Immigration (Both Legal and Illegal) Breaks the Backs of U.S. Taxpayers (married, illegal immigrants)

[The Dissenter]

Originally Posted by ArizonaBear

Stopping illegal immigration-----------no argument from me.

Cutting off all legal immigration I strongly disagree with. Note though restricting immigration to pre 1965 quotas I am OK with

What AZBear said.

[Kele]

This study does not say that ALL immigrants are costing the U.S. taxpayer money. Does anybody actually read these studies or do we just assume the contents from the title? I mean, I know that alot of the numerical data can make one's head spin, but the gist of the study is extremely interesting and informative.

[blacknight04]

Originally Posted by Kele

This study does not say that ALL immigrants are costing the U.S. taxpayer money. Does anybody actually read these studies or do we just assume the contents from the title? I mean, I know that alot of the numerical data can make one's head spin, but the gist of the study is extremely interesting and informative.

The cost of immigrants is so high because, as Rubenstein writes, "Immigrants are poorer, pay less taxes and are more likely to receive public benefits than natives."

If you don't want people to assume then give the thread a better title. At least from what i gathered, the study is saying ALL immigrants are costing the U.S taxpayer money. If you read otherwise, then please post some quotes from the study proving me wrong.

[Kele]

Originally Posted by blacknight04

If you don't want people to assume then give the thread a better title. At least from what i gathered, the study is saying ALL immigrants are costing the U.S taxpayer money. If you read otherwise, then please post some quotes from the study proving me wrong.

It's a 72 page study which you obviously did not read too closely. It deals with the top governmental agencies currently affected by immigration, legal and illegal.

Not surprisingly, the majority of costs are in various areas which would deal primarily with illegal immigration and the cost of the political refugees from various nations.

1. Department of Agriculture
2. Department of Justice
3. Department of Commerce
4. Department of Labor
5. Department of Defense
6. Department of State
7. Department of Education
8. Department of the Interior
9. Department of Energy/Environmental Protection Agency
10.Department of Transportation
11.Department of Health and Human Services
12.Social Security Administration
13.Department of Homeland Security

Refugees have already emerged as a large and growing fiscal burden. They are immediately eligible for various government welfare programs, and the evidence is clear that they stay on them. Moreover, they start chain-migrating relatives under the “family reunification” provisions of current law.

There are already millions of immigrant refugess in the United States and we are now set to receive the following from Iraq alone:

* 75,000 Iraqi refugees by 2016 under the Somali refugee scenario
* 500,000 Iraqi refugees by 2016 under the Bosnian scenario
* 560,000 Iraqi refugees by 2036 under the Vietnam scenario
* 2.5 million Iraqi refugees by 2044 under the Cuban scenario

In recent testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, Robert Rector estimated the fiscal deficit of households headed by immigrants who lack a high school diploma—a reasonable proxy for refugees.

http://judiciary.house.gov/media/pdfs/Rector070517.pdf (broken link)

Rector finds that the average uneducated immigrant household:
* Receives $30,164 in government benefits
* Pays $10,573 in government taxes
* Generates a fiscal deficit

Many of us in this country know the deteriments of legal immigration when employers are using various loopholes in the immigration laws order to bring in educated immigrants who will work for less than their American counterparts thus driving down the white collar wage base even further than it has already fallen.

If we continue to accept legal immigration at current rates, the natural and unrenewable resources of the United States of America will soon diminish beyond capability to support the number of people that have decided to make their homes here. Experts already predict that the Southwest will completely run out of water within the next 50 years. So why don't we invite even MORE people into the country and see if we can't reduce our water viability by another 25 years.

I'm not going to go wading through the 72 pages again in order to provide you with some feel good quotes about the benefits of legal immigration. There are many advantages to welcoming those who love and respect this country enough to go through the system to become citizens. But the disadvantages are numerous as well.

There is no doubt that immigrants have contributed to the greatness of this country. Without the contribution of immigrants, America would have never become the amazing country that it is. Yet simply because we accepted immigrants in large numbers at the beginning of the 20th century does not mean that we can continue to sustain exorbitant additions to our current population. One would have to be extremely shortsighted to fail to grasp such a simple notion.

I think that I've proven that I did my research. Instead of merely glancing at the title page, or getting hung up on the title of my thread, perhaps you should actually sit down and read the entire study and stop expecting me to do it for you. You might actually learn something and you may find that rather than being a snooze, this study is actually quite interesting and informative.

[HoustonCynic]

What I would like to see is a non-biased study performed by an independent party who is neither for nor against immigration. Of all the studies I have seen thus far, they never really do an in depth pro/con analysis. Each study either lightly skims the surface of the pros/cons with a vague conclusion or is completely biased pro or con.

I often wonder what the true cost of building secured borders and the cost of administering them as well as the often-overlooked costs of maintaining, sustaining, commerce delays and costs to the environment. I suspect the costs can't be justified just yet (per immigrant) or the government would have already completed it. But maybe one day it will be cost justified or put to rest. They now extract oil from sand and that was considered to be cost prohibitive just 10 years ago.

[Anonymous Political Junky]

See the illegals. See them sneak over the border. Run illegals run. It is against the law to sneak over the border. Bad illegals.

See the illegals. Some of them rape, steal and kill. They are real bad illegals. They should be in their own country doing those bad things.

Then they would not be in our country doing those bad things. Then no one would have to count the bad things they do. The people they killed would still be alive.

See the border. Nice border. Please run back over it illegals. Run illegals run.

[GuyPinestra]

Originally Posted by Anonymous Political Junky

See the illegals. See them sneak over the border. Run illegals run. It is against the law to sneak over the border. Bad illegals.

See the illegals. Some of them rape, steal and kill. They are real bad illegals. They should be in their own country doing those bad things.

Then they would not be in our country doing those bad things. Then no one would have to count the bad things they do. The people they killed would still be alive.

See the border. Nice border. Please run back over it illegals. Run illegals run.

Thanks, APJ. I needed a laugh...

[Kele]

Originally Posted by HoustonCynic

What I would like to see is a non-biased study performed by an independent party who is neither for nor against immigration. Of all the studies I have seen thus far, they never really do an in depth pro/con analysis. Each study either lightly skims the surface of the pros/cons with a vague conclusion or is completely biased pro or con.

I often wonder what the true cost of building secured borders and the cost of administering them as well as the often-overlooked costs of maintaining, sustaining, commerce delays and costs to the environment. I suspect the costs can't be justified just yet (per immigrant) or the government would have already completed it. But maybe one day it will be cost justified or put to rest. They now extract oil from sand and that was considered to be cost prohibitive just 10 years ago.

Did you read the study at all? I mean, I know it's 72 pages, but it's worth reading.

This is not a man with an agenda. He merely analyzed 13 governmental agencies and the financial impact of immigration, both legal and illegal, on said agencies.

Edwin S. Rubenstein, president of ESR Research, economic consultants, has 25 years of experience as a business researcher, financial analyst, and economics journalist. Mr. Rubenstein joined the Hudson Institute, a public policy think tank headquartered in Indianapolis, as director of research in November 1997. While at Hudson he wrote proposals and conducted research on a wide array of topics, including workforce development, the impact of AIDS on South Africa’s labor force, Boston’s “Big Dig” the economic impact of transportation infrastructure, and the future of the private water industry in the United States.

As a journalist, Mr. Rubenstein was a contributing editor at Forbes Magazine and economics editor at National Review, where his “Right Data” column was featured for more than a decade. His televised appearances include Firing Line, Bill Moyers, McNeil-Lehrer, CNBC, and Debates-Debates. In The Right Data (National Review Press, 1994), Rubenstein debunks many widely held beliefs surrounding the distribution of income, government spending, and the nature of economic growth.

Mr. Rubenstein is also an adjunct fellow at the Manhattan Institute where he is principal investigator in the institute’s ongoing analysis of New York state’s budget and tax structure. He also published a newsletter devoted to economic statistics and contributed regularly to The City Journal, the Manhattan Institute’s quarterly.

From 1980 to 1986 he was senior economist at W.R. Grace & Co. where he directed studies of government waste and inefficiency for the Grace Commission.

From 1978 to 1980 he was a municipal bond analyst for Moody’s Investors Service where he was also editor of the Bond Survey, a weekly review of the municipal bond market. He served as senior quantitative analyst for the Office of the Mayor of New York City from 1973 to 1978. He also was staff economist for the New York State Commission on Education (the Fleischman Commission), and was principal investigator on a study of multinational corporations published by the Institute for Public Administration. Mr. Rubenstein has a B.A. in economics from Johns Hopkins, and an M.A. in public finance from Columbia University.

[Convert 54]

Originally Posted by blacknight04

Did the study figure how much immigrants contribute to the nation? If they didn't figure that in the study, then it is deeply flawed.

welp, I dont need to read it if such specificity is true............

[GuyPinestra]

Originally Posted by blacknight04

Did the study figure how much immigrants contribute to the nation? If they didn't figure that in the study, then it is deeply flawed.

Why don't you read it and tell us, blacknight, rather than blindly criticize?