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.

 

Illegal Immigration Costs U.S. $113 Billion a Year, Study Finds

page: 10
38
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 09:10 AM
link   
www.realclearpolitics.com...

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.


I think this is a much more accurate and truthful viewpoint, a more realistic way to crunch those numbers.


[edit on 8-7-2010 by rusethorcain]




posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 09:29 AM
link   

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.


Fair enough. Here's an extrapolation:
20 million illegals x 25%(percentage of working illegals) gives 5M workers

if these workers are paid $5 less than a legal worker then:
$5 X 40 = $200/week X 52weeks = $10,400/year/worker in saved labor costs.

Taking into account the 5M that $52Billion a year.

Now who gains from this? US businesses. Not the US workers or individual tax payers but they do generate this wealth in addition to the wealth that would be created if they worked for the same wages as legal workers.

[edit on 8-7-2010 by daskakik]



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 11:42 AM
link   

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.



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 01:57 PM
link   
reply to post by svpwizard
 


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. You don't need much of an education to work an assembly line or use a nail gun, I don't know where you're at but here in Chicago (sanctuary city) there are a hell of a lot of them working in factories and construction where they make more than minimum wage, and yes many make $10. or more. I'll tell you what one of those low level jobs would save me right now.

Ahh yes let's all tell the politicians and the banks something, because we all know they give a rat's butt what we want and listen to what we have to say.


And yes they send money home to Mexico, and a lot of it, I see it all the time. Even if you figure the amounts with unrealistically low numbers it still hurts our economy. So let's only use 5 million illegals and let's say they only send home $50. a week. That's $13 billion taken out of our economy a year, that hurts our economy. Now factor in the ones that make minimum wage or less who pay no income taxes yet receive the benefits of other people's taxes when they recieve food stamps, health insurance for their children, school lunches and breakfasts for their children and a free education for their children. I'm sorry but I'm not the one with my head in the sand. There are not the whole problem, nor are they the main problem, but they are a big part of the problem.



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 02:15 PM
link   

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.


I do believe you need to visit this web-site:
www.borderinvasionpics.com...

And then explain to me and many other people here just how your statement
[if the US reduced 10% of our war efforts that would solve the immigrant crisis, save some lives and make the US more neighborly.
is going to work.

I don't see it working, not until, you make the hard choices and decisions, to get our Country back. They need to come through the front door or not at all.
Don't give me this, they crap, they were here first and you are the illegals. We have borders and they need to be enforced what ever mean necessary.

Please just ignore me and go to these site and see for your self.
Border Invasion Pictures at www.borderinvasionpics.com...



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 02:21 PM
link   
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.



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by chise61
 





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.


If we send them all home....back to Africa? Oh no it is Mexico (my mistake) ...anyway if we send them all home as you say you will be eating your words because you will not be able to afford the food these people break their backs and spirits to pick for you.



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 02:30 PM
link   
reply to post by rusethorcain
 


Just what makes you think that I can afford those foods now ? Are you under the impression that they are the only workers that break their backs and have their spirits broken, if so you may want to step into the real world.



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 02:31 PM
link   
reply to post by chise61
 


Crude Oil and Total Petroleum Imports

C'mon man the US buys almost 1.3 million barrels of oil a day from Mexico. How much money is that flowing from your economy into their hands? At the current price that's about $35.5 Billion a year and Canada gets almost twice that. That's more than 100Billion to feed the oil addiction and that's not even bringing the cost of war for oil into the equation.

The US has got bigger problems than just border hoppers.

[edit on 8-7-2010 by daskakik]



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 02:34 PM
link   

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.


If the SCOTUS hasn't handed down a different interpretation then it stands where it is. They are US citizens.

[edit on 8-7-2010 by daskakik]



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 02:40 PM
link   
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.



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 02:49 PM
link   

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.


The government grants them citizenship. The federal government is the only power in the nation that is allowed by law to do this. If they say that is where it stands then that is where it stands.

I have read up on the 14th and see what you are getting at but this doesn't change the fact that until someone challanges and gets the SCOTUS to hand down a different interpretation than the feds interpretation is the one that stands.



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 04:53 PM
link   
reply to post by daskakik
 


The federal government is the only one that can grant them citizenship, but I have yet to see where the federal government has actually formally said that they are citizens. They may have stated it somewhere , but I haven't seen it. And I'm not talking about Pelosi going off on one of her feces spewing tirades either, I'm talking about an actual statement from the government. I also see what you are saying, so if you have seen an actual statement from the government saying that this is where it stands please show me, I'd like to see it. BTW the states can grant state citizenship.


I doubt that we will ever agree on this issue, and it's useless argueing about something that we can't change anyway, so let's just agree to disagree. I live in a city where our politicians have unfortunately decided to apply sanctuary status without so much as talking to the citizens about their decision. I've seen first hand what damage it has done to my community, and what they're allowed to get away with so this is a hot issue with me.



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 05:54 PM
link   
reply to post by chise61
 


Actually the SCOTUS handed down in United States v. Wong Kim Ark that:


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."


The decision was 6-2, according to wikipedia, and this is the reason the feds hand all babies born in the US citizenship.


[edit on 8-7-2010 by daskakik]



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 06:17 PM
link   
reply to post by chise61
 


Your ignorant of your own laws, what makes me think an intelligent communication could possible happen with you? so far not a single thing. so as far as saying we agree to disagree means you have stopped learning.

YOU ARE RIGHT at all cost, even when your wrong.



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 07:26 PM
link   
reply to post by svpwizard
 


Yes, We are RIGHT, You on the other hand, have not made your case. I've read your replies to this thread and you agree with the Left, Open Borders and Sanctuary City Group, But what have you got to add, Nothing.

Yes, Americans will take those jobs, I just helped a friend of mine interview about 40 people and he only needed 7 people for the job working outside, starting at $10.00 an hour, and these Americans wanted the work. The work was and is out in the sun and yes you have an umbrella, but it's 110 degrees or more out here.

We also hired 11 more people, 8 Americans and 2 Mexicans with 10 year Resident Green Cards and 1 African with a 2 year Resident Green Card for indoor job starting at $9.82 an hr. These people are Damn Happy To Have A Job starting tomorrow morning.

No, before you question the race, all had good SSN #'s and yes, I checked and a requirement by the contractor all must speak, read and Write English.

Will Americans do these jobs at 110 degrees or hotter in Arizona for 10.00 an hour. YES!
Stop with that Old Bull Sh$t, we won't do the jobs that Mexicans do.
I also know for a fact, that the producers of vegetables and cotton in our state. Hire the immigrates that have the visa to pick crops seasonally.
So I don't foresee the cost of vegetables skyrocketing out of sight like you and your We Love Illegals Crowd like to claim.

Please start your on thread about how the POTUS is a Puppet of the Evil Bankers and we need Illegals or we'll all Die of starvation because we're to lazy to work.
Until then, please don't call people I know who are much more open minded and intelligent than most,,,,, Ignorant.



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 07:46 PM
link   
reply to post by daskakik
 




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,.......


www.law.cornell.edu...


Illegal immigrants can not have a legal permanent residence as they are in this country illegally. They have no permission to reside in this country therefore that ruling does not apply to the children of illegal immigrants that are born in the US.



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."


www.dhs.gov...




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


www.isso.cornell.edu...



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.



en.wikipedia.org...(United_States)



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.


definitions.uslegal.com...


Domicile;


1.A residence; a home.
2.One's legal residence.


www.thefreedictionary.com...


All bolding mine.



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 08:06 PM
link   
reply to post by svpwizard
 


Yes I am ignorant of many laws in this country, after all there are sooooo many of them now. Perhaps you would like to enlighten me as to which specific law you are referring to.


As far as me saying let's agree to disagree that was said to another member as we both understand what the other is saying even though we each take a different stand. For us to go round in circles and back and forth will accomplish nothing, so I offered the let's agree to disagree, which is offered here quite often as an end of a debate that goes no place but in circles.

Actually I am quite often wrong, and am able to admit to it when I feel that I am.


As far as you attempting to insult my intelligence that would suggest that you have nothing intelligent to add to the debate. Since you seem to be unable to carry on a debate without personal attacks, I'm done conversing with you.



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 08:42 PM
link   
reply to post by chise61
 


Alright what about
TITLE 8
CHAPTER 12
SUBCHAPTER III
Part I § 1401

Which states:


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;


where jurisdiction acording to merriam webster.commeans:


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


I think this makes anyone in the US, unless they have diplomatic immunity, subject to the jurisdiction of the US.

Now all this aside I think you are confusing the Feds having a constitutional right to grant these citizenships and the fact that birthright citizenship to all is the de facto law.

De facto meaning according to merriam-webster

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


So until the SCOTU hands down a decision explicitly addressing the US born children of illegals the de facto law will continue to make them citizens.

I'm not saying you are wrong just that until it is challanged and changed the policy will continue to be citizenship to all born on US soil.

[edit on 8-7-2010 by daskakik]



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 11:40 PM
link   
reply to post by daskakik
 



Well that all depends, since the parents are foreign nationals in some cases the country that the parents are from declare jurisdiction over the children also, regardless of where they were born. In a case like that then no the child is not under the jurisdiction of the US and therefore not a citizen.

No not not everyone in the US is subject to it's jurisdiction, there's this little thing called the VCCR.



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.



www.internationaljusticeproject.org...


Many illegal immigrants are aware of this and demand this when they are arrested for a crime in this country. They come here illegally and want everything that this country has to offer but upon being arrested are quick to inform authorities that they are foreign nationals and that they want their consular. Like Jose Medellin who was brought here illegally as a boy, grew up here, and was well aware of our laws, but when arrested for his heinous crimes was quick to inform authorities that he was a Mexican citizen in hopes of getting out of it. Thankfully in his case it didn't work, although we were sued over it. We have been sued in the international court of justice over VCCR violations, so no everyone here is not subject to our jurisdiction.


I do understand what you are saying, however the SCOTUS shouldn't have to hand down such a decision because there should be no such de facto law. But yes you are right this will continue until it is brought to the SCOTUS and they rule on it one way or the other. But don't you ever wonder what the agenda is, why the federal government is not only allowing, but encouraging the 14th amendment to be misused in this way ?



new topics

top topics



 
38
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join