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.
This is funny btw. First you were trying to refute the author's claim because I supposedly got it from some progressive blog! OMG! Now you are actually trying to refute the author's claim with his own study.
I am by no means attempting to refute the authors claim, I actually agree with Hanson, you simply refuse to acknowledge what Hanson is stating. That there is a .1% negative effect overall to GDP from illegal aliens. You have yet to read the report thoroughly and have simply clung to the first part of Hanson's formula. There are 2 parts as I have shown. You are still yet to answer my question, typical.
It's also funny because, if I'm understanding what he's quoted correctly (I haven't read the study) the author is suggesting loosening legal immigration policy so we can have a greater benefit.
Maybe you should read the report, what Hanson is suggesting is changing policy, not loosening policy., specifically the H2A.
I am by no means attempting to refute the authors claim, I actually agree with Hanson, you simply refuse to acknowledge what Hanson is stating. That there is a .1% negative effect overall to GDP from illegal aliens. You have yet to read the report thoroughly and have simply clung to the first part of Hanson's formula. There are 2 parts as I have shown. You are still yet to answer my question, typical.
Dude.
The fiscal burden you refer to is .07% right? Yup, here's your quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liquid Reigns
"small fiscal burden that illegal aliens impose" (-.07% of GDP) you get -$14B overall, just at the Federal Level.
You're so hell bent on one parsed phrase you fail to see the forest for the trees.
Now. The author's quote:
Quote:
"And if we account for the small fiscal burden (-.07%) that unauthorized immigrants impose , the overall economic benefit is close enough to zero to be essentially a wash." But policy can help to convert illegal to legal flows, increasing the positive contribution that low-skilled workers could make to the U.S. economy.
Do you see yet where he says that that -.07% is accounted for and there is still an OVERALL ECONOMIC BENEFIT?
I bolded the last part to show he is even talking about increasing an already positive contribution. If it were a drain he would say something about reducing the negative drain or reversing the drain and turning it into a positive, but that isn't the case.
Last edited by huddledmasses; 06-28-2011 at 02:26 AM..
Maybe next time they should load the patient into an ambulance, drive to the border, and drop them off.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elián González
It's so fun to dehumanize, isn't it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyanna
Dehumanize? How do you come up with this crap? Its simply returning them to their own country. I find it dehumanizing that too many poor, uninsured AMERICANS can't receive the same care in our hospitals as these illegals do.
What? They don't have hospitals in Mexico? Or do they come here instead because in Mexico they would have to PAY for health care?
Well, yes, you are dehumanizing them. You're talking about denying them due process of law, a right guaranteed to all PEOPLE in this country, legal and, yes, illegal. Furthermore, by denying due process, you show a startling lack of concern about the chances of deporting a legal immigrant or even a US citizen who simply bear enough of a resemblance to an illegal immigrant for your own biases to kick in.
The fiscal burden you refer to is .07% right? Yup, here's your quote:
Now. The author's quote:
Do you see yet where he says that that -.07% is accounted for and there is still an OVERALL ECONOMIC BENEFIT?
I bolded the last part to show he is even talking about increasing an already positive contribution. If it were a drain he would say something about reducing the negative drain or reversing the drain and turning it into a positive, but that isn't the case.
The -.07% is the difference in the first effect (the +.03% to GDP[wages} where you are stuck) and the second effect (-.1% to GDP {the costs of burden on the States and Local Governments} which you are not even considering) = -.07%
The .07 loss is the OVERALL cost to GDP when the FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS SURRPLUS of .03% is subtracted from the STAES FISCAL BURDEN of -.1%. I gave you both paragraphs from section 3 of the report, even the title of section 3. The Overall Impact of Illegal Immigration on the US Economy Is Small
This is the question I have been asking, is the $14B difference (cost to taxpayers) small enough to be considered a wash?If you can't grasp this, then there is no use in continuing to discuss it with you as you have yet to even read the report which is obvious.
Well, yes, you are dehumanizing them. You're talking about denying them due process of law, a right guaranteed to all PEOPLE in this country, legal and, yes, illegal. Furthermore, by denying due process, you show a startling lack of concern about the chances of deporting a legal immigrant or even a US citizen who simply bear enough of a resemblance to an illegal immigrant for your own biases to kick in.
I don't see where any concern is necessary. An American citizen or legal immigrant will have proper ID to establish their legal status in this country.
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.
