Gee, what a surprise. Eduardo Porter (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/16/business/yourmoney/16view.html?_r=1&oref=slogin) in the NYT.
But before concluding that immigrants are undercutting the wages of the least fortunate Americans, perhaps one should consider Ohio. Unlike California, Ohio remains mostly free of illegal immigrants. And what happened to the wages of Ohio's high school dropouts from 1980 to 2004? They fell 31 percent.

As Congress debates an overhaul of the nation's immigration laws, several economists and news media pundits have sounded the alarm, contending that illegal immigrants are causing harm to Americans in the competition for jobs.

Yet a more careful examination of the economic data suggests that the argument is, at the very least, overstated. There is scant evidence that illegal immigrants have caused any significant damage to the wages of American workers.
This part should seem familiar, since I've made the point several times already.
For instance, the availability of foreign workers at low wages in the Nebraska poultry industry made companies realize that they had the personnel to expand. So they invested in new equipment, generating jobs that would not otherwise be there. In California's strawberry patches, illegal immigrants are not competing against native workers; they are competing against pickers in Michoacán, Mexico. If the immigrant pickers did not come north across the border, the strawberries would.
Yep. We can lose jobs person by person, company by company, or industry by industry. Restrictive immigration would do nothing to change that, or the myriad other factors affecting wages. Sound economics do not provide a motivation for such measures.

Strawberries already come north across the border.

Strawberries already come north across the border.
...which affects the validity of the author's point not one bit. Is that the best you can do?

Gee, what a surprise. Eduardo Porter (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/16/business/yourmoney/16view.html?_r=1&oref=slogin) in the NYT.

This part should seem familiar, since I've made the point several times already.

Yep. We can lose jobs person by person, company by company, or industry by industry. Restrictive immigration would do nothing to change that, or the myriad other factors affecting wages. Sound economics do not provide a motivation for such measures.


Gee could Paul Harvey have a blast with this !

Insurance premium up because of un-insured . Medical care up because of people who won't pay . Desease up because of the millions of un-healthy fat illegal mexicans [ enough obesity here already ] and breeders who come here with diabetes, gyn problems and pregnancy . Also the prison populations up from latino crime . Water wars up because of too many people living in major cities or concentrated ares .

i could go on and on, but tired of typing .

I don't consider low wage jobs as a "cost of illegal immigration" just as I don't consider Wal Mart a drain to our society; I have said in other threads that illegal immigrants provide important and necessary labor. What costs us so much is the social support from their illegal ways or from their illegal family members that drain our medical and educational services plus other support systems such as food, housing, transportation, criminal justice system...



Why is every reply from you antagonistic? Is that the best you can do?

Insurance premium up because of un-insured . Medical care up because of people who won't pay . Desease up because of the millions of un-healthy fat illegal mexicans [ enough obesity here already ] and breeders who come here with diabetes, gyn problems and pregnancy . Also the prison populations up from latino crime . Water wars up because of too many people living in major cities or concentrated ares .
Do you have any actual facts on any of those purported effects, or (better still) the "wage suppression" that was the actual subject of the article? If so, let's see them.
Why is every reply from you antagonistic? Is that the best you can do?
I could ask the same question of you and your mistress, but (a) I know the answer and (b) I'd prefer to remain on topic. Instead I'll just suggest that those who deliberately seek confrontation should not complain when it occurs.

I could ask the same question of you and your mistress, but (a) I know the answer and (b) I'd prefer to remain on topic. This makes little sense to me but...Okay. Does "remaining on topic" have anything to do with either response from you? As I see it you didn't refute my first post and you ignored the body of my second....Is that the best you can do? :|


Instead I'll just suggest that those who deliberately seek confrontation should not complain when it occurs.so me making an accurate comment on the ONLY bit of your original post that you put in bold is your interpretation of "deliberately seeking confrontation". :hmm:

Maybe you should not post if you don't want others to comment.


Or better yet, we can ask the Mods to create a "Mental Masturbation? forum for folks like you that like to post but don't want others to respond

This makes little sense to me but...Okay. Does "remaining on topic" have anything to do with either response from you?
OK, then, I'll ask you the same question I asked P&M. Do you have any actual facts regarding all of these ill effects you mention? How much food do you think those immigrant farm workers are taking out of your mouth? How much medical care has been denied to you because of them?
Or better yet, we can ask the Mods to create a "Mental Masturbation? forum for folks like you that like to post but don't want others to respond
That's your idea of being constructive and non-confrontational, eh? :rolleyes:

How much food do you think those immigrant farm workers are taking out of your mouth? How much medical care has been denied to you because of them?

I have already pointed out your deceitful debate tactics in other threads, it looks like I will have to do so every thread in every thread you engage in. I never said nor implied any food, medical, or social services have been denied me because of illiegal immigration. This thread is about cost.

I'm from CA so here are a few stats concerning just my state:

* California's nearly 3 million illegal immigrants cost taxpayers nearly $9 billion each year,..

* Educating the children of illegal immigrants is the largest cost, estimated at $7.7 billion each year...

* Jack Martin, who wrote the report, said Thursday that the $9 billion figure does not include other expenses that are difficult to measure, such as special English instruction, school lunch programs, and welfare benefits for American workers displaced by illegal immigrant workers.

* The report estimates the total cost at $10.5 billion each year, but that is offset by about $1.7 billion in taxes that illegal immigrants pay.

http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2004/12/06/news/top_stories/19_56_5812_5_04.txt


Federal impact from 2002 figures:

Illegal alien households are estimated to use $2,700 a year more in services than they pay in taxes, creating a total fiscal burden of nearly $10.4 billion on the federal budget in 2002.

Among the largest federal costs: Medicaid ($2.5 billion); treatment for the uninsured ($2.2 billion); food assistance programs ($1.9 billion); the federal prison and court systems ($1.6 billion); and federal aid to schools ($1.4 billion).


http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalrelease.html

That's your idea of being constructive and non-confrontational, eh? :rolleyes:Yes it is. It a great idea (constructive) and if you are off posting with yourself then you are less likely to twist words and get into confrontations :nice:

Among the largest federal costs: Medicaid ($2.5 billion); treatment for the uninsured ($2.2 billion); food assistance programs ($1.9 billion); the federal prison and court systems ($1.6 billion); and federal aid to schools ($1.4 billion).
[/I]


Kind of funny. All of that barely pays for one month of occupying Iraq, and it doesn't bother you then.

I have already pointed out your deceitful debate tactics in other threads
Oh, you mean my refusal to accept BS as gospel? Yeah, how deceitful.
This thread is about cost.
Look again. This thread was originally about wage suppression (or lack thereof).
Illegal alien households are estimated to use $2,700 a year more in services than they pay in taxes, creating a total fiscal burden of nearly $10.4 billion on the federal budget in 2002.
$10.4 billion, out of nearly $2.6 trillion? That's 0.4%, and even that's misleadingly high because it compares federal and state costs vs. only federal revenues. Put another way, it's about $20 out of a median-income person's taxes. Put still another way, that's about what we spend on foreign aid, not counting Iraq, and the US is not particularly generous on a percentage-of-GDP basis. It's half what we spend on the USDA's Commodity Credit Corporation, which is only one of the less-known types of farm subsidies. It's less than was wasted on the Crusader self-propelled howitzer, which Cheney and others kept alive for their buddies at Carlyle even after the Army said they didn't need it (and would presumably rather spend their budget dollars on something more useful). $10.4 billion is indeed a lot of money to you or me, but at the federal level we lose more than that to any number of Bush brain-burps. Let's have some perspective here.

Why aren't the people who are absolutely livid about the money we're "wasting" on providing services to poor people within our borders equally exercised about these other issues? Instead I've seen at least one scoff outright at people who dared to be outraged about far worse abuses of taxpayer dollars. But when the money goes to outsiders instead of insiders, you're all shocked - shocked! - at what our government's doing. No, I'm not accusing anyone of racism. Racism is not necessary to explain what is more readily explained by partisanship and plutocracy. This is about "more for me" and no other principle.

Oh, you mean my refusal to accept BS as gospel? Yeah, how deceitful.

Look again. This thread was originally about wage suppression (or lack thereof).

$10.4 billion, out of nearly $2.6 trillion? That's 0.4%, and even that's misleadingly high because it compares federal and state costs vs. only federal revenues. Put another way, it's about $20 out of a median-income person's taxes. Put still another way, that's about what we spend on foreign aid, not counting Iraq, and the US is not particularly generous on a percentage-of-GDP basis. It's half what we spend on the USDA's Commodity Credit Corporation, which is only one of the less-known types of farm subsidies. It's less than was wasted on the Crusader self-propelled howitzer, which Cheney and others kept alive for their buddies at Carlyle even after the Army said they didn't need it (and would presumably rather spend their budget dollars on something more useful). $10.4 billion is indeed a lot of money to you or me, but at the federal level we lose more than that to any number of Bush brain-burps. Let's have some perspective here.

Why aren't the people who are absolutely livid about the money we're "wasting" on providing services to poor people within our borders equally exercised about these other issues? Instead I've seen at least one scoff outright at people who dared to be outraged about far worse abuses of taxpayer dollars. But when the money goes to outsiders instead of insiders, you're all shocked - shocked! - at what our government's doing. No, I'm not accusing anyone of racism. Racism is not necessary to explain what is more readily explained by partisanship and plutocracy. This is about "more for me" and no other principle.

There's a big, big difference between aid being voted on by Congress with the people's assumed blessing and money being stolen, that's right, stolen because it is obtained illegally. Why should people be allowed to break the law, then demand to be compensated for it?

There's a big, big difference between aid being voted on by Congress with the people's assumed blessing and money being stolen, that's right, stolen because it is obtained illegally. Why should people be allowed to break the law, then demand to be compensated for it?
We've already been over this, hadit, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you weren't following this exchange (http://www.discussanything.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1275718&postcount=18). Besides the fact that some consider our immigration laws to be unjust and/or counterproductive, many laws as currently written extend these services and entitlements to everyone, regardless of immigration status. If you want to change the law, go ahead, but until then your characterization of the situation as "stealing" is legally inaccurate. If all you want to do is drum up outrage among those who already agree with you, then I guess it's a useful term, but otherwise it's not.

Oh, you mean my refusal to accept BS as gospel? Yeah, how deceitful. The Bull$h*t is coming from you. You highlight a piece in bold and I point out it is wrong. You antagonize and I reply with my thoughts on what the "cost of immigration" is really about. You don't respond to that instead you ask a leading question (implying I am arguing about illegals taking food from my mouth or medical services from me). I respond to you a third time with substance and you got the gall to say I am the one putting out the BS...lol


Look again. This thread was originally about wage suppression (or lack thereof). Silly me, I thought the title said something about cost of illegal immigration. My bad

$10.4 billion, out of nearly $2.6 trillion? That's 0.4%, and even that's misleadingly high because it compares federal and state costs vs. only federal revenues. Put another way, it's about $20 out of a median-income person's taxes. Put still another way, that's about what we spend on foreign aid, not counting Iraq, and the US is not particularly generous on a percentage-of-GDP basis. It's half what we spend on the USDA's Commodity Credit Corporation, which is only one of the less-known types of farm subsidies. It's less than was wasted on the Crusader self-propelled howitzer, which Cheney and others kept alive for their buddies at Carlyle even after the Army said they didn't need it (and would presumably rather spend their budget dollars on something more useful). $10.4 billion is indeed a lot of money to you or me, but at the federal level we lose more than that to any number of Bush brain-burps. Let's have some perspective here.

Why aren't the people who are absolutely livid about the money we're "wasting" on providing services to poor people within our borders equally exercised about these other issues? Instead I've seen at least one scoff outright at people who dared to be outraged about far worse abuses of taxpayer dollars. But when the money goes to outsiders instead of insiders, you're all shocked - shocked! - at what our government's doing. No, I'm not accusing anyone of racism. Racism is not necessary to explain what is more readily explained by partisanship and plutocracy. This is about "more for me" and no other principle THIS is an example of nothing but BS. If you want to compare the costs to other costs then start another thread, otherwise the majority of what you have posted is just trash and won't be responded to. As hadit pointed out, ANY cost incurred from illegal activity is theft. You can spin figures all you want and it means nothing as long as illegals take more then they give. I noticed you focused solely on the federal figures and ignored the California ones...not to mention the other 49 states I did not list

Kind of funny. All of that barely pays for one month of occupying Iraq, and it doesn't bother you then.Don't be stuck on stupid. Try to expand your topic on occasion

As hadit pointed out, ANY cost incurred from illegal activity is theft.
Yes, and hadit was incorrect when he characterized that activity as illegal.
I noticed you focused solely on the federal figures and ignored the California ones...not to mention the other 49 states I did not list
I'm not the one cherry-picking figures from one non-representative state, then comparing federal plus state expenditures to only federal revenues. That kind of misrepresentation seems to be someone else's specialty.

Yes, and hadit was incorrect when he characterized that activity as illegal.

illegal immigration is not illegal..Oooooooooooooooookay

illegal immigration is not illegal..Oooooooooooooooookay
The act of immigration might itself be illegal, but that's not where the cost is incurred. That cost is incurred when the immigrant avails themselves of benefits, and that act is not illegal. Saying that illegality extends to everything an immigrant does is like saying that buying lunch or tying your shoelaces is illegal if you cheated on your taxes. It's absurd. The courts certainly don't see it that way. Your sarcasm only reflects your own failure to understand the issue.