Bachmann’s Plan To Deport 11 Million Undocumented Immigrants Would Cost U.S. Economy $2.6 Trillion

Determined to distinguish herself with the most draconian immigration position in the GOP field, today Michele Bachmann elaborated on her plan to deport every single undocumented immigrant in the country:

[P]residential candidate Michele Bachmann called for 11 million illegal immigrants to be deported from the United States in steps. [...]

Asked by radio host Laura Ingraham on Monday about an earlier statement she made differentiating between immigrants who had recently entered the country illegally from those with longstanding ties to the United States, Bachmann said she was never referring to legalization.

“What I’m talking about is the order of deportation, the sequence of deportation,” Bachmann replied. “It is almost impossible to move 11 million illegal immigrants overnight. You do it in steps.” Bachmann said deporting those convicted of crimes would be the first step.

Despite the sheer impracticality (and sinister connotations) of somehow identifying, rounding up, and transporting each and every undocumented immigrant to their country of origin, experts say that such a radical move would be utterly calamitous for the U.S. economy. A Center for American Progress analysis estimated that the cost of deporting the undocumented population would total $285 billion over five years.

It costs $23,148 for each person to be apprehended, detained, legally processed, and transported out of the country. A deportation-only policy would amount to $922 in new taxes for “every man, woman, and child in this country” — an exorbitant price tag for the satisfaction of appearing tough on immigrants.

Furthermore, mass deportation would reduce the country’s GDP by 1.46 percent, which would amount to $2.6 trillion in cumulative losses over 10 years. It would also cripple several essential industries, like agriculture, that depend on immigrant labor — which is why the farmers and business owners Bachmann claims to represent have been vehemently opposed to such a plan.

Harsh immigration laws in states like Alabama have already resulted in a mass exodus of migrant workers that many farmers say will drive them out of business by next year. Crops are rotting in the field without migrant workers to harvest them.

All of this is to say nothing of the human toll of needlessly separating families and overwhelming the foster care system with the American-born children of the deported. Not that Bachmann cares about that — she once said proudly that she wouldn’t do “anything” to help the children of undocumented immigrants. She has also sponsored legislation to repeal birthright citizenship — a blatant violation of the 14th amendment — to strip these children of their legal status.

Source

How does she intend to do all of this without raising taxes? This will not do anything good for the economy, and is doing no one any favors.

You seize their property and sell it. Send them back to their homeland with just the shirt on their backs. That would be a start. Plus, you fine the hell out of whoever is employing them. Aside from the costs, there would be savings on the other side of the ledger with education, healthcare, local law enforcement, etc. The ones who aren't picked up in the initial sweeps will know they are going to lose everything, and they'll head home to avoid losing everything (fingers crossed).

reply to post by navy_vet_stg3


Yes, fining employers is a great way to create jobs.

reply to post by cetaphobic


$23k per 11M immigrants. Let's do the math:

23,000 x 11,000,000 = 250,000,000,000 = $250B, which is one tenth of the number quoted in the title of your thread.

Did you overlook it? Frankly, all this frothing at the mouth seems less credible after that.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
reply to post by cetaphobic

 

$23k per 11M immigrants. Let's do the math:

23,000 x 11,000,000 = 250,000,000,000 = $250B, which is one tenth of the number quoted in the title of your thread.

Did you overlook it? Frankly, all this frothing at the mouth seems less credible after that.

Furthermore, mass deportation would reduce the country’s GDP by 1.46 percent, which would amount to $2.6 trillion in cumulative losses over 10 years.

Sorry that you can't read the whole thing.

reply to post by cetaphobic


They aren't "creating jobs" if they're "creating jobs for illegal aliens". May as well outsource it to China.

reply to post by cetaphobic


Oh, I see. Thanks. Sorry I overlooked it!

And how will it depress the economy by 1.46% annual? I mean such precision is remarkable. It's not %1 and not 1.5%, they go for yet another decimal place.

Further, this 1.46% is apparently to be cumulative, i.e. expected to accrue. Is that true?

You forgot one aspect of the equation. Reread without emotion, and you will see your error. Your math actually confirms the math.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Originally posted by navy_vet_stg3
You seize their property and sell it. Send them back to their homeland with just the shirt on their backs. That would be a start. Plus, you fine the hell out of whoever is employing them. Aside from the costs, there would be savings on the other side of the ledger with education, healthcare, local law enforcement, etc. The ones who aren't picked up in the initial sweeps will know they are going to lose everything, and they'll head home to avoid losing everything (fingers crossed).

... and what other countries might do something like that, just curious.

reply to post by navy_vet_stg3


I just don't really see how creating 2.6 trillion dollars of debt on top of our current debt is something that should be praised. If we were not currently in a depression, if we had a surplus instead of a deficit, I wouldn't really care about this, but politicians are proposing things that make absolutely no sense in our current economic situation. Especially those politicians who want to lower or get rid of all taxes. It is hypocrisy and it is stupid. It means they lack foresight. It means they are unfit to be President because they are merely reactionary without thought to consequences.

Proposing these sorts of things without forethought gets us into wars and depressions.

Where do I send my check to help offset the cost?

reply to post by Cloudsinthesky


You send it in with your taxes which also support things such as healthcare, schools, and other things Republicans despise.

Originally posted by cetaphobic
reply to post by navy_vet_stg3

 

I just don't really see how creating 2.6 trillion dollars of debt on top of our current debt is something that should be praised. If we were not currently in a depression, if we had a surplus instead of a deficit, I wouldn't really care about this, but politicians are proposing things that make absolutely no sense in our current economic situation. Especially those politicians who want to lower or get rid of all taxes. It is hypocrisy and it is stupid. It means they lack foresight. It means they are unfit to be President because they are merely reactionary without thought to consequences.

Proposing these sorts of things without forethought gets us into wars and depressions.

First of all, your source is "thinkprogressnow.org" which is a completely leftist website. Secondly, their numbers are bogus. How would getting rid of a bunch of leeches be a bad thing? It wouldn't. The reality is that unemployment of U.S. CITIZENS and LEGAL immigrants would drop. Legal immigrants and citizens PAY INCOME TAX! Illegal aliens do NOT! Sure, they pay sales tax, but so would the citizen and legal immigrant. However, the big difference would be that as unemployment drops, wages increase, meaning more tax revenue for the government.

I don't expect anything but a bunch of rhetoric from a site that serves only to elect more Marxist Democrats. That's 11 million more votes if you can get them amnesty! That's the point behind this B.S. study.

Here are some great numbers for you to look at. Let's look at the human cost of illegal immigration.

The human cost.

reply to post by navy_vet_stg3


ICE reveals cost for deporting each illegal immigrant: $12,500.
How much does it cost to deport 1 illegal immigrant? $12,500
The Economics of Immigration Enforcement: The study, Deporting the Undocumented: A Cost Assessment, estimated that the total cost of mass deportation would be between $206 and $230 billion over five years or an average cost of between $41 and $46 billion annually over a five year period.
Mass Deportation Of illegal Immigrants Cost $2.6 trillion over ten years-Immigration Reform Solution: In research released in January 2010, UCLA, professor Raúl Hinojosa-Ojeda found that if undocumented immigrants were removed from the economy, it would reduce U.S. GDP by $2.6 trillion over ten years. Hinojosa-Ojeda also confirmed that if undocumented immigrants were put on an earned path to legalization as part of a comprehensive immigration reform law, it would result in some additional $1.5 trillion in our gross domestic product over 10 years.

Not all liberal. Not all the figures are the same; they are all really ridiculous considering Bachmann wants to lower taxes.

reply to post by cetaphobic


First off, if your point is about taxes and Bachmann, fine. I don't like her, and I'm not for reducing taxes to the point she wants too. I'm also not for raising them any more on the middle class.

Secondly, I don't really give a damn about your sources, or what their numbers are. I strongly believe that if you take away the "food source" the "rats" will leave. For example, if the U.S. would stop providing FREE healthcare, FREE education, and other FREE services to the illegal aliens, they would leave on their own.

1: Abolish the 14th Amendment, and make it a requirement that ONE parent be a U.S. citizen before birthright citizenship is granted to the child.
2: End elementary and secondary education for people in the country ILLEGALLY.
3: Only treat patients in an emergency, then deport.
4: Fine employers $100,000 per head if they hire ILLEGAL aliens.
5: You don't actively look to deport, but you do deport if they are stopped by the police for even as little as a traffic violation.
6: Stop the National Guard from guarding Iraq's and Afghanistan's borders, and have them secure OUR borders. This goes for the Army and Marine Corps as well.

Most of the "cost" in my plan is already being paid for.

frees up jobs, lowers crime in border states. I'm all for it.

We shouldn't have 11 million illegals (it is WAY more then that IMO) in this country anyway.

reply to post by navy_vet_stg3


Jesus, grow a heart or something.

Abolish the 14th amendment? What happened to the "respect the constitution" b.s that was once so prevalent here?

reply to post by azbowhunter


Yes, I also think we should increase our national debt.

Anyone who thinks that *any* GOP candidate will actually deport 11 million illegals if elected is not being intellectually honest. Just think what it would do to the economy - jobs, housing, retail, etc. Not going to happen. They are here and they are staying - best thing we could do is tap them with a huge fine per capita for amnesty and try to make a little money off of it.

Originally posted by cetaphobic
In research released in January 2010, UCLA, professor Raúl Hinojosa-Ojeda found that if undocumented immigrants were removed from the economy, it would reduce U.S. GDP by $2.6 trillion over ten years.

Here is an opinion on, and rebuttal of, what seems a parody of research by that professor.

In general, any research that presents a policy as being overwhelmingly positive or negative, evokes my natural sense of skepticism. So, I decided to read the full text of his research and found that it was methodologically sloppy and more conceptual holes that a Swiss Cheese Factory! Here are but a few of the problems that I came across:


1. While he is correct that reducing the population of any given locality would shrink it's GDP, he does not ask the more important question of how it would effect Los Angeles's and California's per capita income.


2. He does not ask what connection (if any) does California's (largely) immigration fueled population increase have with its high cost of living and taxation and general quality of life.


3. Nowhere in the research is the cost of government services (medical, education, infrastructure, etc.) weighed against the economic benefits that undocumented immigrants offer. And while Dr. Hinojosa-Ojeda is correct to assume that legalization would increase gross tax revenues, he does not consider that legalization would make millions of individuals eligible for additional government services, which would impose added costs on the public. Whether this will offer net benefits or impose net costs on the public I am uncertain.


4. The built in assumption in his paper that legalized workers would enjoy dramatic increases in income are based on figures generated from the amnesty of 1986, which is highly problematic because our current economic climate is vastly different. Needless to say, relative to the late 1980's, unemployment is greater, wages are in decline (especially for low skilled workers) industries (like construction) that heavily employ immigrants are in dire straights and the supply of low skilled immigrant labor is far greater. And of course the number of individuals enjoying a 2011 amnesty would be considerably larger. After weighing the said factors, the optimistic wage increases that Dr. Hinojosa-Ojeda's projects are extremely doubtful.


5. Another even more problematic assumption is:


"the wages of native-born workers also increase under the comprehensive immigration reform scenario because the “wage floor” rises for all workers—particularly in industries where large numbers of easily exploited, low-wage, unauthorized immigrants currently work. Wages for native-born U.S. workers increase by roughly $162 per year for the less skilled and $74 per year for the higher-skilled."


I do not know of any antecedents in which an increase in the supply of labor in a particular sector of the economy resulted in an increase in a general increase in wages. In addition this does not factor in the increase in the costs of goods and services that would occur IF wages were to increase for (formerly) undocumented workers.


6. A more serious study would present the question of how employers that currently utilize undocumented workers would respond if they were legalized. The economic benefits and competitive advantage of undocumented labor arises from the lower labor and regulatory costs that they offer employers. Legalization would drive the cost of their labor to the levels of their documented counterparts, which would result in an increase in unemployment and / or the infusion of new undocumented workers to take the place of those who "existed the shadows of the black market."


7. When discussing the benefits of the 1986 Amnesty, he fails to consider its costs. Namely, the fact that the amnesty was followed by a huge increase in undocumented immigration.


8. When the professor presents the high cost of apprehending undocumented immigrants, he neglects to consider that there may be more cost effective and humane means of enforcement than border control, such as E-Verify.


9. He claims that the "declining birth rates in Mexico will likely accomplish what tens of billions of dollars in border enforcement clearly have not: a reduction in the supply of migrants from Mexico who are available for jobs in the United State." This is problematic because it does not consider that given the continued wage disparities between Mexico (not to mention Central and South America) and the United States, the desire to legally and / or illegally immigrant to the United States will remain.