The illegal aliens suppress the pay rate in some industries. If they weren't doing the jobs, the pay rate would be higher and citizens WOULD take the jobs.
I heard examples in the drywall industry called in to a radio station a few weeks ago. Workers called; at least one owner called.
Do you really think the 4.8% of unemployed citizens would take on the jobs left by 12 million illegal aliens?
Yes I really do. They had a poll on Lou Dobbs the other night and did you know if they raised the wages on farm help by 40% it would only cost the american consumer $10 dollars more a year. That was pushing the wage/salary level above poverty.
The poll numbers weren't suprising to me, because 56% said they would pay $100 extra per year (fruits/vegetables) so that farm workers made more than poverty, thus no need for illegal aliens to work in the agriculture sectors.
I would rather see a legal american pick my fruit and vegetables then some law breaker. If the pay was good enough gagrice, they would pay taxes and contribute to the american economy like buying cars, buying services and goods with their disposable income. I don't want my tax dollars which subsidize american farmers, going to the wages of law breakers. Is their something wrong with that ? :surprise: My Gosh.... :mad:
I am for tighter border security. Then when they slow the flow to a trickle we can start weeding out the criminal element and identifying the ones that are useful to our society. If we put a concerted effort into resolving this issue, it would probably be 10 years before we saw much difference.
Get rid of them all. They all broke the law regardless. If you want to come into my country, get a green card and apply for citizenship. You got "X" amount of time to get a job, and until you get accepted for U.S. citizenship, your kids aren't U.S. citizens, even if they a born here. BTW- you also have to pay the same taxes, college tuition, etc as an american citizen right away. No more meal tickets for 7 years. :mad:
If it took 10 years, atleast it's a start.
It is a cross border "keeping up with the Jones's". Satellite TV has opened up the World's eyes to what we take for granted. Literally millions of people want what we have and are willing to die trying to get a piece of the American lifestyle.
Tough luck. Satellite TV and keep up with the Jones are entitlements of Americans. Waving your Mexican flag so proudly above the American flag, also doesn't help your situation. It's sending me a mixed signal of why do you want to leave your country if it's so great there ? Why should I trust you to uphold the laws of this land and contribute to our country, if you are going to wave a foreign flag in my country so proudly. :mad: If you break the law like selling drugs, building border tunnels, or human/child trafficking you will be banned pernamently from my country
BTW- Fox you can have the 30% illegal alien population that makes up our prison system. If they cross back into the United States, they will be facing a death sentence called a firearm with a border patrol agent behind it.
This is the immigration policy the U.S. needs (It has teeth) and it would benefit everyone in this country gagrice, while increasing the disposable incomes of the poor citizens in this country. It's a way to wipe out poverty and get lazy able body folks off of social programs.
I doubt seriously Canadians are coming across the border illegaly to jump on american welfare programs and want amnesty.
The basis for that assessment would be? That Canadians are white and English-speaking? You'd be very surprised at how many Canadians are living and working "illegally" in our midst. I almost hired two just by normal recruitment from local university students.
Joe-Six-Pack, will be affected by the illegal immigration amnesty, because he/she has to compete for some of the same jobs as the illegal aliens.
And enjoy the fruits of their labor as well, just like everyone else. By your argument, why did we bother to free black slaves at all? It was illegal to help run-away slaves, too, you know?
Construction company's hire illegal aliens from "day-labor" sites to get the cheapest help possible, thus putting an american construction worker out of a job.
You are still not getting it. A job is meaningless if the fruit of labor can be attained for less. Suppose, houses grow out of the ground all by themselves like mashrooms, do you consider that biological process robbing American construction workers out of a job, too??
Many illegal aliens will stay in the U.S. and work, while sending large portions of there checks back to there family's across the border.
Therefore these same individuals make less demand on consumption than they produce for us here.
I also find it amusing and sad, that these pro-immigration folks that supposably love this country so much are the same ones that wave mexican flags at these protest locations.
It's an ethnic and cultural identity, just like church flags. I don't suppose, you want to round up all Catholics and Anglicans because their loyalties to the Pope and QEII, do you? Once again, latent racism at play.
brightness, I guess I shouldn't be amazed that you support them, since you probably want to get your hands on this cheap flexible labor pool to "pad" your company's pockets.
Intersting bias. Using your ealier tax revenue math, if I had been able to hire those two Canadians, I'd be paying more payroll tax not to mention their own income taxes. Any time the government interferes in the market place, it constricts the economy and reduces its own tax base. If you want to consider that a national security issue, there is certainly less resources to go around for national security, too. All for what? A few obsolete/non-competitive job-holders wanting to pad their own pockets with monopolistic profits/income?
Exactly. I am willing to pay a little more to employ a fellow american. We have greedy contractors that use this excuse to justify their reasons for hirring illegals for help. It should be against the law.
I'll use this analogy. The "free market" will determine the cost of a drywaller installer. But this time it will be with using Americans for labor. :P
They had a poll on Lou Dobbs the other night and did you know if they raised the wages on farm help by 40% it would only cost the american consumer $10 dollars more a year.
I have a bridge to sell you, too. Do you suppose the money will then be dispensed through a communistic bureacracy staffed by incorruptable volunteer saints? Do you have any idea what kind of mark-ups are involved in the fruit and vegie deistribution channels?
I would rather see a legal american pick my fruit and vegetables then some law breaker.
You can do even better. You can buy all your fruits and vegies from local growers right now, practically in any major US metropolitan area. Obviously, you don't. So talk is cheap, and for very good reason.
The real reason why Canadians, Mexicans, and practically everyone else, want to come to the US is the same as why farm boys and girls in the midwest farm belt want to come to NYC, and why there was a gold-rush in 1849 to San Francisco. US is the gold mine because the reserve currency status of the US$. Labor and products are always more expensive where gold is produced, when gold was the currency: an egg cost 10 times more near the gold mine in San Francisco in 1849 than it cost in Minnesota. Simple supply and demand. Today, US$ instead of gold is the commodity currency. The US is currently the biggest producer of commodity currency (namely, paper and electronic dollar) in the world. That's why the rest of the world is eager to ship their goods and services (including labor) here . . . be gratful while the getting is good. It could be far worse if and when they no longer take our paper "goods" :-)
so that farm workers made more than poverty, thus no need for illegal aliens to work in the agriculture sectors.
You are joking right. You think that you can get your kid or mine to pick fruit or vegetables, all day long in the sun? If you pay sheet rockers $25 per hour you can get citizens to do the work sometimes. It is not easy getting skilled construction workers legal or illegal. I don't know about TX but in Southern CA we are under 4% unemployment and finding help is tough. Wal-Mart just hired my daughter at $9.50 per hour and she picks her days and hours.
I have friends that just returned from helping out in New Orleans. They said much of the work was being done by illegals. They are paying big bucks for workers down there and cannot get the help they need.
Much of the US has a labor shortage. It may not be the best pay. It is a place to start. I am very skeptical about getting our citizens to take the crappy jobs that many illegals. are doing. It has been that way for my lifetime in CA, over the last 62 years.
I'll use this analogy. The "free market" will determine the cost of a drywaller installer. But this time it will be with using Americans for labor.
You can do even better: why stop at excluding non-Americans? Exclude all out-of-towners, exclude all worker without a family to feed, heck, even exclude anyone who does not pay a "protection fee" to your mafia, and you will end up with a price point even higher. Now, how "free" is that market anyway?
The basis for that assessment would be? That Canadians are white and English-speaking? You'd be very surprised at how many Canadians are living and working "illegally" in our midst. I almost hired two just by normal recruitment from local university students.
I guess I would be very suprised then. :surprise: Canadians being white and english or French speaking has nothing to do with this topic.
You are still not getting it. A job is meaningless if the fruit of labor can be attained for less. Suppose, houses grow out of the ground all by themselves like mashrooms, do you consider that biological process robbing American construction workers out of a job, too??
Why aren't I suprised by your response. :confuse: So you honestly consider the fruits of labor by a illegal aliens being equal to that of a citizen of this country, because "the market" is the ultimate determining factor :sick:
Therefore these same individuals make less demand on consumption than they produce for us here.
They can save money to send back home, because you and I are picking up their medical, food, clothes, etc. through our social programs that are suppose to be for americans that are struggling. :mad:
It's an ethnic and cultural identity, just like church flags. I don't suppose, you want to round up all Catholics and Anglicans because their loyalties to the Pope and QEII, do you? Once again, latent racism at play.
Wow, so your pulling out the race card against me eh? Well I am prejudice against folks that think it's ok to break the law. If that's racist, then I guess that's what I am. BTW- There is a major difference between a lawful peaceful U.S. citizen of any race waving his church flag, when compared to a illegal alien burning an American flag, throwing rocks at the police, and creating scences of violence.
Intersting bias. Using your ealier tax revenue math, if I had been able to hire those two Canadians, I'd be paying more payroll tax not to mention their own income taxes.
Not for 7 years. Foreign workers don't pay income taxes, which makes them very attractive for both large and small buisness's.
Any time the government interferes in the market place, it constricts the economy and reduces its own tax base. If you want to consider that a national security issue, there is certainly less resources to go around for national security, too. All for what? A few obsolete/non-competitive job-holders wanting to pad their own pockets with monopolistic profits/income?
Oh no, more smoke and mirrors about the government interfering with the private sector. :sick: You really don't believe in borders, language, culture, and believe the "free market" will judge and correct "who and what" stays/goes in this country. :sick:
Ya'll most definitely make good arguments to defend your views. I guess perhaps I'm to compassionate, and feel we as a country could be doing better to enhance the wealth of all out citizens. Our economy does have some major leaks right now but hopefully better times are ahead of us, instead of behind us.
I'm very worried about the direction this country is headed and glad to see atleast a few are more confident than I.
Well let's refocus on the topic.
Do both of you feel Chrysler is headed in the right direction as a company ?????
How about Ford ?????
GM is the main company that is getting picked on. How much cash reserves does Ford and Chrysler have stashed away ?
Do any of you think the new products will save either company once the China and India automakers hit our shores ?
Why aren't I suprised by your response. So you honestly consider the fruits of labor by a illegal aliens being equal to that of a citizen of this country, because "the market" is the ultimate determining factor
If the product and service is identical in quality, what is the difference? Do you refuse rain water because you have not paid for the well driller or the water bottler for it?
They can save money to send back home, because you and I are picking up their medical, food, clothes, etc. through our social programs that are suppose to be for americans that are struggling.
That's just plain ludicrous. You can not get on social programs without legal status, legally anyway. On the other hand, you are liable to income tax and especially sales tax regardless your immigration status.
Wow, so your pulling out the race card against me eh? Well I am prejudice against folks that think it's ok to break the law. If that's racist, then I guess that's what I am.
Do you ever shop outside your town? Do you ever mail-order? Do you then send use tax to your local and state tax authority and pay use tax (equal to sales tax) on all items you purchase online and by catalog from out of state? You know, tax evasion is highly illegal, so be a hard [non-permissible content removed] on yourself please. The fact you are so selective about which of those artificial "illegality" you care about goes to show either: (1) you are a hypocrit (2) you are a racist
Not for 7 years. Foreign workers don't pay income taxes, which makes them very attractive for both large and small buisness's.
What planet are you on?? Planet Lounny?? Income tax is required of everyone deriving income from the US (with only exception for purely passive interest income from deposits at American banks, so that foreigners are encourage to keep their money in the US); even foreigners winning in Vegas while on vacation are subject to income tax.
You really don't believe in borders, language, culture, and believe the "free market" will judge and correct "who and what" stays/goes in this country.
When you type up a sentence like that, it only furnish further proof that the "illegality" you talked about was only a smoke-and-mirror. What you care about is "language," "culture," and their codification. As John Locke observed nearly two hundred years ago, religious, linguistic and cultural discriminations/wars are merely tools for economic exploitation.
I appreciate your passion. BTW, I did not use the word "racism" as a cuss word. Racism and xenophobia are natural human tendencies, very destructive ones nonetheless. Most other countries in the world are far worse at it collectively than us Americans; that's what historically held them back. What has made America great is our willingness to roll out a relatively level playing field for all the new-comers. There is a very sound economic reason for it: for every Mexican teenager we take in, we as a society save the cost of raising a kid for a dozen to twenty years (not to mention only the more healthy ones coule make the journey to get here); for every Canadian or French medical student or Indian computer scientist we allow to stay, we not only save the cost of raising them for a couple dozen years, but also reap the enormous benefit of their brain power (like, 1 in 100 if not 1000 on the bell curve), etc. etc.. That's a big reason why America has been so great: its ability to take advantage of the rest of the world on human capital!
Back to the forum topic, Chrysler is now part of Benz, not sure how that's going to play out. Ford family will support their company for a while. IMHO, the China and India thing will actually be a big help to GM. None of the Chinese or Indian companies are especially good at building brands (know any Chinese or Indian native brands for consumer products? despite the vast majority of manufactured products we buy now are made there). GM is very likely to succeed like Dell and HP have done (all their computers are made in China and India). GM domestic production might still be saved if the house can be put in order, and production volume can be controlled so that price points can be maintained for luxury brands.
I also appreciate your passion. We both just see it very differently and of course that's going to happen.
I believe we have to save ourselves, before we can save others.
Mercedes Benz seems to be contributing to the overall health of Chrysler. Ford has been making significant changes to it's line-up. Good ones ? I'm not sold on em' yet.
The India and Chinese impacts aren't yet reality. We will find out very soon though.
As far as domestic manufactoring as a whole, "the market" like you said will determine what stays here and what goes to foreign lands.
Not much I can do about it. Maybe a politcian will step in and correct it someday. who knows :sick:
I believe we have to save ourselves, before we can save others.
I don't think I suggested saving others (as other countries or their citizens) at all; please go back and re-read my previous post, in shortly, the Mexicans, Canadians, French and Indians paid for raising and educating the youths, and we take advantage of their productive years; a better deal can hardly be found. Other countries can mess themselves up with protectionism all they want, I just want the good old USA keep its Anglo-American tradition of free enterprise.
As far as domestic manufactoring as a whole, "the market" like you said will determine what stays here and what goes to foreign lands.
Not much I can do about it. Maybe a politcian will step in and correct it someday. who knows
As we know, political intervention can only make it worse, especially for taxpayers and consumers.
There's a difference between free enterprise and allowing illegal imigrants to come to the U.S.A. and work here illegally.
Why? How is it any different from declaring women illegal in the work force (a la Taliban Afghanistan)? or blacks illegal in the free work force (ie. slavery)? As we already proved before with the sales/use tax example, arbitrary "illegality" is quite meaningless except for those willing to exploit it for economic advantages. BTW, "illegal immigration" was indeed created by the labor union in the late 19th century; all immigrations were legal before then.
The High Cost of Cheap Labor Illegal Immigration and the Federal Budget
Executive Summary
This study is one of the first to estimate the total impact of illegal immigration on the federal budget. Most previous studies have focused on the state and local level and have examined only costs or tax payments, but not both. Based on Census Bureau data, this study finds that, when all taxes paid (direct and indirect) and all costs are considered, illegal households created a net fiscal deficit at the federal level of more than $10 billion in 2002. We also estimate that, if there was an amnesty for illegal aliens, the net fiscal deficit would grow to nearly $29 billion.
Among the findings:
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.
A Complex Fiscal Picture Welfare use. Our findings show that many of the preconceived notions about the fiscal impact of illegal households turn out to be inaccurate. In terms of welfare use, receipt of cash assistance programs tends to be very low, while Medicaid use, though significant, is still less than for other households. Only use of food assistance programs is significantly higher than that of the rest of the population. Also, contrary to the perceptions that illegal aliens don't pay payroll taxes, we estimate that more than half of illegals work "on the books." On average, illegal households pay more than $4,200 a year in all forms of federal taxes. Unfortunately, they impose costs of $6,950 per household.
Social Security and Medicare. Although we find that the net effect of illegal households is negative at the federal level, the same is not true for Social Security and Medicare. We estimate that illegal households create a combined net benefit for these two programs in excess of $7 billion a year, accounting for about 4 percent of the total annual surplus in these two programs. However, they create a net deficit of $17.4 billion in the rest of the budget, for a total net loss of $10.4 billion. Nonetheless, their impact on Social Security and Medicare is unambiguously positive. Of course, if the Social Security totalization agreement with Mexico signed in June goes into effect, allowing illegals to collect Social Security, these calculations would change.
The Impact of Amnesty. Finally, our estimates show that amnesty would significantly increase tax revenue. Because both their income and tax compliance would rise, we estimate that under the most likely scenario the average illegal alien household would pay 77 percent ($3,200) more a year in federal taxes once legalized. While not enough to offset the 118 percent ($8,200) per household increase in costs that would come with legalization, amnesty would significantly increase both the average income and tax payments of illegal aliens.
What's Different About Today's Immigration. Many native-born Americans observe that their ancestors came to America and did not place great demands on government services. Perhaps this is true, but the size and scope of government were dramatically smaller during the last great wave of immigration. Not just means-tested programs, but expenditures on everything from public schools to roads were only a fraction of what they are today. Thus, the arrival of unskilled immigrants in the past did not have the negative fiscal implications that it does today. Moreover, the American economy has changed profoundly since the last great wave of immigration, with education now the key determinant of economic success. The costs that unskilled immigrants impose simply reflect the nature of the modern American economy and welfare state. It is doubtful that the fiscal costs can be avoided if our immigration policies remain unchanged.
Policy Implications The negative impact on the federal budget need not be the only or even the primary consideration when deciding what to do about illegal immigration. But assuming that the fiscal status quo is unacceptable, there are three main changes in policy that might reduce or eliminate the fiscal costs of illegal immigration. One set of options is to allow illegal aliens to remain in the country, but attempt to reduce the costs they impose. A second set of options would be to grant them legal status as a way of increasing the taxes they pay. A third option would be to enforce the law and reduce the size of the illegal population and with it the costs of illegal immigration.
Reducing the Cost Side of the Equation. Reducing the costs illegals impose would probably be the most difficult of the three options because illegal households already impose only about 46 percent as much in costs on the federal government as other households. Thus, the amount of money that can be saved by curtailing their use of public services even further is probably quite limited. Moreover, the fact that benefits are often received on behalf of their U.S.-citizen children means that it is very difficult to prevent illegal households from accessing the programs they do. And many of the programs illegals use most extensively are likely to be politically very difficult to cut, such as the Women Infants and Children (WIC) nutrition program. Other costs, such as incarcerating illegals who have been convicted of crimes are unavoidable. It seems almost certain that if illegals are allowed to remain in the country, the fiscal deficit will persist.
Increasing Tax Revenue by Granting Amnesty. As discussed above, our research shows that granting illegal aliens amnesty would dramatically increase tax revenue. Unfortunately, we find that costs would increase even more. Costs would rise dramatically because illegals would be able to access many programs that are currently off limits to them. Moreover, even if legalized illegal aliens continued to be barred from using some means-tested programs, they would still be much more likely to sign their U.S.-citizen children up for them because they would lose whatever fear they had of the government. We know this because immigrants with legal status, who have the same education levels and resulting low incomes as illegal aliens, sign their U.S.-citizen children up for programs like Medicaid at higher rates than illegal aliens with U.S.-citizen children. In addition, direct costs for programs like the Earned Income Tax Credit would also grow dramatically with legalization. Right now, illegals need a Social Security number and have to file a tax return to get the credit. As a result, relatively few actually get it. We estimate that once legalized, payments to illegals under this program would grow more than ten-fold.
From a purely fiscal point of view, the main problem with legalization is that illegals would, for the most part, become unskilled legal immigrants. And unskilled legal immigrants create much larger fiscal costs than unskilled illegal aliens. Legalization will not change the low education levels of illegal aliens or the fact that the American labor market offers very limited opportunities to such workers, whatever their legal status. Nor will it change the basic fact that the United States, like all industrialized democracies, has a well-developed welfare state that provides assistance to low-income workers. Large fiscal costs are simply an unavoidable outcome of unskilled immigration given the economic and fiscal realities of America today.
Enforcing Immigration Laws. If we are serious about avoiding the fiscal costs of illegal immigration, the only real option is to enforce the law and reduce the number of illegal aliens in the country. First, this would entail much greater efforts to police the nation's land and sea borders. At present, less than 2,000 agents are on duty at any one time on the Mexican and Canadian borders. Second, much greater effort must be made to ensure that those allowed into the country on a temporary basis, such as tourists and guest workers, are not likely to stay in the country permanently. Third, the centerpiece of any enforcement effort would be to enforce the ban on hiring illegal aliens. At present, the law is completely unenforced. Enforcement would require using existing databases to ensure that all new hires are authorized to work in the United States and levying heavy fines on businesses that knowingly employ illegal aliens. Finally, a clear message from policymakers, especially senior members of the administration, that enforcement of the law is valued and vitally important to the nation, would dramatically increase the extremely low morale of those who enforce immigration laws.
Policing the border, enforcing the ban on hiring illegal aliens, denying temporary visas to those likely to remain permanently, and all the other things necessary to reduce illegal immigration will take time and cost money. However, since the cost of illegal immigration to the federal government alone is estimated at over $10 billion a year, significant resources could be devoted to enforcement efforts and still leave taxpayers with significant net savings. Enforcement not only has the advantage of reducing the costs of illegal immigration, it also is very popular with the general public. Nonetheless, policymakers can expect strong opposition from special interest groups, especially ethnic advocacy groups and those elements of the business community that do not want to invest in labor-saving devices and techniques or pay better salaries, but instead want access to large numbers of cheap, unskilled workers. If we choose to continue to not enforce the law or to grant illegals amnesty, both the public and policymakers have to understand that there will be significant long-term costs for taxpayers.
Summary Methodology Overall Approach. To estimate the impact of households headed by illegal aliens, we rely heavily on the National Research Council's (NRC) 1997 study, "The New Americans." Like that study, we use the March Current Population Survey (CPS) and the decennial Census, both collected by the Census Bureau. We use the March 2003 CPS, which asks questions about income, household structure, and use of public services in the calendar year prior to the survey. We control total federal expenditures and tax receipts by category to reflect actual expenditures and tax payments. Like the NRC, we assume that immigrants have no impact on defense-related expenditures and therefore assign those costs only to native-headed households. Like the NRC, we define a household as persons living together who are related. Individuals living alone or with persons to whom they are unrelated are treated as their own households. As the NRC study points out, a "household is the primary unit through which public services are consumed and taxes paid." Following the NRC's example of using households, many of which include U.S.-citizen children, as the unit of analysis makes sense because the presence of these children and the costs they create are a direct result of their parents having been allowed to enter and remain in country. Thus, counting services used by these children allows for a full accounting of the costs of illegal immigration.
Identifying Illegal Aliens in Census Bureau Data. While the CPS does not ask respondents if they are illegal aliens, the Urban Institute, the former Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), and the Census Bureau have used socio-demographic characteristics in the data to estimate the size and characteristics of the illegal population. To identify illegal aliens in the survey, we used citizenship status, year of arrival in the United States, age, country of birth, educational attainment, sex, receipt of welfare programs, receipt of Social Security, veteran status, and marital status. This method is based on some very well-established facts about the characteristics of the illegal population. In some cases, we assume that individuals have zero chance of being an illegal alien, such as naturalized citizens, veterans, and individuals who report that they personally receive Social Security benefits or cash assistance from a welfare program or those who are enrolled in Medicaid. However, other members of a household, mainly the U.S.-born children of illegal aliens, can and do receive these programs. We estimate that there were 8.7 million illegal aliens included in the March 2003 CPS. By design, our estimates for the size and characteristics of the illegal population are very similar to those prepared by the Census Bureau, the INS, and the Urban Institute.
Estimating the Impact of Amnesty. We assume that any amnesty that passes Congress will have Lawful Permanent Residence (LPR) as a component. Even though the President's amnesty proposal in January seems to envision "temporary" worker status, every major legalization bill in Congress, including those sponsored by Republican legislators, provides illegal aliens with LPR status at some point in the process. Moreover, Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry has indicated his strong desire to give LPR status to illegal aliens.
To estimate the likely impact of legalization, we run two different simulations. In our first simulation, we assume that legalized illegal aliens would use services and pay taxes like all households headed by legal immigrants with the same characteristics. In this simulation, we control for the education level of the household head and whether the head is from Mexico. The first simulation shows that the net fiscal deficit grows from about $2,700 to more than $6,000 per household. In the second simulation, we again control for education and whether the household head is Mexican and also assume that illegals would become like post-1986 legal immigrants, excluding refugees. Because illegals are much more like recently arrived non-refugees than legal immigrants in general, the second simulation is the more plausible. The second simulation shows that the net fiscal deficit per household would climb to $7,700.
Results Similar to Other Studies. Our overall conclusion that education level is the primary determinant of tax payments made and services used is very similar to the conclusion of the 1997 National Research Council report, "The New Americans." The results of our study also closely match the findings of a 1998 Urban Institute study, which examined tax payments by illegal aliens in New York State. In order to test our results we ran separate estimates for federal taxes and found that, when adjusted for inflation, our estimated federal taxes are almost identical to those of the Urban Institute. The results of this study are also buttressed by an analysis of illegal alien tax returns done by the Inspector General's Office of the Department of Treasury in 2004, which found that about half of illegals had no federal income tax liability, very similar to our finding of 45 percent.
This should provide you with enough "meat" to chew on for awhile. The benefits of illegal immigration doesn't outweigh the costs.
This is why the Unions like the UAW and most of the working middle class are fighting so hard against this hot topic.
If these illegal aliens are able to gain amnesty, they will lower wages and the standard of living in this great country, then nobody will beable to afford automobiles, insurance, and employers will be reluctant to offer retirements since they will have plenty of others wanting the jobs without one.
This is where your "Free Market" theory goes belly-up !!!!
had homes with 15 people living in a 3 bedroom house with trash, noise, gang violence, your kids having to drop to the ground because of gun fire, you'd be upset also.
Yeah many americans are sheltered from this reality, and feel so compassionate and don't know or seek the truth and consequences of this hot topic.
This should provide you with enough "meat" to chew on for awhile. The benefits of illegal immigration doesn't outweigh the costs.
Just how do you suppose that conclusion can be drawn?
If these illegal aliens are able to gain amnesty, they will lower wages and the standard of living in this great country, then nobody will beable to afford automobiles, insurance, and employers will be reluctant to offer retirements since they will have plenty of others wanting the jobs without one.
The same old same old argument used in 1986, at the very beginning of the greatest peace-time economic expansion in US history.
This is where your "Free Market" theory goes belly-up !!!!
You have been waiting to make that pronoucement for a long time now, haven't you? The reality is that you are very much a "Free Marketeer" in your own life. Just ask yourself:
(1) Do you work in the same town as you live? If not, you are taking jobs from neighboring town through a very free-market transaction with your employer;
(2) Do you shop outside your own town?
(3) Do you mail order?
(4) Do you buy gas outside your home town?
(5) Does your town hire food delivery, lawn maintenance or any other service labor from outside the town? Aren't they plowing under their own high school kids by not reserving the jobs for the hometown boys??
Does the answer to any these questions suddenly change just because a vocal mob in the town demanded a new town ordinance making it all "illegal"?
I had no idea all those low-lifes in New Orleans and South Central LA or Watts were all illegal immigrants. Silly me. The truth is that if you are out to look illegality, it exists in any community, white, black, hispanic or asian; native or native-born or immigrants, legal or "illegal."
Notice, what's conspicuously missing from these stats you cited:
(1) The cost savings for employers . . . therefore higher tax on their income. Assuming an illegal alien is getting paid $25k for a job that otherwise pay $50k. That lone is $25k profit, or $8250 in income tax for the employer at 33% tax bracket. Easily negating the $2700 deficit in the study by a whopping 300%! That's assuming only one worker in a household. Obviously, with all those "roommates" sharing the same household counted as one household in the study (splitting the $2700 supposed deficit among them), the tax benefits to the federal government are even greater as each of them could be causing their employer paying extra $8250 from increased profits.
(2) The cost savings for consumers. That means real improvement in standard of living for Americans.
Although legalization would increase average tax payments by 77 percent, average costs would rise by 118 percent.
That's self explanatory and is a very conservative estimate since I've seen higher figures reported by economist.
The sheer cost's of Healthcare by them alone will make it unafordable for average citizens and employers. Do you want your healthcare to go up any further because these "illegals" that aren't U.S. citizens get it free ? :surprise:
Education- How can you defend this topic ? If these people aren't paying taxes, then Education for their kids is essentially free.
You have been waiting to make that pronoucement for a long time now, haven't you? The reality is that you are very much a "Free Marketeer" in your own life. Just ask yourself:
(1) Do you work in the same town as you live? If not, you are taking jobs from neighboring town through a very free-market transaction with your employer;
(2) Do you shop outside your own town?
(3) Do you mail order?
(4) Do you buy gas outside your home town?
(5) Does your town hire food delivery, lawn maintenance or any other service labor from outside the town? Aren't they plowing under their own high school kids by not reserving the jobs for the hometown boys??
Does the answer to any these questions suddenly change just because a vocal mob in the town demanded a new town ordinance making it all "illegal"?
brightness, I'm a free marketeer, but it's done in my own country. I have no problem with a internal "free market" and products and buisness that compete against each other is enough competition for american buisness's. They are competing on a "LEVEL PLAYING FIELD" all using american labor, paying taxes, and are based in the U.S. This is what the "free market" was essentially 50 years ago. American buisness vs. American buisness, competing for Joe's buisness.
It might benefit the consumer in the short run brightness, but the long term payments "assuming they stay here" will cost the american government more in social programs than what the government collected. Throw in inflation in the equation and that number increases ten-fold.
You are the first american honestly that I've met that is PRO-immigration and doesn't think it will do long term harm to this country.
Although legalization would increase average tax payments by 77 percent, average costs would rise by 118 percent. That's self explanatory and is a very conservative estimate since I've seen higher figures reported by economist.
In other words, the numbers are pretty much all pulled out of thin air. My biggest misgiving with all these numbers is, how exactly do they start guestimating when nobody even knows how many "illegal" aliens are there?
77% number again overlooks the employer-side of the equation, where the tax rate on profit is much higher than the income tax rate on low incomes. The tiny $2700 deficit can be easily overcome with $8250 tax on the employer on increased profit.
The sheer cost's of Healthcare by them alone will make it unafordable for average citizens and employers. Do you want your healthcare to go up any further because these "illegals" that aren't U.S. citizens get it free ?
"Illegals" are already getting it free when they show up at the hospital sick (indigenous patients) or when their kids show up as the kids are American Citizens. What legalization process will do is allowing them to work at the hopsital, so that hospital operating cost can be lower.
Education- How can you defend this topic ? If these people aren't paying taxes, then Education for their kids is essentially free.
Education in this country is mostly paid by sales tax and property tax; since even "illegal" aliens have to rent and their low income lead to higher per centage of their income spent on local purchases . . . BTW, expelling them would actually immeidately lead to millions of vacancies . . . in other words, lower property tax receipt.
brightness, I'm a free marketeer, but it's done in my own country. I have no problem with a internal "free market" and products and buisness that compete against each other is enough competition for american buisness's. They are competing on a "LEVEL PLAYING FIELD" all using american labor, paying taxes, and are based in the U.S. This is what the "free market" was essentially 50 years ago. American buisness vs. American buisness, competing for Joe's buisness.
You are very wrong on history readings. Global free trade has been in in continuous existence since the 1500's, when Spanish conqured both Mexico and the Phillipines, and Mexican/Spanish silver dollar became the de facto curency from the 13 colonies of North America all the way to East China Sea, with Spanish galleons being the center of the worldwide conveyor belt; before then, trade across Eurasia was sporadic depending on tarrif level in the middleast, and the Americas were mostly out of the loop. British Empire anchored the global free trade system with their de facto gold standard since the days of Sir Issac Newton. Even 50 years ago, Americans sponsored the Brentonwoods system as the new anchor of global free trade system. Brentonwoods was not exactly an agreement among the 48 states of the United States.
We have enough problems dealing with are own citizens, do we really need to add more to the prison population, jails, etc ?
The current illegal imigrant prison population in the U.S. sits at 30%. Do you want to double or triple that figure ? I don't. With all the so-called benefits for consumers, comes a greater cost. The citizens of this country can't afford to hire more police, fire, etc. Hell we can't keep class sizes down to a respectable level. We don't have enough health care professionals to fill the current positions we have now, but you want to put even more strain on these community's with the immigrants contributing little or nothing to fund these increased costs, just so we can give the corporate greed a labor gift ? :confuse: I don't think so if I have anything to say about it. I don't care if each of them were required to have UAW memberships before coming citizens :P
It might benefit the consumer in the short run brightness, but the long term payments "assuming they stay here" will cost the american government more in social programs than what the government collected.
How can that be? The longer they stay here, the more tax they pay, and the more tax their employers will pay due to increased profits.
Throw in inflation in the equation and that number increases ten-fold.
That makes even less sense. Inflation makes currenty cash worth more in the future. We already agree that currently, the "illegal" immigrants are a huge plus when you take into account employer savings/profits/tax-payments.
You are the first american honestly that I've met that is PRO-immigration and doesn't think it will do long term harm to this country.
I don't rely on TV for news or analysis. Lost quite a lot money years ago being influenced by bubblevision. The analysis is worth exactly how much you are paying for; in the case of TV, it's negative, because your eyeball time is what pays for the TV programming.
If the jail over-population is a real concern for some, why are they advocating giving the local authorities the responsibilities for apprehending "illegal aliens"? Doesn't make sense at all.
Jail over-population is the result of "drug-war," but that's a different subject altogether.
In other words, the numbers are pretty much all pulled out of thin air. My biggest misgiving with all these numbers is, how exactly do they start guestimating when nobody even knows how many "illegal" aliens are there?
The figures were off of a 11 million illegal immigrant estimate. Of course some fear it could be as high as 20-25 million which would easily more than double all these figures.
77% number again overlooks the employer-side of the equation, where the tax rate on profit is much higher than the income tax rate on low incomes. The tiny $2700 deficit can be easily overcome with $8250 tax on the employer on increased profit.
Okay the employer saves money and what is that employer going to do with that money ? He sure in the hell isn't going to hire "me" when he expands his buisness. He will continue to run his "sweat shop" and buy from other "sweat shops" and you will have reverse discrimination going on in this country.
"Illegals" are already getting it free when they show up at the hospital sick (indigenous patients) or when their kids show up as the kids are American Citizens. What legalization process will do is allowing them to work at the hopsital, so that hospital operating cost can be lower.
That's where their needs to be laws changed. A illegal alien from any country that gives birth to a child on american soil doesn't have a right to this country's vast wealth. I'm sorry it's wrong and needs to be changed. Did I read that right ? Are you also saying you want them employed at hospitals to keep costs lower. :surprise: Ahhhhhhhhh !!!!!!!!!!
Education in this country is mostly paid by sales tax and property tax; since even "illegal" aliens have to rent and their low income lead to higher per centage of their income spent on local purchases . . . BTW, expelling them would actually immeidately lead to millions of vacancies . . . in other words, lower property tax receipt.
Well paying property taxes on a 3 bedroom house with 8-10 kids running around kinda puts you back in the red on that equation brightness. You also fail to list that these kids need special education programs such as "head start" so they can function in the classroom and speak english.
You are very wrong on history readings. Global free trade has been in in continuous existence since the 1500's, when Spanish conqured both Mexico and the Phillipines, and Mexican/Spanish silver dollar became the de facto curency from the 13 colonies of North America all the way to East China Sea, with Spanish galleons being the center of the worldwide conveyor belt; before then, trade across Eurasia was sporadic depending on tarrif level in the middleast, and the Americas were mostly out of the loop.
Oh my Gawd, your going to count the bartering of beads and feathers of Indians for a sword by a sailor. Come-On brightness, let's get real.
British Empire anchored the global free trade system with their de facto gold standard since the days of Sir Issac Newton. Even 50 years ago, Americans sponsored the Brentonwoods system as the new anchor of global free trade system. Brentonwoods was not exactly an agreement among the 48 states of the United States.
It was adopting the British Empire System which has lead to the collapse we have today. BTW- We were the poor nation back then and the "free trade" or "market" helped us out. But it lowered Englands standard of living and the Capatalist got the guillotine, while the socialist got elected. Even our forefather's would be suprised at how long the "open market" has lasted since they figured it would implode within' 50 or 60 years. :P
The figures were off of a 11 million illegal immigrant estimate. Of course some fear it could be as high as 20-25 million which would easily more than double all these figures.
Or, it could 5 million, 10m, 11m, 20m, 25m, or who knows.
Okay the employer saves money and what is that employer going to do with that money?
Are we still on the subject of Federal Tax ramifications?? I thought you quoted all those pages for one simple subject: Tax/Service at the Federal level. As far as that is concerned, for every worker that takes a job for $25k that would otherwise pay $50k, the $25k increased profit for the employer would result in $8250 income tax at the federal income tax table alone, more than off-setting the $2700 deficit in that study by 300%! In an immigrant household that is packed to 15 adults like the example you cited, that would be $123750 increase in federal taxes from the employers as a result of profits, or more than 4500% the supposed deficit!
He sure in the hell isn't going to hire "me" when he expands his buisness. He will continue to run his "sweat shop" and buy from other "sweat shops" and you will have reverse discrimination going on in this country.
What is he goine to do with his money after paying taxes?? He can spend it on something you offer, cars or cellphones etc.. what he can not spend, he puts in the bank, which will be most diligently tryingto lend the money out. Didn't you say it's incredibly difficult to find business loans??
That's where their needs to be laws changed. A illegal alien from any country that gives birth to a child on american soil doesn't have a right to this country's vast wealth. I'm sorry it's wrong and needs to be changed.
Children born on the soil of the United States are citizens of the United States; that is a Constitutionally-guaranteed right . . . more so than your right to a overpaying job, I'm afraid.
Did I read that right ? Are you also saying you want them employed at hospitals to keep costs lower.
Why not? How much english is required to mop the floor? A very high per centage of recent nursing school graduates are actually immigrants.
Well paying property taxes on a 3 bedroom house with 8-10 kids running around kinda puts you back in the red on that equation brightness. You also fail to list that these kids need special education programs such as "head start" so they can function in the classroom and speak english.
Then there are the households that have 15 adults but no kids, netting us hundreds of thousands of dollars in income tax alone from their employers. BTW, are we now into banning all families that are net "receivers"? Considering that the top 20% income filers pay for 60% of total income tax collected, I don't think you want to play this game for long if you are not in the top 20% yourself, lest getting your own family on the chopping block.
Oh my Gawd, your going to count the bartering of beads and feathers of Indians for a sword by a sailor. Come-On brightness, let's get real.
Once again you are wrong. Silver Mexican/Spanish Dollar was the universal currency of the world. Read my post again, and read up on history. Even the first official US silver dollar was minted according to the weight and finess (purity) of the Spanish Dollar of 1497. Where do you suppose the tea that Tea Party tossed into Boston harbor came from? Certainly not the Carolinas or anywhere in Europe.
It was adopting the British Empire System which has lead to the collapse we have today. BTW- We were the poor nation back then and the "free trade" or "market" helped us out.
Wrong yet again. North America was always a rich place; per capita income was higher than Europe even before there was United States.
But it lowered Englands standard of living and the Capatalist got the guillotine, while the socialist got elected.
Britain would not be British Empire without trade; it would not even be able to feed itself without trade. You are confusing Britain and France. Nobody got the guillotine in England or Britain. The only Monarch they ever hang was Charles I in 1649, or 130+ years before there was the United States, for treason in the middle of their Civil War. No Capitalist ever got hanged in Britain for being capitalist either. The French were the ones who embraced Chinese philosophy in the 17th and 18th century, and thought government intervention in the market place to "correct wrongs" was a very enlightened idea, because much of the French intellectual class shared the continental disdain for trade and commerce. The hardnosed Adam Smithian free-enterprising English saw right through such nonsense . . . "who will be watching the watchers?"
According to Business Week, the average CEO of a major corporation made 42 times the average hourly worker's pay in 1980. By 1990 that had almost doubled to 85 times. In 2000, the average CEO salary reached an unbelievable 531 times that of the average hourly worker.
That is a lot of money!! Wish I was smart enough to get there!!
At GM the hourly worker probably makes about $60K w/o benefits or ovetime? That would mean the CEO in an average wage should make $32K.
Education- How can you defend this topic ? If these people aren't paying taxes, then Education for their kids is essentially free.
Are you saying that everyone that rents a house or apartment are getting free education for their children? Schools are primarily supported by property tax. Apartment owners pay property tax so the renter ultimately pay property tax. Illegals. live in apartments as do legal residents.
The thrust behind legalizing those already here is getting them to start paying income tax and SS tax which goes to pay for these services. The other option is the status quo with nothing being done. You cannot round up 12 million people like it was a Texas cattle drive and get them back into Mexico or Canada. We need solutions for the problem not whining about how it affects us individually. We built a giant fence in San Diego. It just moved the crossing point further into the desert.
As for the UAW. Would you rather we paid an illegal in the US $25K per yr to make parts for cars or $7k a year in Mexico? Which will impact your father's good UAW job the most?
When Toyota opens their new Tundra plant in San Antonio, where will they get the workers? They have a very low 4.3% unemployment now. Do you think they will come out of the woodwork? If the pay is good people will give up lower paying jobs and jump to Toyota, leaving a void in other areas. We have a shortage of people to do the work in this country. The unemployed in Michigan may have to pick up and go find a more prosperous area. Maybe the UAW can share in that blame for Michigan losing work.
You honestly believe we have a shortage of people willing to do the work ?
If that's not a CEO/Big buisness man answer, then I've never heard one.
What you should of said gagrice, was their is a shortage of employers, willing to pay a decent wage because they are a greedy, ignorant, american that want miracles for next to nothing.
Rocky, the issue is that there are greedy, ignorant americans that would rather buy inexpensive products from China than have to worry about paying high wages for American products built by relatively high paid workers. (it can be twisted around)
Unless the laws change or something else business will always HAVE to go to the cheapest manufaturing method due to competition. the company making widgets will have to go to Cina if widgets start getting imported at a lower price if they cannot find some other way to compete. I know this is really what you meant since you agree this is what is happening.
You honestly believe we have a shortage of people willing to do the work ?
Simply, Yes. I am retiring after 45 years in communications, all Union. I have 36 years in the Teamsters in Alaska. Right now there is a call at the hall for 25 Electronic technicians for jobs with at&t. They all pay over $30 per hour with great benefits. They are not getting people to take the jobs. Skilled labor is especially in short supply.
No, skilled means ready to go to work. Training is becoming a thing of the past. On average we get a 2 day course on new equipment. We are expected to know the business. High pay demands a high level of competence and prior training.
That was kinda my point. Everyone is willing to pay for the skill, but no one wants to invest any money into a young worker wanting and willing to learn the skill. :sick:
That was kinda my point. Everyone is willing to pay for the skill, but no one wants to invest any money into a young worker wanting and willing to learn the skill.
That's why you go to school and learn a skill. You want to invest money in your own future. See, I think THAT is the problem. People want someone else to pay for something they should be doing themselves to make themselves more marketable.
Comments
I heard examples in the drywall industry called in to a radio station a few weeks ago. Workers called; at least one owner called.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Yes I really do. They had a poll on Lou Dobbs the other night and did you know if they raised the wages on farm help by 40% it would only cost the american consumer $10 dollars more a year. That was pushing the wage/salary level above poverty.
The poll numbers weren't suprising to me, because 56% said they would pay $100 extra per year (fruits/vegetables) so that farm workers made more than poverty, thus no need for illegal aliens to work in the agriculture sectors.
I would rather see a legal american pick my fruit and vegetables then some law breaker. If the pay was good enough gagrice, they would pay taxes and contribute to the american economy like buying cars, buying services and goods with their disposable income. I don't want my tax dollars which subsidize american farmers, going to the wages of law breakers. Is their something wrong with that ? :surprise: My Gosh.... :mad:
I am for tighter border security. Then when they slow the flow to a trickle we can start weeding out the criminal element and identifying the ones that are useful to our society. If we put a concerted effort into resolving this issue, it would probably be 10 years before we saw much difference.
Get rid of them all. They all broke the law regardless. If you want to come into my country, get a green card and apply for citizenship. You got "X" amount of time to get a job, and until you get accepted for U.S. citizenship, your kids aren't U.S. citizens, even if they a born here. BTW- you also have to pay the same taxes, college tuition, etc as an american citizen right away. No more meal tickets for 7 years. :mad:
If it took 10 years, atleast it's a start.
It is a cross border "keeping up with the Jones's". Satellite TV has opened up the World's eyes to what we take for granted. Literally millions of people want what we have and are willing to die trying to get a piece of the American lifestyle.
Tough luck. Satellite TV and keep up with the Jones are entitlements of Americans. Waving your Mexican flag so proudly above the American flag, also doesn't help your situation. It's sending me a mixed signal of why do you want to leave your country if it's so great there ?
Why should I trust you to uphold the laws of this land and contribute to our country, if you are going to wave a foreign flag in my country so proudly. :mad: If you break the law like selling drugs, building border tunnels, or human/child trafficking you will be banned pernamently from my country
BTW- Fox you can have the 30% illegal alien population that makes up our prison system. If they cross back into the United States, they will be facing a death sentence called a firearm with a border patrol agent behind it.
This is the immigration policy the U.S.
needs (It has teeth) and it would benefit everyone in this country gagrice, while increasing the disposable incomes of the poor citizens in this country.
Rocky
The basis for that assessment would be? That Canadians are white and English-speaking? You'd be very surprised at how many Canadians are living and working "illegally" in our midst. I almost hired two just by normal recruitment from local university students.
Joe-Six-Pack, will be affected by the illegal immigration amnesty, because he/she has to compete for some of the same jobs as the illegal aliens.
And enjoy the fruits of their labor as well, just like everyone else. By your argument, why did we bother to free black slaves at all? It was illegal to help run-away slaves, too, you know?
Construction company's hire illegal aliens from
"day-labor" sites to get the cheapest help possible, thus putting an american construction worker out of a job.
You are still not getting it. A job is meaningless if the fruit of labor can be attained for less. Suppose, houses grow out of the ground all by themselves like mashrooms, do you consider that biological process robbing American construction workers out of a job, too??
Many illegal aliens will stay in the U.S. and work, while sending large portions of there checks back to there family's across the border.
Therefore these same individuals make less demand on consumption than they produce for us here.
I also find it amusing and sad, that these pro-immigration folks that supposably love this country so much are the same ones that wave mexican flags at these protest locations.
It's an ethnic and cultural identity, just like church flags. I don't suppose, you want to round up all Catholics and Anglicans because their loyalties to the Pope and QEII, do you? Once again, latent racism at play.
brightness, I guess I shouldn't be amazed that you support them, since you probably want to get your hands on this cheap flexible labor pool to "pad" your company's pockets.
Intersting bias. Using your ealier tax revenue math, if I had been able to hire those two Canadians, I'd be paying more payroll tax not to mention their own income taxes. Any time the government interferes in the market place, it constricts the economy and reduces its own tax base. If you want to consider that a national security issue, there is certainly less resources to go around for national security, too. All for what? A few obsolete/non-competitive job-holders wanting to pad their own pockets with monopolistic profits/income?
I'll use this analogy. The "free market" will determine the cost of a drywaller installer. But this time it will be with using Americans for labor. :P
Rocky
I have a bridge to sell you, too. Do you suppose the money will then be dispensed through a communistic bureacracy staffed by incorruptable volunteer saints? Do you have any idea what kind of mark-ups are involved in the fruit and vegie deistribution channels?
I would rather see a legal american pick my fruit and vegetables then some law breaker.
You can do even better. You can buy all your fruits and vegies from local growers right now, practically in any major US metropolitan area. Obviously, you don't. So talk is cheap, and for very good reason.
The real reason why Canadians, Mexicans, and practically everyone else, want to come to the US is the same as why farm boys and girls in the midwest farm belt want to come to NYC, and why there was a gold-rush in 1849 to San Francisco. US is the gold mine because the reserve currency status of the US$. Labor and products are always more expensive where gold is produced, when gold was the currency: an egg cost 10 times more near the gold mine in San Francisco in 1849 than it cost in Minnesota. Simple supply and demand. Today, US$ instead of gold is the commodity currency. The US is currently the biggest producer of commodity currency (namely, paper and electronic dollar) in the world. That's why the rest of the world is eager to ship their goods and services (including labor) here . . . be gratful while the getting is good. It could be far worse if and when they no longer take our paper "goods" :-)
You are joking right. You think that you can get your kid or mine to pick fruit or vegetables, all day long in the sun? If you pay sheet rockers $25 per hour you can get citizens to do the work sometimes. It is not easy getting skilled construction workers legal or illegal. I don't know about TX but in Southern CA we are under 4% unemployment and finding help is tough. Wal-Mart just hired my daughter at $9.50 per hour and she picks her days and hours.
I have friends that just returned from helping out in New Orleans. They said much of the work was being done by illegals. They are paying big bucks for workers down there and cannot get the help they need.
Much of the US has a labor shortage. It may not be the best pay. It is a place to start. I am very skeptical about getting our citizens to take the crappy jobs that many illegals. are doing. It has been that way for my lifetime in CA, over the last 62 years.
You can do even better: why stop at excluding non-Americans? Exclude all out-of-towners, exclude all worker without a family to feed, heck, even exclude anyone who does not pay a "protection fee" to your mafia, and you will end up with a price point even higher. Now, how "free" is that market anyway?
I guess I would be very suprised then. :surprise:
Canadians being white and english or French speaking has nothing to do with this topic.
You are still not getting it. A job is meaningless if the fruit of labor can be attained for less. Suppose, houses grow out of the ground all by themselves like mashrooms, do you consider that biological process robbing American construction workers out of a job, too??
Why aren't I suprised by your response. :confuse:
So you honestly consider the fruits of labor by a illegal aliens being equal to that of a citizen of this country, because "the market" is the ultimate determining factor :sick:
Therefore these same individuals make less demand on consumption than they produce for us here.
They can save money to send back home, because you and I are picking up their medical, food, clothes, etc. through our social programs that are suppose to be for americans that are struggling. :mad:
It's an ethnic and cultural identity, just like church flags. I don't suppose, you want to round up all Catholics and Anglicans because their loyalties to the Pope and QEII, do you? Once again, latent racism at play.
Wow, so your pulling out the race card against me eh? Well I am prejudice against folks that think it's ok to break the law. If that's racist, then I guess that's what I am.
BTW- There is a major difference between a lawful peaceful U.S. citizen of any race waving his church flag, when compared to a illegal alien burning an American flag, throwing rocks at the police, and creating scences of violence.
Intersting bias. Using your ealier tax revenue math, if I had been able to hire those two Canadians, I'd be paying more payroll tax not to mention their own income taxes.
Not for 7 years. Foreign workers don't pay income taxes, which makes them very attractive for both large and small buisness's.
Any time the government interferes in the market place, it constricts the economy and reduces its own tax base. If you want to consider that a national security issue, there is certainly less resources to go around for national security, too. All for what? A few obsolete/non-competitive job-holders wanting to pad their own pockets with monopolistic profits/income?
Oh no, more smoke and mirrors about the government interfering with the private sector. :sick: You really don't believe in borders, language, culture, and believe the "free market" will judge and correct "who and what" stays/goes in this country. :sick:
Rocky
Ya'll most definitely make good arguments to defend your views.
I'm very worried about the direction this country is headed and glad to see atleast a few are more confident than I.
Well let's refocus on the topic.
Do both of you feel Chrysler is headed in the right direction as a company ?????
How about Ford ?????
GM is the main company that is getting picked on. How much cash reserves does Ford and Chrysler have stashed away ?
Do any of you think the new products will save either company once the China and India automakers hit our shores ?
Rocky
So you honestly consider the fruits of labor by a illegal aliens being equal to that of a citizen of this country, because "the market" is the ultimate determining factor
If the product and service is identical in quality, what is the difference? Do you refuse rain water because you have not paid for the well driller or the water bottler for it?
They can save money to send back home, because you and I are picking up their medical, food, clothes, etc. through our social programs that are suppose to be for americans that are struggling.
That's just plain ludicrous. You can not get on social programs without legal status, legally anyway. On the other hand, you are liable to income tax and especially sales tax regardless your immigration status.
Wow, so your pulling out the race card against me eh? Well I am prejudice against folks that think it's ok to break the law. If that's racist, then I guess that's what I am.
Do you ever shop outside your town? Do you ever mail-order? Do you then send use tax to your local and state tax authority and pay use tax (equal to sales tax) on all items you purchase online and by catalog from out of state? You know, tax evasion is highly illegal, so be a hard [non-permissible content removed] on yourself please. The fact you are so selective about which of those artificial "illegality" you care about goes to show either:
(1) you are a hypocrit
(2) you are a racist
Not for 7 years. Foreign workers don't pay income taxes, which makes them very attractive for both large and small buisness's.
What planet are you on?? Planet Lounny?? Income tax is required of everyone deriving income from the US (with only exception for purely passive interest income from deposits at American banks, so that foreigners are encourage to keep their money in the US); even foreigners winning in Vegas while on vacation are subject to income tax.
You really don't believe in borders, language, culture, and believe the "free market" will judge and correct "who and what" stays/goes in this country.
When you type up a sentence like that, it only furnish further proof that the "illegality" you talked about was only a smoke-and-mirror. What you care about is "language," "culture," and their codification. As John Locke observed nearly two hundred years ago, religious, linguistic and cultural discriminations/wars are merely tools for economic exploitation.
Rocky
I appreciate your passion. BTW, I did not use the word "racism" as a cuss word. Racism and xenophobia are natural human tendencies, very destructive ones nonetheless. Most other countries in the world are far worse at it collectively than us Americans; that's what historically held them back. What has made America great is our willingness to roll out a relatively level playing field for all the new-comers. There is a very sound economic reason for it: for every Mexican teenager we take in, we as a society save the cost of raising a kid for a dozen to twenty years (not to mention only the more healthy ones coule make the journey to get here); for every Canadian or French medical student or Indian computer scientist we allow to stay, we not only save the cost of raising them for a couple dozen years, but also reap the enormous benefit of their brain power (like, 1 in 100 if not 1000 on the bell curve), etc. etc.. That's a big reason why America has been so great: its ability to take advantage of the rest of the world on human capital!
Back to the forum topic, Chrysler is now part of Benz, not sure how that's going to play out. Ford family will support their company for a while. IMHO, the China and India thing will actually be a big help to GM. None of the Chinese or Indian companies are especially good at building brands (know any Chinese or Indian native brands for consumer products? despite the vast majority of manufactured products we buy now are made there). GM is very likely to succeed like Dell and HP have done (all their computers are made in China and India). GM domestic production might still be saved if the house can be put in order, and production volume can be controlled so that price points can be maintained for luxury brands.
I believe we have to save ourselves, before we can save others.
Mercedes Benz seems to be contributing to the overall health of Chrysler. Ford has been making significant changes to it's line-up. Good ones ? I'm not sold on em' yet.
The India and Chinese impacts aren't yet reality. We will find out very soon though.
As far as domestic manufactoring as a whole, "the market" like you said will determine what stays here and what goes to foreign lands.
Not much I can do about it. Maybe a politcian will step in and correct it someday. who knows :sick:
Rocky
I don't think I suggested saving others (as other countries or their citizens) at all; please go back and re-read my previous post, in shortly, the Mexicans, Canadians, French and Indians paid for raising and educating the youths, and we take advantage of their productive years; a better deal can hardly be found. Other countries can mess themselves up with protectionism all they want, I just want the good old USA keep its Anglo-American tradition of free enterprise.
As far as domestic manufactoring as a whole, "the market" like you said will determine what stays here and what goes to foreign lands.
Not much I can do about it. Maybe a politcian will step in and correct it someday. who knows
As we know, political intervention can only make it worse, especially for taxpayers and consumers.
It's a gooden' and was the bases for our arguement tonight.
Rocky
Rocky
Why? How is it any different from declaring women illegal in the work force (a la Taliban Afghanistan)? or blacks illegal in the free work force (ie. slavery)? As we already proved before with the sales/use tax example, arbitrary "illegality" is quite meaningless except for those willing to exploit it for economic advantages. BTW, "illegal immigration" was indeed created by the labor union in the late 19th century; all immigrations were legal before then.
Rocky
I'm glad the labor union declared immigration in the 19th century illegal.
Rocky
Illegal Immigration and the Federal Budget
Executive Summary
This study is one of the first to estimate the total impact of illegal immigration on the federal budget. Most previous studies have focused on the state and local level and have examined only costs or tax payments, but not both. Based on Census Bureau data, this study finds that, when all taxes paid (direct and indirect) and all costs are considered, illegal households created a net fiscal deficit at the federal level of more than $10 billion in 2002. We also estimate that, if there was an amnesty for illegal aliens, the net fiscal deficit would grow to nearly $29 billion.
Among the findings:
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.
A Complex Fiscal Picture
Welfare use. Our findings show that many of the preconceived notions about the fiscal impact of illegal households turn out to be inaccurate. In terms of welfare use, receipt of cash assistance programs tends to be very low, while Medicaid use, though significant, is still less than for other households. Only use of food assistance programs is significantly higher than that of the rest of the population. Also, contrary to the perceptions that illegal aliens don't pay payroll taxes, we estimate that more than half of illegals work "on the books." On average, illegal households pay more than $4,200 a year in all forms of federal taxes. Unfortunately, they impose costs of $6,950 per household.
The Impact of Amnesty. Finally, our estimates show that amnesty would significantly increase tax revenue. Because both their income and tax compliance would rise, we estimate that under the most likely scenario the average illegal alien household would pay 77 percent ($3,200) more a year in federal taxes once legalized. While not enough to offset the 118 percent ($8,200) per household increase in costs that would come with legalization, amnesty would significantly increase both the average income and tax payments of illegal aliens.
What's Different About Today's Immigration. Many native-born Americans observe that their ancestors came to America and did not place great demands on government services. Perhaps this is true, but the size and scope of government were dramatically smaller during the last great wave of immigration. Not just means-tested programs, but expenditures on everything from public schools to roads were only a fraction of what they are today. Thus, the arrival of unskilled immigrants in the past did not have the negative fiscal implications that it does today. Moreover, the American economy has changed profoundly since the last great wave of immigration, with education now the key determinant of economic success. The costs that unskilled immigrants impose simply reflect the nature of the modern American economy and welfare state. It is doubtful that the fiscal costs can be avoided if our immigration policies remain unchanged.
Policy Implications
The negative impact on the federal budget need not be the only or even the primary consideration when deciding what to do about illegal immigration. But assuming that the fiscal status quo is unacceptable, there are three main changes in policy that might reduce or eliminate the fiscal costs of illegal immigration. One set of options is to allow illegal aliens to remain in the country, but attempt to reduce the costs they impose. A second set of options would be to grant them legal status as a way of increasing the taxes they pay. A third option would be to enforce the law and reduce the size of the illegal population and with it the costs of illegal immigration.
Reducing the Cost Side of the Equation. Reducing the costs illegals impose would probably be the most difficult of the three options because illegal households already impose only about 46 percent as much in costs on the federal government as other households. Thus, the amount of money that can be saved by curtailing their use of public services even further is probably quite limited. Moreover, the fact that benefits are often received on behalf of their U.S.-citizen children means that it is very difficult to prevent illegal households from accessing the programs they do. And many of the programs illegals use most extensively are likely to be politically very difficult to cut, such as the Women Infants and Children (WIC) nutrition program. Other costs, such as incarcerating illegals who have been convicted of crimes are unavoidable. It seems almost certain that if illegals are allowed to remain in the country, the fiscal deficit will persist.
Increasing Tax Revenue by Granting Amnesty. As discussed above, our research shows that granting illegal aliens amnesty would dramatically increase tax revenue. Unfortunately, we find that costs would increase even more. Costs would rise dramatically because illegals would be able to access many programs that are currently off limits to them. Moreover, even if legalized illegal aliens continued to be barred from using some means-tested programs, they would still be much more likely to sign their U.S.-citizen children up for them because they would lose whatever fear they had of the government. We know this because immigrants with legal status, who have the same education levels and resulting low incomes as illegal aliens, sign their U.S.-citizen children up for programs like Medicaid at higher rates than illegal aliens with U.S.-citizen children. In addition, direct costs for programs like the Earned Income Tax Credit would also grow dramatically with legalization. Right now, illegals need a Social Security number and have to file a tax return to get the credit. As a result, relatively few actually get it. We estimate that once legalized, payments to illegals under this program would grow more than ten-fold.
Enforcing Immigration Laws. If we are serious about avoiding the fiscal costs of illegal immigration, the only real option is to enforce the law and reduce the number of illegal aliens in the country. First, this would entail much greater efforts to police the nation's land and sea borders. At present, less than 2,000 agents are on duty at any one time on the Mexican and Canadian borders. Second, much greater effort must be made to ensure that those allowed into the country on a temporary basis, such as tourists and guest workers, are not likely to stay in the country permanently. Third, the centerpiece of any enforcement effort would be to enforce the ban on hiring illegal aliens. At present, the law is completely unenforced. Enforcement would require using existing databases to ensure that all new hires are authorized to work in the United States and levying heavy fines on businesses that knowingly employ illegal aliens. Finally, a clear message from policymakers, especially senior members of the administration, that enforcement of the law is valued and vitally important to the nation, would dramatically increase the extremely low morale of those who enforce immigration laws.
Policing the border, enforcing the ban on hiring illegal aliens, denying temporary visas to those likely to remain permanently, and all the other things necessary to reduce illegal immigration will take time and cost money. However, since the cost of illegal immigration to the federal government alone is estimated at over $10 billion a year, significant resources could be devoted to enforcement efforts and still leave taxpayers with significant net savings. Enforcement not only has the advantage of reducing the costs of illegal immigration, it also is very popular with the general public. Nonetheless, policymakers can expect strong opposition from special interest groups, especially ethnic advocacy groups and those elements of the business community that do not want to invest in labor-saving devices and techniques or pay better salaries, but instead want access to large numbers of cheap, unskilled workers. If we choose to continue to not enforce the law or to grant illegals amnesty, both the public and policymakers have to understand that there will be significant long-term costs for taxpayers.
Summary Methodology
Overall Approach. To estimate the impact of households headed by illegal aliens, we rely heavily on the National Research Council's (NRC) 1997 study, "The New Americans." Like that study, we use the March Current Population Survey (CPS) and the decennial Census, both collected by the Census Bureau. We use the March 2003 CPS, which asks questions about income, household structure, and use of public services in the calendar year prior to the survey. We control total federal expenditures and tax receipts by category to reflect actual expenditures and tax payments. Like the NRC, we assume that immigrants have no impact on defense-related expenditures and therefore assign those costs only to native-headed households. Like the NRC, we define a household as persons living together who are related. Individuals living alone or with persons to whom they are unrelated are treated as their own households. As the NRC study points out, a "household is the primary unit through which public services are consumed and taxes paid." Following the NRC's example of using households, many of which include U.S.-citizen children, as the unit of analysis makes sense because the presence of these children and the costs they create are a direct result of their parents having been allowed to enter and remain in country. Thus, counting services used by these children allows for a full accounting of the costs of illegal immigration.
Estimating the Impact of Amnesty. We assume that any amnesty that passes Congress will have Lawful Permanent Residence (LPR) as a component. Even though the President's amnesty proposal in January seems to envision "temporary" worker status, every major legalization bill in Congress, including those sponsored by Republican legislators, provides illegal aliens with LPR status at some point in the process. Moreover, Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry has indicated his strong desire to give LPR status to illegal aliens.
To estimate the likely impact of legalization, we run two different simulations. In our first simulation, we assume that legalized illegal aliens would use services and pay taxes like all households headed by legal immigrants with the same characteristics. In this simulation, we control for the education level of the household head and whether the head is from Mexico. The first simulation shows that the net fiscal deficit grows from about $2,700 to more than $6,000 per household. In the second simulation, we again control for education and whether the household head is Mexican and also assume that illegals would become like post-1986 legal immigrants, excluding refugees. Because illegals are much more like recently arrived non-refugees than legal immigrants in general, the second simulation is the more plausible. The second simulation shows that the net fiscal deficit per household would climb to $7,700.
Results Similar to Other Studies. Our overall conclusion that education level is the primary determinant of tax payments made and services used is very similar to the conclusion of the 1997 National Research Council report, "The New Americans." The results of our study also closely match the findings of a 1998 Urban Institute study, which examined tax payments by illegal aliens in New York State. In order to test our results we ran separate estimates for federal taxes and found that, when adjusted for inflation, our estimated federal taxes are almost identical to those of the Urban Institute. The results of this study are also buttressed by an analysis of illegal alien tax returns done by the Inspector General's Office of the Department of Treasury in 2004, which found that about half of illegals had no federal income tax liability, very similar to our finding of 45 percent.
Epiphany like that happens every day to people who rely on TV to extend their knowledge base.
This is why the Unions like the UAW and most of the working middle class are fighting so hard against this hot topic.
If these illegal aliens are able to gain amnesty, they will lower wages and the standard of living in this great country, then nobody will beable to afford automobiles, insurance, and employers will be reluctant to offer retirements since they will have plenty of others wanting the jobs without one.
This is where your "Free Market" theory goes belly-up !!!!
Rocky
I suppose you like other laws that contradict the 9th and 10th amendments, too.
Yeah many americans are sheltered from this reality, and feel so compassionate and don't know or seek the truth and consequences of this hot topic.
Rocky
Just how do you suppose that conclusion can be drawn?
If these illegal aliens are able to gain amnesty, they will lower wages and the standard of living in this great country, then nobody will beable to afford automobiles, insurance, and employers will be reluctant to offer retirements since they will have plenty of others wanting the jobs without one.
The same old same old argument used in 1986, at the very beginning of the greatest peace-time economic expansion in US history.
This is where your "Free Market" theory goes belly-up !!!!
You have been waiting to make that pronoucement for a long time now, haven't you? The reality is that you are very much a "Free Marketeer" in your own life. Just ask yourself:
(1) Do you work in the same town as you live? If not, you are taking jobs from neighboring town through a very free-market transaction with your employer;
(2) Do you shop outside your own town?
(3) Do you mail order?
(4) Do you buy gas outside your home town?
(5) Does your town hire food delivery, lawn maintenance or any other service labor from outside the town? Aren't they plowing under their own high school kids by not reserving the jobs for the hometown boys??
Does the answer to any these questions suddenly change just because a vocal mob in the town demanded a new town ordinance making it all "illegal"?
(1) The cost savings for employers . . . therefore higher tax on their income. Assuming an illegal alien is getting paid $25k for a job that otherwise pay $50k. That lone is $25k profit, or $8250 in income tax for the employer at 33% tax bracket. Easily negating the $2700 deficit in the study by a whopping 300%! That's assuming only one worker in a household. Obviously, with all those "roommates" sharing the same household counted as one household in the study (splitting the $2700 supposed deficit among them), the tax benefits to the federal government are even greater as each of them could be causing their employer paying extra $8250 from increased profits.
(2) The cost savings for consumers. That means real improvement in standard of living for Americans.
Although legalization would increase average tax payments by 77 percent, average costs would rise by 118 percent.
That's self explanatory and is a very conservative estimate since I've seen higher figures reported by economist.
The sheer cost's of Healthcare by them alone will make it unafordable for average citizens and employers. Do you want your healthcare to go up any further because these "illegals" that aren't U.S. citizens get it free ? :surprise:
Education- How can you defend this topic ? If these people aren't paying taxes, then Education for their kids is essentially free.
You have been waiting to make that pronoucement for a long time now, haven't you? The reality is that you are very much a "Free Marketeer" in your own life. Just ask yourself:
(1) Do you work in the same town as you live? If not, you are taking jobs from neighboring town through a very free-market transaction with your employer;
(2) Do you shop outside your own town?
(3) Do you mail order?
(4) Do you buy gas outside your home town?
(5) Does your town hire food delivery, lawn maintenance or any other service labor from outside the town? Aren't they plowing under their own high school kids by not reserving the jobs for the hometown boys??
Does the answer to any these questions suddenly change just because a vocal mob in the town demanded a new town ordinance making it all "illegal"?
brightness, I'm a free marketeer, but it's done in my own country. I have no problem with a internal "free market" and products and buisness that compete against each other is enough competition for american buisness's. They are competing on a "LEVEL PLAYING FIELD" all using american labor, paying taxes, and are based in the U.S.
This is what the "free market" was essentially 50 years ago. American buisness vs. American buisness, competing for Joe's buisness.
Rocky
You are the first american honestly that I've met that is PRO-immigration and doesn't think it will do long term harm to this country.
I can't agree with you.
Rocky
In other words, the numbers are pretty much all pulled out of thin air. My biggest misgiving with all these numbers is, how exactly do they start guestimating when nobody even knows how many "illegal" aliens are there?
77% number again overlooks the employer-side of the equation, where the tax rate on profit is much higher than the income tax rate on low incomes. The tiny $2700 deficit can be easily overcome with $8250 tax on the employer on increased profit.
The sheer cost's of Healthcare by them alone will make it unafordable for average citizens and employers. Do you want your healthcare to go up any further because these "illegals" that aren't U.S. citizens get it free ?
"Illegals" are already getting it free when they show up at the hospital sick (indigenous patients) or when their kids show up as the kids are American Citizens. What legalization process will do is allowing them to work at the hopsital, so that hospital operating cost can be lower.
Education- How can you defend this topic ? If these people aren't paying taxes, then Education for their kids is essentially free.
Education in this country is mostly paid by sales tax and property tax; since even "illegal" aliens have to rent and their low income lead to higher per centage of their income spent on local purchases . . . BTW, expelling them would actually immeidately lead to millions of vacancies . . . in other words, lower property tax receipt.
brightness, I'm a free marketeer, but it's done in my own country. I have no problem with a internal "free market" and products and buisness that compete against each other is enough competition for american buisness's. They are competing on a "LEVEL PLAYING FIELD" all using american labor, paying taxes, and are based in the U.S.
This is what the "free market" was essentially 50 years ago. American buisness vs. American buisness, competing for Joe's buisness.
You are very wrong on history readings. Global free trade has been in in continuous existence since the 1500's, when Spanish conqured both Mexico and the Phillipines, and Mexican/Spanish silver dollar became the de facto curency from the 13 colonies of North America all the way to East China Sea, with Spanish galleons being the center of the worldwide conveyor belt; before then, trade across Eurasia was sporadic depending on tarrif level in the middleast, and the Americas were mostly out of the loop. British Empire anchored the global free trade system with their de facto gold standard since the days of Sir Issac Newton. Even 50 years ago, Americans sponsored the Brentonwoods system as the new anchor of global free trade system. Brentonwoods was not exactly an agreement among the 48 states of the United States.
The current illegal imigrant prison population in the U.S. sits at 30%. Do you want to double or triple that figure ? I don't.
Rocky
How can that be? The longer they stay here, the more tax they pay, and the more tax their employers will pay due to increased profits.
Throw in inflation in the equation and that number increases ten-fold.
That makes even less sense. Inflation makes currenty cash worth more in the future. We already agree that currently, the "illegal" immigrants are a huge plus when you take into account employer savings/profits/tax-payments.
You are the first american honestly that I've met that is PRO-immigration and doesn't think it will do long term harm to this country.
I don't rely on TV for news or analysis. Lost quite a lot money years ago being influenced by bubblevision. The analysis is worth exactly how much you are paying for; in the case of TV, it's negative, because your eyeball time is what pays for the TV programming.
Jail over-population is the result of "drug-war," but that's a different subject altogether.
The figures were off of a 11 million illegal immigrant estimate. Of course some fear it could be as high as 20-25 million which would easily more than double all these figures.
77% number again overlooks the employer-side of the equation, where the tax rate on profit is much higher than the income tax rate on low incomes. The tiny $2700 deficit can be easily overcome with $8250 tax on the employer on increased profit.
Okay the employer saves money and what is that employer going to do with that money ? He sure in the hell isn't going to hire "me" when he expands his buisness. He will continue to run his "sweat shop" and buy from other
"sweat shops" and you will have reverse discrimination going on in this country.
"Illegals" are already getting it free when they show up at the hospital sick (indigenous patients) or when their kids show up as the kids are American Citizens. What legalization process will do is allowing them to work at the hopsital, so that hospital operating cost can be lower.
That's where their needs to be laws changed. A illegal alien from any country that gives birth to a child on american soil doesn't have a right to this country's vast wealth. I'm sorry it's wrong and needs to be changed.
Did I read that right ? Are you also saying you want them employed at hospitals to keep costs lower.
:surprise: Ahhhhhhhhh !!!!!!!!!!
Education in this country is mostly paid by sales tax and property tax; since even "illegal" aliens have to rent and their low income lead to higher per centage of their income spent on local purchases . . . BTW, expelling them would actually immeidately lead to millions of vacancies . . . in other words, lower property tax receipt.
Well paying property taxes on a 3 bedroom house with 8-10 kids running around kinda puts you back in the red on that equation brightness. You also fail to list that these kids need special education programs such as "head start" so they can function in the classroom and speak english.
You are very wrong on history readings. Global free trade has been in in continuous existence since the 1500's, when Spanish conqured both Mexico and the Phillipines, and Mexican/Spanish silver dollar became the de facto curency from the 13 colonies of North America all the way to East China Sea, with Spanish galleons being the center of the worldwide conveyor belt; before then, trade across Eurasia was sporadic depending on tarrif level in the middleast, and the Americas were mostly out of the loop.
Oh my Gawd, your going to count the bartering of beads and feathers of Indians for a sword by a sailor. Come-On brightness, let's get real.
British Empire anchored the global free trade system with their de facto gold standard since the days of Sir Issac Newton. Even 50 years ago, Americans sponsored the Brentonwoods system as the new anchor of global free trade system. Brentonwoods was not exactly an agreement among the 48 states of the United States.
It was adopting the British Empire System which has lead to the collapse we have today. BTW- We were the poor nation back then and the "free trade" or "market" helped us out. But it lowered Englands standard of living and the Capatalist got the guillotine, while the socialist got elected. Even our forefather's would be suprised at how long the "open market" has lasted since they figured it would implode within' 50 or 60 years. :P
Rocky
Or, it could 5 million, 10m, 11m, 20m, 25m, or who knows.
Okay the employer saves money and what is that employer going to do with that money?
Are we still on the subject of Federal Tax ramifications?? I thought you quoted all those pages for one simple subject: Tax/Service at the Federal level. As far as that is concerned, for every worker that takes a job for $25k that would otherwise pay $50k, the $25k increased profit for the employer would result in $8250 income tax at the federal income tax table alone, more than off-setting the $2700 deficit in that study by 300%! In an immigrant household that is packed to 15 adults like the example you cited, that would be $123750 increase in federal taxes from the employers as a result of profits, or more than 4500% the supposed deficit!
He sure in the hell isn't going to hire "me" when he expands his buisness. He will continue to run his "sweat shop" and buy from other "sweat shops" and you will have reverse discrimination going on in this country.
What is he goine to do with his money after paying taxes?? He can spend it on something you offer, cars or cellphones etc.. what he can not spend, he puts in the bank, which will be most diligently tryingto lend the money out. Didn't you say it's incredibly difficult to find business loans??
That's where their needs to be laws changed. A illegal alien from any country that gives birth to a child on american soil doesn't have a right to this country's vast wealth. I'm sorry it's wrong and needs to be changed.
Children born on the soil of the United States are citizens of the United States; that is a Constitutionally-guaranteed right . . . more so than your right to a overpaying job, I'm afraid.
Did I read that right ? Are you also saying you want them employed at hospitals to keep costs lower.
Why not? How much english is required to mop the floor? A very high per centage of recent nursing school graduates are actually immigrants.
Well paying property taxes on a 3 bedroom house with 8-10 kids running around kinda puts you back in the red on that equation brightness. You also fail to list that these kids need special education programs such as "head start" so they can function in the classroom and speak english.
Then there are the households that have 15 adults but no kids, netting us hundreds of thousands of dollars in income tax alone from their employers. BTW, are we now into banning all families that are net "receivers"? Considering that the top 20% income filers pay for 60% of total income tax collected, I don't think you want to play this game for long if you are not in the top 20% yourself, lest getting your own family on the chopping block.
Oh my Gawd, your going to count the bartering of beads and feathers of Indians for a sword by a sailor. Come-On brightness, let's get real.
Once again you are wrong. Silver Mexican/Spanish Dollar was the universal currency of the world. Read my post again, and read up on history. Even the first official US silver dollar was minted according to the weight and finess (purity) of the Spanish Dollar of 1497. Where do you suppose the tea that Tea Party tossed into Boston harbor came from? Certainly not the Carolinas or anywhere in Europe.
It was adopting the British Empire System which has lead to the collapse we have today. BTW- We were the poor nation back then and the "free trade" or "market" helped us out.
Wrong yet again. North America was always a rich place; per capita income was higher than Europe even before there was United States.
But it lowered Englands standard of living and the Capatalist got the guillotine, while the socialist got elected.
Britain would not be British Empire without trade; it would not even be able to feed itself without trade.
You are confusing Britain and France. Nobody got the guillotine in England or Britain. The only Monarch they ever hang was Charles I in 1649, or 130+ years before there was the United States, for treason in the middle of their Civil War. No Capitalist ever got hanged in Britain for being capitalist either. The French were the ones who embraced Chinese philosophy in the 17th and 18th century, and thought government intervention in the market place to "correct wrongs" was a very enlightened idea, because much of the French intellectual class shared the continental disdain for trade and commerce. The hardnosed Adam Smithian free-enterprising English saw right through such nonsense . . . "who will be watching the watchers?"
That is a lot of money!! Wish I was smart enough to get there!!
At GM the hourly worker probably makes about $60K w/o benefits or ovetime? That would mean the CEO in an average wage should make $32K.
Are you saying that everyone that rents a house or apartment are getting free education for their children? Schools are primarily supported by property tax. Apartment owners pay property tax so the renter ultimately pay property tax. Illegals. live in apartments as do legal residents.
The thrust behind legalizing those already here is getting them to start paying income tax and SS tax which goes to pay for these services. The other option is the status quo with nothing being done. You cannot round up 12 million people like it was a Texas cattle drive and get them back into Mexico or Canada. We need solutions for the problem not whining about how it affects us individually. We built a giant fence in San Diego. It just moved the crossing point further into the desert.
As for the UAW. Would you rather we paid an illegal in the US $25K per yr to make parts for cars or $7k a year in Mexico? Which will impact your father's good UAW job the most?
When Toyota opens their new Tundra plant in San Antonio, where will they get the workers? They have a very low 4.3% unemployment now. Do you think they will come out of the woodwork? If the pay is good people will give up lower paying jobs and jump to Toyota, leaving a void in other areas. We have a shortage of people to do the work in this country. The unemployed in Michigan may have to pick up and go find a more prosperous area. Maybe the UAW can share in that blame for Michigan losing work.
You honestly believe we have a shortage of people willing to do the work ?
If that's not a CEO/Big buisness man answer, then I've never heard one.
What you should of said gagrice, was their is a shortage of employers, willing to pay a decent wage because they are a greedy, ignorant, american that want miracles for next to nothing.
Rocky
Unless the laws change or something else business will always HAVE to go to the cheapest manufaturing method due to competition. the company making widgets will have to go to Cina if widgets start getting imported at a lower price if they cannot find some other way to compete. I know this is really what you meant since you agree this is what is happening.
If we go to war with China, are we going to have to ask the Chinese to build us weapons to use on them ?
Where's it going to end ? :sick:
Rocky
Simply, Yes. I am retiring after 45 years in communications, all Union. I have 36 years in the Teamsters in Alaska. Right now there is a call at the hall for 25 Electronic technicians for jobs with at&t. They all pay over $30 per hour with great benefits. They are not getting people to take the jobs. Skilled labor is especially in short supply.
Rocky
No, skilled means ready to go to work. Training is becoming a thing of the past. On average we get a 2 day course on new equipment. We are expected to know the business. High pay demands a high level of competence and prior training.
Rocky
That's why you go to school and learn a skill. You want to invest money in your own future. See, I think THAT is the problem. People want someone else to pay for something they should be doing themselves to make themselves more marketable.