowered to personally judge which laws are unjust and thus can be ignored. If that were the case then there would be no laws at all – and Aquinas did not say that.
The US generally requires a valid passport and visa (permission to enter) from all persons desiring to enter the US. The authorities in Rome have never said that law and policy is unjust or in conflict with Church teaching.
US immigration laws and policy determines the number of immigrants welcomed each year. That is an average of well over 4,000 per day. The authorities in Rome have never said that law and policy is unjust or in conflict with Church teaching.
US immigration policy gives preferences to countries whose nationals are generally considered minorities in the US, with the largest preferences provided to Mexico. The authorities in Rome have never said that law and policy is unjust or in conflict with Church teaching.
US immigration policy requires that immigrants desiring permanent residence in the US must have permission, and there are procedures for obtaining that, a government issued residency card, a government issued right to work card, a government issued social security number or ITIN number. The authorities in Rome have never said that law and policy is unjust or in conflict with Church teaching.
Since the authorities in Rome have never said that US immigration law and policy is unjust or in conflict with Church teaching just who is authorized to determine which of US laws are unjust? It would seem that must be someone with powers exceeding those of Rome.
I
Ituyu
Guest
Bill Ong Hing’s broad contention in DEFINING AMERICA THROUGH IMMIGRATION POLICY is that immigration policy has been used throughout American history, since its first iteration in the 17th Century, to define the American citizen. That citizen is white, predominantly of anglo-saxon heritage, and deserves cultural and economic privilege defined and sustained by legislative, policy, and political means. In a tour de force of detailed facts and legal citations, he wades through the complex legal measures that have guided immigration law and policy over more than two centuries, at each stage linking specific legal actions with dominant views of the “ordinary American.”
While the targets of immigration exclusion have varied over time, Hing demonstrates a remarkable consistency in official pronouncements over who deserves the title of “American.” During the early colonial era, Quakers were targeted for their purported lack of allegiance. The so-called “Alien and Sedition” acts, four pieces of legislation *838] that include the Naturalization Act, passed in 1798, provide the first legal statement of the normative notion of who is considered an “American.” These acts were aimed initially at those would-be French immigrants whose political views were at odds with those of America, but later in the 19th Century shifted to curtailing the arrival of Germans and Catholics (especially Irish Catholics). The Know-Nothing Party (most prominent during the 1850s, its champion ex-President Fillmore) presided over a nativist image that in the ensuing century has never completely been shaken. The most vociferous expressions of alien-ness under the jurisdiction of those acts and later laws, however, were reserved for Chinese immigrants, completely excluded under the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, just a year before Emma Lazarus wrote “give us your tired, your poor,” in a poem, later inscribed on the Statue of Liberty, that has become emblematic of America’s ambivalent definition of itself as a nation of immigrants. A year later, in 1864, the first comprehensive federal law, the Act to Encourage Immigration, came into force in a social context in which the notion of the true American was well entrenched.
Hong details the development of a hierarchical notion of who qualifies to be identified as American over subsequent decades, with Asians consistently deemed the most unacceptable, and others added to the list at various places on the acceptability ladder: southern and eastern Europeans and Jews thwarted by the Literacy Law of 1917 and the Quota Law of 1921; Communists, homosexuals and “other” undesirables who held unpopular political views specifically excluded in the McCarran-Walter Act of 1952, which overhauled immigration policy in light of growing controversy over the definition of loyalty and patriotism. All these developments, Hing claims, were accompanied by a public discourse of fear and exclusion that set the stage for events that have occurred since 11 September 2001.
http://www.bsos.umd.edu/gvpt/lpbr/subpages/reviews/hing-johnson1104.htm
While the targets of immigration exclusion have varied over time, Hing demonstrates a remarkable consistency in official pronouncements over who deserves the title of “American.” During the early colonial era, Quakers were targeted for their purported lack of allegiance. The so-called “Alien and Sedition” acts, four pieces of legislation *838] that include the Naturalization Act, passed in 1798, provide the first legal statement of the normative notion of who is considered an “American.” These acts were aimed initially at those would-be French immigrants whose political views were at odds with those of America, but later in the 19th Century shifted to curtailing the arrival of Germans and Catholics (especially Irish Catholics). The Know-Nothing Party (most prominent during the 1850s, its champion ex-President Fillmore) presided over a nativist image that in the ensuing century has never completely been shaken. The most vociferous expressions of alien-ness under the jurisdiction of those acts and later laws, however, were reserved for Chinese immigrants, completely excluded under the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, just a year before Emma Lazarus wrote “give us your tired, your poor,” in a poem, later inscribed on the Statue of Liberty, that has become emblematic of America’s ambivalent definition of itself as a nation of immigrants. A year later, in 1864, the first comprehensive federal law, the Act to Encourage Immigration, came into force in a social context in which the notion of the true American was well entrenched.
Hong details the development of a hierarchical notion of who qualifies to be identified as American over subsequent decades, with Asians consistently deemed the most unacceptable, and others added to the list at various places on the acceptability ladder: southern and eastern Europeans and Jews thwarted by the Literacy Law of 1917 and the Quota Law of 1921; Communists, homosexuals and “other” undesirables who held unpopular political views specifically excluded in the McCarran-Walter Act of 1952, which overhauled immigration policy in light of growing controversy over the definition of loyalty and patriotism. All these developments, Hing claims, were accompanied by a public discourse of fear and exclusion that set the stage for events that have occurred since 11 September 2001.
http://www.bsos.umd.edu/gvpt/lpbr/subpages/reviews/hing-johnson1104.htm
F
Fremont
Guest
S
seremina
Guest
It seems to me the illegal immigrants thought Wendy’s was at fault. A very easy misunderstanding to have.
I don’t understand this anti-immigrant bias that some people have. Its ugly and awful. I see nothing wrong with immigration. You have no idea how fortunate you are. Here in Canada, the immigration system is horrible. I wish they had the American immigration system and process. The only part I’d change is the “detainment for no reason” part. If I was in the U.S., I would’ve had far more help in the immigration department than I do here.
As Catholics, we should be supporting immigrants. At the same time, I wish there was a worldwide “no borders” program. Something that allows someone to change countries without any immigration process. Citizenship to a single country seems like an outdated custom to me. Especially when persecution is an everyday part of life that can drive a person into the insanity pool.
I don’t understand this anti-immigrant bias that some people have. Its ugly and awful. I see nothing wrong with immigration. You have no idea how fortunate you are. Here in Canada, the immigration system is horrible. I wish they had the American immigration system and process. The only part I’d change is the “detainment for no reason” part. If I was in the U.S., I would’ve had far more help in the immigration department than I do here.
As Catholics, we should be supporting immigrants. At the same time, I wish there was a worldwide “no borders” program. Something that allows someone to change countries without any immigration process. Citizenship to a single country seems like an outdated custom to me. Especially when persecution is an everyday part of life that can drive a person into the insanity pool.
L
Lance
Guest
I don’t believe anyone here is anti-immigration, we are anti illegal immigration.
- Status