It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.