Immigration Issues and Reform

[HeelYeah2012]

I personally am okay with it because all the data presented so far points to it making our country better, not worse.

I can see how someone wouldn't want them to come here, if for instance they didn't like those peoples customs or culture. That makes more sense to me. I may not agree with it, but it makes sense. (editing to add: I understand the logic of someone wanting to limit the border based on xenophobia or racism way more than on economic or crime reasons. The economic reasons don't hold up to the facts. But I can't help how someone feels about something, that's on their experiences if that makes sense)

I fail to see how its an unlimited drain, if an unlimited amount of people does not exist in our world. There's a finite amount of human beings that could potentially come here.

And yeah, our country pays for billion dollar football stadiums. Hell we pay billions each year in something as useless as fireworks on July 4th collectively, so we sure as hell can pay more to teachers, and thus more in educating students no matter where they come from.

To my knowledge, no country in the world permits unrestricted, unlimited immigration by anyone who pleases to come.

Do you really think the USA should adopt immigration policy that would make us a complete outlier globally?

 

[superrific]

Can you show your math on the $5 per person? You said $15 billion per year and 10 million illegal immigrants. How is that $5 per person? I’m getting $1,500 per person per year. I’m not disputing that the number is small in the grand scheme (if that number is even accurate)

I meant $5 per American (and have edited accordingly). That was my mistake. The math is very rough. It could be $6 per American, or $7 or $4. I don't think it matters.

 

[lightbluenc]

To my knowledge, no country in the world permits unrestricted, unlimited immigration by anyone who pleases to come.

Do you really think the USA should adopt immigration policy that would make us a complete outlier globally?

I don't think we ever would go back to that, no. And I'm ok with that too. Whatever makes our country better, and helps the most people overall I'm good with. If all the data point sto more positives (and so far it seems like it does), then we should do that. If the data points to more negatives then we should try to restrict it more.

I personally, don't count spending more money on people, as a negative though. That's where we could differ possibly.

 

[superrific]

To my knowledge, no country in the world permits unrestricted, unlimited immigration by anyone who pleases to come.

Do you really think the USA should adopt immigration policy that would make us a complete outlier globally?

The United States did for about the first hundred years of its existence. Then for another 50 or so, immigration was barely restricted except for Chinese. It's unclear why being a global outlier would matter to you. We are also the only country that elects its president with a contraption like the Electoral College; the only country in the last hundred years to attempt a 1500 mile long wall to keep people out.

 

[rodoheel]

I read this link that cford posted on the other thread, that appears to be the source of a some stats HY2012 has posted. It's from remarks the director of the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), a right-wing, anti-immigration organization, was planning to give to Congress:

chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://budget.house.gov/imo/media/doc/the_cost_of_illegal_immigration_to_taxpayers.pdf

CFord has already identified some issues and a counter-study with some different numbers. Here are some obvious problems I see with the study finding that undocumented immigrants are a net drain:

--in calculating the amounts of taxes paid by undocumented immigrants, he only included federal income tax, Social Security tax, and Medicaid taxes. This is ignoring, among other things, state and local taxes that undocumented immigrants pay - especially sales tax and property tax.

--In stating their impact on the American economy, the author says: "Illegal immigrants do add perhaps $321 billion to the nation's GDP" but then qualifies it by saying "almost all the increase in economic activity goes to the illegal immigrants themselves in the form of wages." But this makes no sense - the immigrants are spending those wages. They are buying food and housing and clothes and all sorts of other things. The author is clearly just trying to handwave away the huge impact on the economy these immigrants have.

--The author also does not attempt to account for what the consequences would be for the American economy if all of these people were taken out of it. The author repeatedly says, essentially, that it doesn't help to add people who do low-skill, low-wage jobs to the economy because it drags the per capita GDP down. but someone has to do those jobs. There is demand for those jobs that will go unfilled without cheap immigrant labor to do them; the result will be contraction of the American economy and/or higher prices for everything if the cost of work in those industries goes up. We can't simply stop bringing immigrants into the country and assume that means we won't need dishwashers, painters, construction workers, gardeners, hospitality workers, and fruit pickers anymore.

--As I already noted in response to another of HY2012's posts, the author treats welfare benefits provided to the children or other household members of undocumented immigrants the same as providing benefits to the undocumented immigrants themselves. I think this is simply wrong from a methodological standpoint. But in any event, the statistic that a higher percentage of those households use welfare benefits is meaningless if you're not attempting to determine how much per household is actually received. I would be willing to bet that the households led by undocumented immigrants use much less in benefits than the average "non-undocumented" household that receives them, especially because it's so much harder for people who are undocumented to claim many types of benefits.

 

[lightbluenc]

I read this link that cford posted on the other thread, that appears to be the source of a some stats HY2012 has posted. It's from remarks the director of the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), a right-wing, anti-immigration organization, was planning to give to Congress:

chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://budget.house.gov/imo/media/doc/the_cost_of_illegal_immigration_to_taxpayers.pdf

CFord has already identified some issues and a counter-study with some different numbers. Here are some obvious problems I see with the study finding that undocumented immigrants are a net drain:

--in calculating the amounts of taxes paid by undocumented immigrants, he only included federal income tax, Social Security tax, and Medicaid taxes. This is ignoring, among other things, state and local taxes that undocumented immigrants pay - especially sales tax and property tax.

--In stating their impact on the American economy, the author says: "Illegal immigrants do add perhaps $321 billion to the nation's GDP" but then qualifies it by saying "almost all the increase in economic activity goes to the illegal immigrants themselves in the form of wages." But this makes no sense - the immigrants are spending those wages. They are buying food and housing and clothes and all sorts of other things. The author is clearly just trying to handwave away the huge impact on the economy these immigrants have.

--The author also does not attempt to account for what the consequences would be for the American economy if all of these people were taken out of it. The author repeatedly says, essentially, that it doesn't help to add people who do low-skill, low-wage jobs to the economy because it drags the per capita GDP down. but someone has to do those jobs. There is demand for those jobs that will go unfilled without cheap immigrant labor to do them; the result will be contraction of the American economy and/or higher prices for everything if the cost of work in those industries goes up. We can't simply stop bringing immigrants into the country and assume that means we won't need dishwashers, painters, construction workers, gardeners, hospitality workers, and fruit pickers anymore.

--As I already noted in response to another of HY2012's posts, the author treats welfare benefits provided to the children or other household members of undocumented immigrants the same as providing benefits to the undocumented immigrants themselves. I think this is simply wrong from a methodological standpoint. But in any event, the statistic that a higher percentage of those households use welfare benefits is meaningless if you're not attempting to determine how much per household is actually received. I would be willing to bet that the households led by undocumented immigrants use much less in benefits than the average "non-undocumented" household that receives them, especially because it's so much harder for people who are undocumented to claim many types of benefits.

This is great info, thanks!

 

[CRHeel94]

To my knowledge, no country in the world permits unrestricted, unlimited immigration by anyone who pleases to come.

Do you really think the USA should adopt immigration policy that would make us a complete outlier globally?

Unlimited, unfiltered immigration is a non-starter for most people. Just on the basis of security, its paramount for countries to know who's coming in or not.

What's also clear is that the current system isn't working. People often say "Have them come here legally". The crux of the problem is that migrating legally as an unskilled or low-skilled laborer is basically impossible. Also, the US economy needs a healthy dose of this type of laborer in certain industries. What you definitely don't want is people coming in and living off welfare or turning to crime. What's needed is some guest worker program: as long as you're gainfully employed, you're welcome. Will that happen, probably not.

There does need to be a thoughtful discussion of what US immigration policy should be from a strategic standpoint. How many to let in? Skilled vs unskilled?

Something that worries me on this side of the fence is the brain drain from the developing world to the developed world. How the heck are we ever going to get ahead if our most talented individuals leave to the US, Canada and Europe.

 

[lawtig02]

This is a really, really good interview with Sen. Lankford. He’s as diplomatic as he can be, but there’s not a single iota of doubt who he blames for the failure to pass the border bill.

 

[superrific]

Something that worries me on this side of the fence is the brain drain from the developing world to the developed world. How the heck are we ever going to get ahead if our most talented individuals leave to the US, Canada and Europe.

Ask India. They've been dealing with the brain drain for a century.

 

[mpaer]

Unlimited, unfiltered immigration is a non-starter for most people. Just on the basis of security, its paramount for countries to know who's coming in or not.

What's also clear is that the current system isn't working. People often say "Have them come here legally". The crux of the problem is that migrating legally as an unskilled or low-skilled laborer is basically impossible. Also, the US economy needs a healthy dose of this type of laborer in certain industries. What you definitely don't want is people coming in and living off welfare or turning to crime. What's needed is some guest worker program: as long as you're gainfully employed, you're welcome. Will that happen, probably not.

There does need to be a thoughtful discussion of what US immigration policy should be from a strategic standpoint. How many to let in? Skilled vs unskilled?

Something that worries me on this side of the fence is the brain drain from the developing world to the developed world. How the heck are we ever going to get ahead if our most talented individuals leave to the US, Canada and Europe.

Our beloved Capitalism

 

[ChileG]

Do you really think the USA should adopt immigration policy that would make us a complete outlier globally?

Do you apply that same logic to healthcare?

 

[rodoheel]

I read this link that cford posted on the other thread, that appears to be the source of a some stats HY2012 has posted. It's from remarks the director of the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), a right-wing, anti-immigration organization, was planning to give to Congress:

chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://budget.house.gov/imo/media/doc/the_cost_of_illegal_immigration_to_taxpayers.pdf

CFord has already identified some issues and a counter-study with some different numbers. Here are some obvious problems I see with the study finding that undocumented immigrants are a net drain:

--in calculating the amounts of taxes paid by undocumented immigrants, he only included federal income tax, Social Security tax, and Medicaid taxes. This is ignoring, among other things, state and local taxes that undocumented immigrants pay - especially sales tax and property tax.

--In stating their impact on the American economy, the author says: "Illegal immigrants do add perhaps $321 billion to the nation's GDP" but then qualifies it by saying "almost all the increase in economic activity goes to the illegal immigrants themselves in the form of wages." But this makes no sense - the immigrants are spending those wages. They are buying food and housing and clothes and all sorts of other things. The author is clearly just trying to handwave away the huge impact on the economy these immigrants have.

--The author also does not attempt to account for what the consequences would be for the American economy if all of these people were taken out of it. The author repeatedly says, essentially, that it doesn't help to add people who do low-skill, low-wage jobs to the economy because it drags the per capita GDP down. but someone has to do those jobs. There is demand for those jobs that will go unfilled without cheap immigrant labor to do them; the result will be contraction of the American economy and/or higher prices for everything if the cost of work in those industries goes up. We can't simply stop bringing immigrants into the country and assume that means we won't need dishwashers, painters, construction workers, gardeners, hospitality workers, and fruit pickers anymore.

--As I already noted in response to another of HY2012's posts, the author treats welfare benefits provided to the children or other household members of undocumented immigrants the same as providing benefits to the undocumented immigrants themselves. I think this is simply wrong from a methodological standpoint. But in any event, the statistic that a higher percentage of those households use welfare benefits is meaningless if you're not attempting to determine how much per household is actually received. I would be willing to bet that the households led by undocumented immigrants use much less in benefits than the average "non-undocumented" household that receives them, especially because it's so much harder for people who are undocumented to claim many types of benefits.

Hey HY12, you gonna respond to any of this? You based some of your support for Trump on immigration and the belief that undocumented immigrants are a "drain" on US resources.

 

[nycfan]

Very good but very long article about the complexities of immigration and the impact in a small Wisconsin town with an apparently pretty thoughtful sheriff.

 

[Kraftyheel89]

This is a really, really good interview with Sen. Lankford. He’s as diplomatic as he can be, but there’s not a single iota of doubt who he blames for the failure to pass the border bill.

I don't think there is any doubt who Lankford blames, he said as much on the Senate floor. And I think most Americans know Trump quashed it. Of course the hard core MAGA base is clueless on the issue and would only parrot what Trump or Fox says, without knowing there ever was a proposed bill.

I would have fully supported the bill, regardless of why it FINALLY came to fruition. Well, not entirely it got quashed without being put to vote because it would have passed.

I really would like to know why it took decades though. Of course the Admin. wanted it right before the election, just as Trump wanted it killed for the same reason.

There has to be more to the story.

 

[OGtruthhurts]

Both parties depend upon the cheap labor. To think T-rump is going to mass deport the very people who make him $ is comical

 

[lawtig02]

I don't think there is any doubt who Lankford blames, he said as much on the Senate floor. And I think most Americans know Trump quashed it. Of course the hard core MAGA base is clueless on the issue and would only parrot what Trump or Fox says, without knowing there ever was a proposed bill.

I would have fully supported the bill, regardless of why it FINALLY came to fruition. Well, not entirely it got quashed without being put to vote because it would have passed.

I really would like to know why it took decades though. Of course the Admin. wanted it right before the election, just as Trump wanted it killed for the same reason.

There has to be more to the story.

There is indeed.

Congress has failed over 20 years to reform immigration: here's a timeline

The outlook for any meaningful immigration reform in the new Congress is bleak.

www.nbcnews.com

2001 — President George W. Bush and Mexican President Vicente Fox, friends from Bush’s days as governor of Texas, held high-level discussions on a comprehensive immigration reform plan that they hoped would build a guest worker program and provide legalization for what were then about 8.5 million undocumented people in the U.S. Both made the issue a top priority, with Bush making Mexico the destination for his first foreign visit and Fox attending the Bush's first state dinner. But it all fell apart a few days after the dinner when terrorists hijacked four planes and attacked the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001. The attacks led to a marked shift in immigration policymaking.

2005 — Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., drafted the Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act, better known as the McCain-Kennedy bill. It would have provided six-year work visas for people not legally in the U.S. and a chance for people not legally in the country to become legal residents after having paid fines and passed background checks. The bill would have created an “essential worker visa” that would have allowed 400,000 workers a year to work in the U.S., as well as a path to a legal residency. It never got a vote in the Senate.

2005-06 — House Republicans drafted an enforcement-only bill, also known as the Sensenbrenner bill after a chief author, former Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis. The bill included harsher penalties for illegal immigration and would have classified people in the U.S. illegally and anyone who helped them as felons. It also called for hundreds of miles of fencing along the U.S.-Mexico border. The harsh provisions triggered massive protests around the country, mostly by Latinos. The bill passed the House, and the Senate passed the Comprehensive Reform Act of 2006, which was backed by the Bush White House. Differences in the two bills were never reconciled.

2007 — Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., pushed a compromise bill that included a path to citizenship, visas for high-skilled workers and funding for more border barriers, border enforcement technology and agents. The bill had bipartisan support from Sens. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and others, and it had solid backing from Bush. It failed to get a vote in the Senate.

2013 — With President Barack Obama in the White House, a bipartisan group of senators, nicknamed the Gang of 8, negotiated an immigration reform bill that was approved in the Senate. The bill included a path to legal status and eventual citizenship, and it established “goals,” such as putting up 700 miles of border fencing and getting an employment verification system up and running before people who were in the country illegally could apply for legalization. It also would have added as many as 40,000 Border Patrol agents. A less celebrated bipartisan group of eight members was working on a bill in the House, but it disintegrated without having introduced a bill. House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, announced that there would be no movement on immigration.

 

[superrific]

I really would like to know why it took decades though. Of course the Admin. wanted it right before the election, just as Trump wanted it killed for the same reason.

There was a bipartisan bill in 2013 that the Freedom Caucus folks killed. It's taken decades because nobody really wants to "fix" the "problem." It's not even clear if it's really a problem.

As for Biden's executive actions, they couldn't have been done sooner. People don't appreciate how long this shit can take, especially after the Supreme Court ruled that administrative law procedures apply to immigration enforcement. That was actually a rare good outcome for us (DACA was preserved because they didn't go through the right process to kill it), but anyway -- it would take about two years for the Homeland Security regulations to get from inception to completion.

 

[Calheel]

The United States did for about the first hundred years of its existence. Then for another 50 or so, immigration was barely restricted except for Chinese. It's unclear why being a global outlier would matter to you. We are also the only country that elects its president with a contraption like the Electoral College; the only country in the last hundred years to attempt a 1500 mile long wall to keep people out.

We did not attempt a 1500 mile wall. We barely attempted a 100 mile wall.

 

[superrific]

We did not attempt a 1500 mile wall. We barely attempted a 100 mile wall.

Yes, but you know what I mean. Building a wall of that size was the official policy of the president for a while there.

 

[Calheel]

Yes, but you know what I mean. Building a wall of that size was the official policy of the president for a while there.

You know, I searched one time for a public statement from Trump that described the size of the wall he wanted. I figured it would be easy to find something that said from California to the Gulf of Mexico. Nope. Couldn’t find a single linked statement that ever mentioned the length of the wall. It was all implication.