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.
Illegals on financial assistance actually receive preferential treatment to citizens receiving financial assistance. We make citizens look for work, but illegal mothers cannot be made to look for work, so they get a free pass for 24 months. Have a kid every two years, you can be on financial for over 10 years, because it is the baby receiving benefits, not the mother. American citizens can only collect for two years, because in that case we use the legal Mother as the recipient. How messed up is that?! I could go on forever about the inequities in our system, geared to actually favor illegals, over citizens!!!
Good data show that in the 1970s immigrants to the United States contributed more to the public coffers than they received in public services. The data, displayed here in fuller detail than in an earlier article in this journal, confirm the conclusion set forth by the author more than a decade earlier. This conclusion is corroborated by Canadian studies for the 1980s and 1990s and by the crude US data available for the most recent period. Any excess in welfare expenditures on immigrants relative to natives is probably limited to the narrowly defined category of welfare payments, which are relatively insignificant compared to expenditures on schooling and social security, and probably occurs only among older immigrants.
It's not legal for illegal immigrants to receive social services, technically. I don't know how they're getting them.
Your kidding me right??
What would make you think that someone who is already breaking the law by sneaking into this country is going to care about a little thing like a law saying they aren't supposed to use social services. Given they don't walk around with paperwork saying they are illegal, they steal someone else's identity and they can file for whatever they want.
Of course if they get caught, we don't have their real name, they go back to Mexico and come back with a new identity.
"We are concerned that our citizens will actually be sent back to Mexico. If that happens we will lose the remittances they siphon out of the U.S. economy and we may actually not only lose that revenue but then also be forced to actually support our own citizens. This is something that we are not prepared to do under any cricumstances."
[/color][/LEFT]
Well, there are those that don't believe in borders. They believe that if someone is of Indian ancestry (pre Mexico too)they should be able to move about without trespassing. That's fine. The part most have an issue with is moving about freely while taking part in something they didn't contribute, social services. That's a pretty good deal don't you think. Kind of like the grasshopper and ant story.
Legal and illegal are not the same. There's a huge difference between a vetted migrant who must meet certain standards and someone who simply walks across the border without permission. I also strongly suggest you review the work of George Borjas who does not agree with these findings.
Americans do not benefit by the massive migration of low skilled, poorly educated, non-English migrants who refuse to obey employment, tax, driving and many other laws. We wind up paying for the education of their children, their medical bills, their failure to pay taxes and their inability to command a decent wage in the workforce because of their academic deficits. The net result is vastly detrimental to the lower class in America and hurtful to nearly all segments of society other than the very top percentiles.
Most illegal migrants would far better serve their own economic interests by staying in their own countries, having fewer children and protesting their own government's failures.
Your link requires subscription to JSTOR so it's doubtful many will dig deeper than page one. But, if you were to read the abstract a bit more carefully you might come to realize that you misinterpreted. It didn't say that the misuse of social services was insignificant but that it was insignificant compared to the OTHER burdens they produce due to the costs of educating their offspring, etc. In short, your own post defeated itself.
Well, there are those that don't believe in borders. They believe that if someone is of Indian ancestry (pre Mexico too)they should be able to move about without trespassing. That's fine. The part most have an issue with is moving about freely while taking part in something they didn't contribute, social services. That's a pretty good deal don't you think. Kind of like the grasshopper and ant story.
It doesn't matter what the open borders crowd thinks. All country's borders are recognized internationaly today. As I have said countless times in here the tribal ancestors of the Mestizo Mexicans were not indigenous to this country anyway. We have treaties with those tribes that were and they are U.S. citizens. Mexican Mestizos nor any other foreigners have a right to enter our borders without proper authorization.
It doesn't matter what the open borders crowd thinks. All country's borders are recognized internationaly today. As I have said countless times in here the tribal ancestors of the Mestizo Mexicans were not indigenous to this country anyway. We have treaties with those tribes that were and they are U.S. citizens. Mexican Mestizos nor any other foreigners have a right to enter our borders without proper authorization.
But to these people it doesn't matter so long as they are 100% the same race() of people as themselves. I know that is bizarre but there are plenty of them out there.
One needs only to sit in on any border school to understand this. The number of free school lunch participants for children whose parents don't speak English. Or sit in at one of the local ERs and see how many don't have insurance and need an interpreter.
We do not know exactly how many are here illegally but it's a pretty weak argument to say that most aren't. When they need an interpreter and have to wait to talk to one it isn't because they "prefer" a spanish speaker it's because they don't know enough English to hold a conversation with the person at the front desk if that person doesn't speak spanish.
Legal and illegal are not the same. There's a huge difference between a vetted migrant who must meet certain standards and someone who simply walks across the border without permission.
If you believe that is the case, then I expect that you will be interested in the fact that 45% of illegal residents overstayed visas, rather than initially entered unlawfully. Nearly Half of Illegal Immigrants Overstay Visas : NPR
"Many immigrants who are in the United States illegally never jumped a fence, hiked through the desert or paid anyone to help them sneak into the country. According to a recent study, 45 percent of illegal immigrants came here on a legal visa, and then overstayed that visa."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eleanora1
I also strongly suggest you review the work of George Borjas who does not agree with these findings.
I would strongly suggest that you cite specific methodological deficiencies in this particular study or counter-evidence in the form of peer-reviewed empirical research, one or the other that might accomplish the purpose of refuting the central point. George Borjas is a labor economist who primarily publishes material related to the impact of immigration on the labor market, not on social services expenditures. However, he has written on this topic to some extent, so cite relevant publications.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eleanora1
Americans do not benefit by the massive migration of low skilled, poorly educated, non-English migrants who refuse to obey employment, tax, driving and many other laws.
On the contrary, the structure of U.S. labor markets is such that there is an inordinately high demand (essentially a long tail) for low-skilled labor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eleanora1
We wind up paying for the education of their children, their medical bills, their failure to pay taxes and their inability to command a decent wage in the workforce because of their academic deficits.
These are contradictions of the study posted without actual refutation or critical analysis. Incidentally, immigrant wages are subject to artificial deflation as a result of the constrictions on labor market mobility posed by the division between the formal (primary) and informal (secondary) sectors of the labor market, i.e. there is permanent immobility in the lower end of the labor market segmentation. However, legalization, and certainly the combination of legalization and human capital accumulation, removes this artificial constriction.
"The question lawmakers attempt to answer is: Do undocumented immigrants pay enough in taxes to cover the services used? For undocumented immigrants, the answer is unclear. However, for legal immigrants, studies have shown that first generation immigrants pay more in federal taxes than they receive in federal benefits. The same does not hold true for state taxes and services, however, as first generation immigrants often use more in services than they pay in taxes. However, the descendants of the first-generation immigrant correct that pattern and contribute more in taxes at both the federal and state level than they consume in services at both levels. Each generation successively contributes a greater share due to increased wages, language skills, and education."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eleanora1
The net result is vastly detrimental to the lower class in America and hurtful to nearly all segments of society other than the very top percentiles.
Cite peer-reviewed empirical research that supports this claim.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eleanora1
Most illegal migrants would far better serve their own economic interests by staying in their own countries, having fewer children and protesting their own government's failures.
Immigrant fertility adjusts to match that of the U.S., as documented by the empirical literature.
"Using retrospective fertility and migration histories from a binational study of Mexico- U.S. migration, we test for the presence of separation, assimilation, adaptation, diffusion, and selectivity effects of migration on annual birth probabilities and completed fertility. Our results reveal that spousal separation due to temporary migration reduces birth probabilities in the short term but does not reduce marital fertility in the long term. However, when women migrate to the U.S. either as temporary migrants or as long term settled migrants, their experiences lead to lower birth probabilities while in the U.S. as well as to fewer total births. By contrast, U.S. migration experience among men who return to Mexico is associated with higher marital fertility in Mexico, suggesting that temporary migrants are selected for higher fertility."
Immigrant Selectivity And Fertility Adaptation In The United States - Research and Read Books, Journals, Articles at Questia Online Library (http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst;jsessionid=1DD325E0767ED35668CA0 1A81DB3BA95.inst2_2b?docId=80927370 - broken link)
"This examination of the fertility of immigrants moving to the United States from high-fertility countries tests several hypotheses about the process of assimilation and the impact of selectivity using microdata from the 1980 U.S. Census and aggregate data from the sending countries. Unlike previous assimilation studies that focus on integration into the destination society, this study emphasizes the dynamic nature of the assimilation process by modeling the declining impact of the origin cultural setting. Although part of the variability among immigrant groups can be attributed to compositional differences, sending-country fertility levels continue to exert a positive influence on immigrant fertility behavior. However, this influence is considerably weaker among immigrants who are positively selected with respect to their sending-country populations, presumably because they adapt more rapidly to the destination society. Additional evidence suggests that in general, as immigrants adapt to the U.S., they are less and less influenced by their origin social environments."
I would suggest that a better alternative to forming conclusions after watching Maury reruns would be consulting peer-reviewed empirical research on the matter. Incidentally, "their own government" implies personal possessive ownership. However, you have not explained what gains an individual citizen such personal possessive ownership. It would seem unjustly inequitable to demand that citizens of a country governed by a totalitarian dictatorship "protest their own government's failures" simply because they chanced to be born in that country with no input on the matter, while requiring far less of citizens of a liberal democracy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe_Ryder
Your link requires subscription to JSTOR so it's doubtful many will dig deeper than page one. But, if you were to read the abstract a bit more carefully you might come to realize that you misinterpreted. It didn't say that the misuse of social services was insignificant but that it was insignificant compared to the OTHER burdens they produce due to the costs of educating their offspring, etc. In short, your own post defeated itself.
Immigrants' use of welfare was not significant compared to schooling and Social Security expenditures. All of these combined social services expenditures were not sufficient to overcome the net gain that immigrants produced, however. In addition, schooling is a human capital investment that increases the future earnings of students, and Social Security relates to legal immigrants, since it requires payment of FICA taxes, which requires the Employment Eligibility Verification (I-9) process. Illegal immigrants and residents are able to and do use fake SSN; the result of this is accumulation of benefits in federal coffers if the numbers belong to no one, or accumulation of benefits in the accounts of the real owners. As it stands, therefore, "Based on good-quality statistics relating to the 1970s, immigrants to the United States contributed more to the public coffers than they received in public services."
The problem is that there is a greater interest in support of one's own preconceived ideological misconceptions than legitimate evaluation of empirical research. For example, Simon wrote, "A misunderstanding of this point led George Borjas (1991) to mistakenly conclude that my calculations were in error. See Simon (forthcoming) for a discussion of Borjas's criticism."
Quote:
Originally Posted by chicagonut
It doesn't matter what the open borders crowd thinks. All country's borders are recognized internationaly today. As I have said countless times in here the tribal ancestors of the Mestizo Mexicans were not indigenous to this country anyway. We have treaties with those tribes that were and they are U.S. citizens. Mexican Mestizos nor any other foreigners have a right to enter our borders without proper authorization.
This is off-topic, since the genetic ancestry of the immigrant population is not relevant to the thread. However, your reference to "tribal ancestors" is inaccurate, because Mesoamerican societies were highly advanced states and empires, as well as your reference to "mestizo Mexicans," since they are not equally European and Indian, and if you will apply to the term "mestizo" to those with any sort of genetic admixture, you would have to apply it to the majority of the world's population. Are you prepared to do that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1AngryTaxPayer
But to these people it doesn't matter so long as they are 100% the same race() of people as themselves. I know that is bizarre but there are plenty of them out there.
If you believe that is the case, then I expect that you will be interested in the fact that 45% of illegal residents overstayed visas, rather than initially entered unlawfully. Nearly Half of Illegal Immigrants Overstay Visas : NPR
"Many immigrants who are in the United States illegally never jumped a fence, hiked through the desert or paid anyone to help them sneak into the country. According to a recent study, 45 percent of illegal immigrants came here on a legal visa, and then overstayed that visa."
Your point? Illegal is still illegal.
Quote:
I would strongly suggest that you cite specific methodological deficiencies in this particular study or counter-evidence in the form of peer-reviewed empirical research, one or the other that might accomplish the purpose of refuting the central point. George Borjas is a labor economist who primarily publishes material related to the impact of immigration on the labor market, not on social services expenditures. However, he has written on this topic to some extent, so cite relevant publications.
Come back when you can tell the difference betweeen legal and illegal and then you can lecture us on sources. If you can't even be bothered to use the proper terms what makes you think you can frame an argument?
Quote:
On the contrary, the structure of U.S. labor markets is such that there is an inordinately high demand (essentially a long tail) for low-skilled labor.
Cite? Why should we give in to people who want to pay a tiny wage anymore than we should give into people who prefer to ignore child labor laws? We have enough low skilled workers. We do not need to import anymore.
Quote:
These are contradictions of the study posted without actual refutation or critical analysis. Incidentally, immigrant wages are subject to artificial deflation as a result of the constrictions on labor market mobility posed by the division between the formal (primary) and informal (secondary) sectors of the labor market, i.e. there is permanent immobility in the lower end of the labor market segmentation. However, legalization, and certainly the combination of legalization and human capital accumulation, removes this artificial constriction.
Hundreds of threads have been posted on that subject here. Go read them. You have yet to make a convincing argument why Americans should grant legal status to millions of poorly educated law breakers largely from a single ethnicity. You also need to differentiate between legal and illegal. The two are not the same.
"The question lawmakers attempt to answer is: Do undocumented immigrants pay enough in taxes to cover the services used? For undocumented immigrants, the answer is unclear. However, for legal immigrants, studies have shown that first generation immigrants pay more in federal taxes than they receive in federal benefits. The same does not hold true for state taxes and services, however, as first generation immigrants often use more in services than they pay in taxes. However, the descendants of the first-generation immigrant correct that pattern and contribute more in taxes at both the federal and state level than they consume in services at both levels. Each generation successively contributes a greater share due to increased wages, language skills, and education."
Cite peer-reviewed empirical research that supports this claim.
FOR THE SEVENTEENTH TIME WE ARE NOT DISCUSSING LEGAL IMMIGRANTS. There is another forum for that. We are writing about illegal migrants. Conflating the two is profoundly intellectually dishonest.
Quote:
Immigrant fertility adjusts to match that of the U.S., as documented by the empirical literature.
Immigrant Selectivity And Fertility Adaptation In The United States - Research and Read Books, Journals, Articles at Questia Online Library (http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst;jsessionid=1DD325E0767ED35668CA0 1A81DB3BA95.inst2_2b?docId=80927370 - broken link)
I would suggest that a better alternative to forming conclusions after watching Maury reruns would be consulting peer-reviewed empirical research on the matter. Incidentally, "their own government" implies personal possessive ownership. However, you have not explained what gains an individual citizen such personal possessive ownership. It would seem unjustly inequitable to demand that citizens of a country governed by a totalitarian dictatorship "protest their own government's failures" simply because they chanced to be born in that country with no input on the matter, while requiring far less of citizens of a liberal democracy.
Your much vaunted peer reviewed studies do not distinguish between legal and illegal migrants. I realize this distinction is not important to you because of your ideological blinders but that still ignores the purpose of this forum.
FYI, Mexico and most Latin American countries are not governed by totalitarian dictatorships. Many are reasonably prosperous. What they aren't is necessarily geared towards providing junior high drop outs with six kids all material goods. That's not an American responsibility either.
Your complete failure to distinguish between legal and illegal migration, between a less than perfect government and a totalitarian society, between skilled labor and unskilled labor renders your arguments largely laughable. No country nor group of people owe another group of people every single thing they want. If you believe otherwise you are perfectly free to invite a few dozen unskilled non-English speakers to your own house. The rest of us will show them the door.
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.
) of people as themselves. I know that is bizarre but there are plenty of them out there. 
