Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There are 60% of illegal immigrants who file. So there is obviously data. I guess it's around $37,000 according to Pew for 2010. ITIN is the determining way. Now I wonder what the average family size is. If the 37,000 is for a family of 5, then that would mean a significant number of families closer to poverty. If it is like 3-4, then a lot of lower middle income families. So income paints only part of the picture.
Do they file under an illegal alien category? If not, how are their wages enumerated? How does the IRS identify them as being illegal aliens as opposed to being citizens or legal residents? To my knowledge, the IRS does not issue a special ITIN for illegal aliens. Furthermore, Pew is not the IRS.
Again, which government agency maintains wage data on illegal aliens, and how is the data formulated?
It goes back to calculating the total burden. So it actually matters if we were to determine costs v. benefits.
I've compared costs vs benefits by using all sorts of sources for it. The costs well outweight any so-called benefits and it isn't just about economics either. Bottom line and my argument is always the Rule of Law and it always will be. If we actually needed these people and they were actually an overall benefit to us we would includes them in our legal immigration quotas. Why do you think we have immigration quotas?
Do they file under an illegal alien category? If not, how are their wages enumerated? How does the IRS identify them as being illegal aliens as opposed to being legal residents? To my knowledge, the IRS does not issue a special ITIN for illegal aliens. Furthermore, Pew is not the IRS.
Again, which government agency maintains wage data on illegal aliens, and how is the data formulated?
Any "supposed "benefit" which comes from an illegal earning an income would be a "benefit" that an American or legal resident would provide by earning that income if said illegal wasn't already taking their place in the workforce. I fail to see the logic in the "illegals benefit this country" argument.
Any "supposed "benefit" which comes from an illegal earning an income would be a "benefit" that an American or legal resident would provide by earning that income if said illegal wasn't already taking their place in the workforce. I fail to see the logic in the "illegals benefit this country" argument.
Pretty much the assumption is that if every illegal were deported, then more jobs will open up...no economic negatives. That means that illegals contribute nothing into the economy and that businesses have the money to train people and loose productivity. That means that the LEGAL residents who work in such places will not feel the effects of increased labor costs due to training (not assuming wages will go up) as well as decreased in productivity.
The data collected in the article was from the IRS.
If the data is “from” the IRS, there should be a direct link to the IRS source. I have searched the IRS, and cannot locate an “illegal immigration” wage report. Please be so kind to share this valuable info.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
