It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The Cost of Immigration Enforcement By Edward Schumacher-Matos NEW YORK --
Increased enforcement against illegal immigration is coming. But what would you think if the price of this enforcement was more than the present cost of unauthorized immigrants to you as a taxpayer?
The two are, in fact, roughly balanced today, raising questions about how much more enforcement makes sense.
As Gregory Hanson, an economist at the University of California at San Diego, concludes from reviewing many studies, the total fiscal cost is somewhere around one-tenth of 1 percent of gross domestic product.
The total gain to American workers and employers is around three-hundredths of a percent of GDP. This means a slight overall negative economic impact of seven-hundredths of a percent, which falls within rounding errors and could just as easily be slightly positive.
Now let's look at enforcement. In 2009, the budget for U.S. Customs and Border Protection, which patrols the borders, was $9.5 billion. The budget was $5.4 billion for the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which conducts workplace raids and employer audits. The total is almost $15 billion. This is not counting local and state police, jail and court outlays, such as those that Arizona, through its new immigration enforcement law, has just committed to pay.
Yet, the seven-hundredths of a percent of GDP that we calculated for total economic burden is roughly just $10 billion.
In other words, we already are paying more for enforcement than what the current level of illegal immigration is costing us.
To be sure, we do need to improve enforcement, if just to know who is here. But aside from some additional measures in open border areas such as Arizona, the answer is not in the greatly expanded -- and costly -- border militarization that many in the public and some politicians demand.
Current measures are already significantly reducing illegal immigration. The most effective new ones involve job controls such as a tamper-proof Social Security card.
The Border Patrol itself says that selective targeting on the Mexican border of drug runners and terrorists (of which there have been none so far) is much more effective than massive militarization. It's also a whole lot cheaper.
Over the course of their lifetimes, most illegal immigrants are net economic contributors -- even fiscally -- which is a reason for legalizing the ones who are already here.
Originally posted by ~Lucidity
reply to post by daskakik
Duh. This is a discussion started with a baseline of some facts and figures someone (no matter what you think about them) bothered to take the time to put together.
People are questioning and discussing.
I merely pointed out the fact that there is apparently no "real" analysis here that anyone taking the opposing stance is even willing to look at and really challenge. All we seem to be getting is nebulous statements about "they do so contribute." No facts or figures documented on the pro-illegal immigration side to compare and no attempts to even go there using a few simple scenarios and logical extrapolation.
Originally posted by zroth
if the US reduced 10% of our war efforts that would solve the immigrant crisis, save some lives and make the US more neighborly.
Originally posted by Blender Ace
Originally posted by zroth
if the US reduced 10% of our war efforts that would solve the immigrant crisis, save some lives and make the US more neighborly.
Nice. Thank you for the level-headed response.
Let's send them all home, every last one of them and when those jobs all sit open because out of work Americans won't take them then I'll eat my words, until then I stand by them.
Originally posted by chise61
reply to post by daskakik
Well you let me know when the SCOTUS hands down that official interpretation of the 14th amendment. Until then they are the children of foreign nationals that are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US.
Originally posted by chise61
reply to post by daskakik
That's not where it stands, it's just where our government would like us to believe it stands. Read up on the 14th amendment, find out the truth.
A child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, "All person born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside....The court ordered Wong Kim Ark to be discharged, upon the ground that he was a citizen of the United States. 1 Fed.Rep. 382. The United States appealed to this court, and the appellee was admitted to bail pending the appeal."
A child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States,.......
Legal permanent residents (LPRs) are foreign nationals who have been granted the right to reside permanently in the United States. LPRs are often referred to simply as "immigrants," but they are also known as "permanent resident aliens" and "green card holders."
Many international students and scholars wish to gain Permanent Resident Status ("green card") to allow them to live and work in the United States for an indefinite period. The three most common ways to obtain permanent residence include:
1.family relationship (e.g. marrying a U.S. citizen)
2.diversity lottery program
3.petition from an employer
A United States Permanent Resident Card, known informally as a green card (due to the color of some earlier variants), is an identification card attesting to the permanent resident status of an alien in the United States of America. Green card also refers to an immigration process of becoming a permanent resident. The green card serves as proof that its holder, a Lawful Permanent Resident (LPR), has been officially granted immigration benefits, which include permission to reside and take employment in the USA. The holder must maintain permanent resident status, and can be removed from the United States if certain conditions of this status are not met.
A permanent resident is someone who doesn't have citizen status, but may remain in a country indefinitely. An immigrant is a foreign national who has completed a multi-step process and been granted the privilege of living and working permanently in the United States. In most cases, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) must first approve an immigrant petition, usually filed by an employer or relative. Then, an immigrant visa number must be available. After that, if the immigrant is already in the United States, he/she may apply to adjust to permanent resident status.
1.A residence; a home.
2.One's legal residence.
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
1 : the power, right, or authority to interpret and apply the law
2 a : the authority of a sovereign power to govern or legislate b : the power or right to exercise authority : control
3 : the limits or territory within which authority may be exercised
1 : actual; especially : being such in effect though not formally recognized
2 : exercising power as if legally constituted
3 : resulting from economic or social factors rather than from laws or actions of the state
Under Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, 1963 (VCCR), local authorities must notify all detained foreigners "without delay" of their right to have their consulate informed of their detention. At the request of the national, the authorities must then notify the consulate without delay, facilitate unfettered consular communication and grant consular access to the detainee. Consuls are empowered to arrange for their nationals' legal representation and to provide a wide range of humanitarian and other assistance, with the consent of the detainee. Local laws and regulations must give "full effect" to the rights enshrined in Article 36. The USA ratified the VCCR without reservations in 1969; so fundamental is the right to consular notification and access that the US Department of State considers it to be required under customary international law in all cases, even if the detainee's home country has not signed the VCCR. As of 1 January 2000, at least 167 countries were parties to the VCCR.