Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Immigration Burden or Boom for Tax Rolls?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
underpants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-17-07 07:31 AM
Original message
Immigration Burden or Boom for Tax Rolls?
Source: ABC News



It's a gloomy scenario that some say could become a reality if millions of illegal immigrants are granted citizenship under a sweeping immigration reform bill currently working its way through the U.S. Senate. But is it fact or fear-mongering?

"This is the most expensive public policy choice that I've seen in Washington in a quarter-century," said Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank. "You're essentially going to grant illegal immigrants eligibility to Social Security, to Medicare, to other welfare programs for the elderly like Medicaid at the cost to the taxpayer of $17,000 more per illegal immigrant."

"It's an indictment of people who are doing really valuable jobs in our economy and being very productive members of our economy," said Johnson (Benjamin Johnson of the American Immigration Law Foundation), who highlighted the consumer purchasing power and job-creating influence of Hispanics in the United States, estimating their economic contribution at $798 billion in 2006.


The Texas Hospital Association reported a 30 percent increase in emergency room visits between 1997 and 2005, partly due to the flood of illegal immigrants, many of whom have no health insurance and are unable to pay for services. <---does this mean that they have paid NO taxes of any kind or is that just implied?

But Juan Onesimo Sandoval, a professor of urban sociology at Northwestern University, said immigration reform could actually add money to government coffers.





Read more: http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=3181573&page=1



-Please see the first post for information I have found on this matter-
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
underpants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-17-07 07:32 AM
Response to Original message
1. FACTS on "illegals"
Posted by underpants in General Discussion: Politics
Thu Mar 30th 2006, 04:53 PM
I literally spent MINUTES reading and collecting this information.

No, it isn't 100% complete but if you post something you are looking for I will do my best to find the FACT on it for you as best as I can (meaning I will tell you how much I trust it and you can make your own decision).

This issue is one with many "facts" to it but I trust what I am about to post.

Much thanks to suffragette.

For round numbers there appear to be about 10 Million "illegal immigrants" or "undocumented workers". Not to parse words here, they both mean basically the same thing.

Of undocumented/illegals--> 60-75% entered illegally. The other 25-40% entered legally and overstayed their visas or otherwise violated the terms of their admission.
-Of those 57% are Mexican, 23% are from other Latin American countries, 10% are Asian, 5% are European or Canadian, and 5% are from everywhere else.

Of the Foreign Born Population (~ 35 Million) in the US 25% are illegal/undocumented-- 30% are Legal, 30% Naturalized, 8% Refugees, 5% Temporary legal.

40% of illegals are women. 54% live in married families or other families. Fewer then half are single men and unattached.

According to the US Social Security Administration 75% pay payroll taxes and will contribute $6-7 BILLION in Social Security funds that they will never claim.

Okay here is where it gets fuzzy.

90-96% are employed (I saw both numbers)

AND NOW the big question

Do they drain social service resources MORE than they contribute?

The CATO Institute (yes them) says:

Myth number four: Immigrants impose a financial burden on taxpayers. Immigrants do make somewhat heavier use of means-tested welfare programs than natives. There have been especially flagrant abuses by immigrants of particular welfare programs, such as Supplemental Security Income. But because immigrants tend to come to the United States during the start of their working years --between the ages of 18 and 35 -- they make very large net contributions to the two largest income transfer programs: Social Security and Medicare. When the payroll tax contributions of immigrants are taken into account, the Urban Institute found that the foreign born constitute a net fiscal windfall to the public sector of some $20 billion a year. To the extent that welfare use by immigrants is a problem, this can be addressed by restricting the welfare eligibility of immigrants, not by keeping immigrants out.
http://www.cato.org/dailys/4-22-97.html

PBS (yes THEM) says

Immigrants pay more in taxes than they receive in public services in their lifetime?

REALITY: Welfare use among non-refugee immigrants is lower than among U.S. native-born citizens in the same age group (15-64). The 1990 census reported that 20.4 percent of immigrants were on welfare, compared with 26.2 percent of U.S. native-born citizens. In 1997, immigrants paid an estimated $133 billion in federal, state and local taxes. A typical immigrant and his or her offspring pay an estimated $80,000 more in taxes than they will receive in federal, state and local benefits over the course of their lifetimes.

http://www.pbs.org/itvs/thecity/immigratio ...

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/underpants/27
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NorthernSpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-17-07 09:29 AM
Response to Reply #1
5. your PBS link is dead, and your Cato link has nothing to do with illegal immigrants!
Your ten-year-old Cato source lays out claims made about LEGAL immigrants from the "free-market" point of view. It simply isn't about illegals, despite your attempt to use it as evidence for your pro-illegal-alien position.


Gee, you've really done your homework.


:argh:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sinkingfeeling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-17-07 09:37 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. Here's a link for the PBS program.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NorthernSpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-17-07 10:36 AM
Response to Reply #6
11. aaaand again: a lot of irrelevant claims about legal immigrants...
I did see this bit, however:

Undocumented immigrant workers take jobs away from native workers.

myth or reality?



MYTH: Studies show that undocumented immigration either has no effect on native workers or actually increases their labor market opportunities by boosting the industries that create new jobs. Undocumented immigrants often take jobs that others in the community refuse to perform. For example, the railroads across the West were largely built by Chinese immigrants, and large-scale agricultural production still relies on Mexican workers, many of whom are migrants, not immigrants.



Cite, please.

:eyes:


In real reality, even legal immigration has negative consequences for poor Americans. From the Center for Immigration Studies:

The most notable recent study of the issue comes from the National Academy of Sciences' National Research Council (NRC). Prepared by many of the top economists, demographers and sociologists in the field, the study, The New Americans: Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration, contains an extensive analysis of the latest research on the subject as well as a good deal of original work. The media has devoted considerable attention to the study. However, misled by the study's rosy press release, they have claimed that The New American unequivocally confirms the benefits of immigration. In fact, the NRC study found that the total effect of immigration on workers, employers, consumers, and taxpayers is probably small. But it also finds and this has generally gone unreported in the media that the negative effect of immigration on unskilled workers and taxpayers in high-immigration states is substantial.

The disparity between the study's actual findings and its portrayal in the media caused George Borjas and Richard Freeman, two Harvard economists who helped write the study, to chastise the report's editor, James Smith of Rand, in a New York Times. They accused him and Senator Spencer Abraham, chairman of the Senate Immigration Subcommittee, of distorting the study by portraying immigration as a "free lunch."



Concerning illegal immigration:

This is undoubtedly the lowest-skilled flow of immigrants, with at least 75 percent lacking a high school degree. It is estimated that one-third of the immigrant high school dropouts holding jobs in the United States are illegal aliens. While border control is important, there is broad agreement among those who study illegal immigration that denying illegal aliens access to jobs offers the best hope of stemming illegal immigration. Therefore, implementing a system of employment verification and hiring more inspectors to ensure that the law against hiring illegal aliens is enforced should be made a top priority.

Cuts in legal immigration would also be helpful in reducing illegal immigration because the two are so closely linked. As the annual level of legal immigration has grown, illegal immigration has grown proportionally. Communities of recent legal immigrants serve as magnets for illegal immigration by providing housing, jobs and entree to America. In fact, 25 percent of legal immigrants admitted each year are illegal aliens using a provision in the law which allows them to "adjust" their status. Any serious attempt to control illegal immigration will have to deal with this fundamental reality.



http://www.cis.org/articles/1998/sacPublicInterest.html


There's a choice to be made here. The question is: are we willing to put working class Americans -- and especially the poor -- first?

If the answer is no, then we should quit portraying ourselves as the party of American workers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-17-07 09:55 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. We should just take the Heritage Foundation's word for it. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dave_p Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-17-07 09:59 AM
Response to Reply #5
8. The post related to their status
If they weren't illegal, they'd just be immigrants too. Illegals' very status affects their tax contribution: the issue is what their net contribution would be if they weren't illegal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Robson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-18-07 03:57 PM
Response to Reply #8
27. This will break the back of Medicare and Social Security - the Bush plan.
The people of the USA need tens of millions of unskilled, uneducated workers and their unskilled uneducated families like we need another Iraq War to fritter away more of our resources on. This country is not the wealthy, productive, fiscally solvent nation it was 50 years ago. We're on the slide economically and we don't need more of a burden and we don't need slave labor.

Baby boomers will soon be reaching social security and medicare eligibility age. That alone will put a heavy burden on a system that they say is almost broke. So now we add tens of millions of immigrants that have never contributed a dime or much to the system. The result is obvious, and exactly what many wealthy cons want, to destroy the syatem or drastically cut benefits for US citizens that depend on it and have contributed to it for their working lives.

Our mostly wealthy senators with plush pensions, including Kennedy are at the head of the pack and have sold working Americans down the river.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
underpants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-17-07 12:27 PM
Response to Reply #5
15. I didn't want to be rude and not respond
The little bit of research I was able to do on this was rather daunting. There appears to be next to know data on this other than espousing reconceived notions.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lasher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-18-07 12:33 PM
Response to Reply #15
26. You're right about that, Underpants - It can be hard to find the facts.
It is difficult to imagine how honest debate could occur without understanding about how many illegal/undocumented aliens there are living in the US and where they came from.

I have derived the following information from a study by the Office of Policy and Planning of the US Immigration and Naturalization Service. There were about 7 million foreign-born unauthorized residents (AKA illegal aliens) living in America as of 2000. This was twice as many as there were in 1990. Assuming these estimates are accurate and that the rate of growth has remained the same, there are about 12 million living in the US today.

Mexico accounted for 58% of the total unauthorized resident population in 1990 and nearly 69% in January 2000.

NorthernSpy was correct to admonish you for having used data about the total immigrant population (legal and illegal) to make a point about unauthorized residents only. In addition to that I find two statements problematic:

According to the US Social Security Administration 75% pay payroll taxes and will contribute $6-7 BILLION in Social Security funds that they will never claim.


You are stating as fact something that neither you nor the Social Security Administration could know for certain. As a matter of fact, your claim is fallacious.

Social Security permits foreign nationals to work many years illegally with one or more fraudulently obtained Social Security numbers, acquire legal status (e.g. through an amnesty or marriage to a U.S. citizen), obtain a valid SSN, and then request that his or her prior earnings credits be moved to the new number. The illegals slate is wiped clean and all the years worked under one or more fraudulent numbers and/or identities are counted toward the 10 years it takes to vest for full Social Security benefits based upon ones earning history. Giving 12 million or so unauthorized residents some kind of legal status would have a big impact on the solvency of Social Security.

Currently most aliens who never gain legal status are unable to claim Social Security benefits in the United States, even if they can prove they worked for the 40 quarters needed to vest. But until recently they could claim their benefits when they returned to their home countrybecause they were no longer illegally present in the United States. Mexicans will again be able to claim benefits in such cases, however, if the pending US - Mexican Social Security Totalization agreement is passed. I believe it will be. Junior only needs to submit the measure to Congress. If no action is taken there within 90 working days to block it the treaty becomes operative.

To the extent that welfare use by immigrants is a problem, this can be addressed by restricting the welfare eligibility of immigrants, not by keeping immigrants out.


The Cato Institute's dismissal of this problem is simplistic at best. All my life I have seen welfare abuse going on and no one has come up with a good solution for it so far. Rightwing organizations are in favor of eliminating our social programs entirely, to let the poor fend for themselves. I don't consider that a good solution.

I will give you credit for having made an apparent effort to create a middle ground for discussion on this polarizing topic. Maybe we can all learn something here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Psephos Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-17-07 03:04 PM
Response to Reply #1
18. Why do you put quotation marks around the word illegals?
They *are* illegal.

We'd be a lot closer to finding a consensus solution if we didn't pretend that wasn't the case.

I support amnesty and naturalization, and a compassionate approach. I do not support incentivizing the breaking of immigration laws. It is not compassionate to buy an alcoholic a drink. It is not compassionate to punish those who follow the law while rewarding those who do not.

Roughly half of the illegal immigrants have not finished high school, and are bringing little beyond their muscles to the US economy. They do not pay taxes, but they consume government services. That means less for the people who live by the law. The supply of government services is not infinite. In fact, it is barely adequate.

Meanwhile, because it costs approximately a third less to pay someone under the table because of avoided payroll taxes and overhead, illegal immigrants absorb jobs away from those who abide by the law. There are millions of laborers who will continue receiving their pay under the table as long as they are in the US. The proposed reform law will not change that.

The 1986 immigration reform law brought amnesty, but its reforms were not enforced. I see history repeating itself.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Honeycombe8 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-17-07 08:07 PM
Response to Reply #1
23. 1990 statistics for welfare useage? That's almost 20 years ago.
Those stats would no longer be good.

I also have never heard anyone who says there are 10 million illegals here. The figures I have heard are from between a low estimate of 12 million, on up to 20 million. And the rate of influx is increasing every year. In a few years, the number will be doubled.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sinkingfeeling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-17-07 08:21 AM
Response to Original message
2. Welcome to all. While some seek to come here, I'm looking for another country to live in.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Megahurtz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-17-07 05:22 PM
Response to Reply #2
22. That's for Damn Sure. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pingzing58 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-17-07 08:58 AM
Response to Original message
3. Where do they get their facts to target undocumented workers?
I know it's long, but please read. How can they report how many illegals they gave service to since by law the hospital and emergency room cannot ask about their legal status? Want to know how much money is available from the Government to cover these costs? Just say yes.

UNCOMPENSATED CARE IN SOUTHWEST TEXAS
Corporate Author : ACADEMY OF HEALTH SCIENCES (ARMY) FORT SAM HOUSTON TX HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION
Personal Author(s) : Woelkers, Gerard J.
(April 2000)

Abstract
For the past several years the United States has experienced a robust economy that has created wealth and prosperity for many companies and individuals. However, the health care industry is faced with the growing problem of increased uncompensated care for their services. At the same time there is growing concern over the increase in the uninsured population in the United States. Texas is the nations leader in uninsured persons with an estimated 24 percent uninsured in 1998. Furthermore, there are an estimated 600,000 Medicaid eligible persons in Texas that are not enrolled in the program. The Greater San Antonio Hospital Council is a trade organization that has membership in 27 counties in Southwest Texas. As with Texas as a whole, 24 percent of the Hospital Council geographic membership population is uninsured. As a result of the high uninsured population and other less dominant factors, membership experienced over $503 million in uncompensated care for 1997. Analysis of each facility demonstrated that they are both actively searching for a more efficient manner of caring for the indigent, and that both facilities experienced a positive earnings margin last year. It was discovered that a decrease in emergency room visits, for non-emergent patients, would reduce the uncompensated care figures enough to build new clinics and staff those clinics. Political factors are a roadblock for both facilities, with a lack of funding from county government and Medicare reimbursement reductions being the two most impacting. Furthermore, the inability for each facility to accurately identify the undocumented immigrant population has hampered their ability to gain capital through government funding. The Texas Hospital Association and the State Senate Committee for Border Affairs are presently addressing the areas of uninsured and tracking undocumented immigrants. Controlling these vital concerns will have a direct, positive impact on the amount of uncompensated care reported by Hospital Council Membership.

(http://stinet.dtic.mil/oai/oai?&verb=getRecord&metadata... )

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
underpants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-17-07 09:10 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. I am not sure about Texas but every state budgets for indigent care
Which is really beside the point of whether this group (as a group) pay more into "the system) (meaning governments) than they take out. My research shows that they don't take out more than THEY pay in.

They are bascially funding 2-5% of Social Security without ever taking anything out too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pingzing58 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-17-07 10:18 AM
Response to Reply #4
10. You're right, the truth is in the numbers...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sapere aude Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-17-07 10:12 AM
Response to Original message
9. One other reason hospital emergency rooms are full is because
Edited on Thu May-17-07 10:15 AM by Sapere aude
there are more and more citizens who do not have health insurance and many clinics are no longer taking Medicare and in CA medical patients.

I really believe the illegals are being scapegoated. I really believe our society can absorb the increase in population. I really believe that if we could somehow stop the them verses us mentality and all form a power base of working class people we could effect changes that would benefit all of us.


The anti illegal immigration movement is hurting the chances that we can all make a better country for ourselves. While we are busy fighting among ourselves, corporatism grows and is making life worse for all of us. We will never deport 12 million people. We have to stop and get real. The culture of this country has changed and will continue to change. It will never be a white's only dominated society. We need to learn that we have to share our lives with black brown and yellow people and there is no going back.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pampango Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-17-07 11:01 AM
Response to Original message
12. Is it so hard to believe that there are both good and bad effects
from illegal immigration?

I accept that there is a net economic benefit to the US from the work of illegal immigrants, though I know that others will debate whether this is true. This includes taxes they pay, local, Social Security, income, sales, etc., as well as an increase in overall economic activity as a result of their work, even though they send a significant portion of their earnings back to their country of origin.

I also accept that there is some cost to achieve this net benefit. The increased supply of unskilled labor puts pressure on the wage rates paid to American unskilled labor. (The increased supply of anything tends to decrease the price you can obtain for it.) That affects a certain sector of American labor, but many other sectors are untouched or benefit from these immigrants. There may also be some additional costs in terms of social services, schools, and criminal justice. Those costs seem acceptable to me, but again they tend to be localized and affect some areas much more than others.

On balance I believe that illegal immigrants should be treated fairly and are a net positive influence on our society. What bothers me at DU, though, and this applies to both sides of the debate not just the one I don't agree with, is that we tend to paint illegal immigration as either a purely positive thing with little downside or as an insidious undermining of the American working class without any acknowledgment of the overall positive contributions that they make.

I realize that to some extent your view depends on which side of the bread your butter is on, but thought I would throw this out there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NorthernSpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-17-07 11:39 AM
Response to Reply #12
13. maybe the costs are "acceptable" to you because they don't come out of your piece of the pie...
I accept that there is a net economic benefit to the US from the work of illegal immigrants, though I know that others will debate whether this is true. This includes taxes they pay, local, Social Security, income, sales, etc., as well as an increase in overall economic activity as a result of their work, even though they send a significant portion of their earnings back to their country of origin.

Hell, we could probably juggle some numbers and find a net economic benefit for every new diagnosis of cancer. Which is just dandy -- unless you're the one with the cancer.

The thing is, when some people pay the costs, and other people reap the benefits, there's no such thing as a "net benefit" for "us" as a whole.


David Podvin says it very well:


Illegal immigration is a means by which corporations savage Americas working class. Although the media conglomerates have misrepresented the undocumented worker influx as primarily being a racial issue, it is actually an economic bludgeon. Business interests encourage illegal immigration for the purposes of depressing wages and subverting workplace safety laws. The Wall Street brokerage firm Bear Stearns uses the word systematic when describing the replacement of lower income American wage earners with illegal aliens, noting management prefers to employ help that is not documented because laborers who lack legal standing are more easily exploited.

(...)

It is a tribute to the political sophistication of the monied elite that employers can brazenly violate labor laws without incurring liberal wrath. In almost any context, a brutal assault on the working class would provoke vigilant opposition from progressives. However, the business community has learned the disarming effect of playing the race card, and now the mainstream media equates opposing illegal immigration with fostering ethnic bigotry. Business is reaping the windfall profits of camouflaging corporate predation as inclusiveness.

This Machiavellian construct represents a quantum public relations leap forward for the reprobates of Wall Street. Gone are the days when ham handed businesspeople justified gouging American workers by claiming that laborers were merely insignificant peons. As the story now goes, American workers must be gouged due to humanitarian regard for Third World migrants. It is the siren song that seduces the keepers of the multicultural flame.

(...)

There are many victims in the illegal immigration saga, foremost among them blue collar American workers who are besieged from all sides. The right wing disdainfully views them as mere fodder for the corporate juggernaut. The left wing empathizes with employees angst while sacrificing their interests at the altar of political correctness. Trapped in a thirty-five year trend of falling real wages, working class Americans are steadily losing ground. To make matters worse, whenever workers bemoan the pernicious effects of illegal immigration they are smeared as being nativist, as though demanding a fair wage in exchange for hard work somehow reveals malice.


http://www.makethemaccountable.com/podvin/more/060423_T...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pampango Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-17-07 12:19 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. I acknowledge that. I thought I made that clear earlier.
When something doesn't hurt you or your family or your friends, helps some people (the immigrants) whom you don't know, has what you believe is a net positive benefit to the country, but does hurt people ("American blue collar workers") whom you don't know, the tendency is to fall back on the net positive benefit.

I lived in the Third World for a few years and know how important to their economies these workers are. The benefit to their families and their economies is significant. Is there a price to be paid by American blue collar workers? Yes, I have said that repeatedly. It comes down to a comparison of costs (how much and paid by whom) and benefits (how much and to whom). That can be a subjective judgment.

Most social and economic policy has costs, not just financial, as well as benefits. I am honest enough to say that when the costs, in terms of lower wages, lost jobs, etc., are less (partially because they are further from my home) than the benefits, both to the immigrants and to the economy as a whole, I tend to be more sympathetic to the immigrant and his/her plight.

I does not mean that I have no sympathy for the American blue collar worker, any more than it would be fair for me to call you a racist nativist who has no sympathy for the poor of the Third World.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NorthernSpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-17-07 01:45 PM
Response to Reply #14
16. at least you admit that your primary loyalty is not to American workers...
When something doesn't hurt you or your family or your friends, helps some people (the immigrants) whom you don't know, has what you believe is a net positive benefit to the country, but does hurt people ("American blue collar workers") whom you don't know, the tendency is to fall back on the net positive benefit.

Only if you do not acknowledge a serious duty of loyalty to one of those populations. I do.


I lived in the Third World for a few years and know how important to their economies these workers are. The benefit to their families and their economies is significant. Is there a price to be paid by American blue collar workers? Yes, I have said that repeatedly. It comes down to a comparison of costs (how much and paid by whom) and benefits (how much and to whom). That can be a subjective judgment.

Most social and economic policy has costs, not just financial, as well as benefits. I am honest enough to say that when the costs, in terms of lower wages, lost jobs, etc., are less (partially because they are further from my home) than the benefits, both to the immigrants and to the economy as a whole, I tend to be more sympathetic to the immigrant and his/her plight.

Yes, at least you admit this. Most people here try to have it both ways.


I does not mean that I have no sympathy for the American blue collar worker, any more than it would be fair for me to call you a racist nativist who has no sympathy for the poor of the Third World.

Sympathy is nothing. This is about loyalty. Sympathy is no substitute for that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sinkingfeeling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-17-07 04:41 PM
Response to Reply #16
20. With a 4% unemployment rate in the US (according to the dear govt.) and a need for
20,000 lettuce pickers in California and 25,000 cherry pickers in Washington, how many unemployed Americans do you personally know who have gone and applied?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gravity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-17-07 05:05 PM
Response to Reply #16
21. Immigrants are human beings too
The main problem in the immigration debate is that no matter what policy we choose, somebody is going to be made worst off even though they don't deserve it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pingzing58 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-17-07 09:07 PM
Response to Reply #13
24. What are the statistics on blue collar workers falling wages..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Psephos Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-17-07 03:21 PM
Response to Reply #12
19. Well said n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
damntexdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-17-07 01:54 PM
Response to Original message
17. Utter nonsense!
Undocumented workers have been getting no credit for income and Social Security taxes paid under fake or assumed SSNs. If an undocumented worker is given documents, the credit for such taxes will only start with a legal SSN -- past contributions will still have gone for nought. Earning Social Security coverage would start with work under a legal SSN, just like for everyone else.

Could the federal government lose? Well, were no undocumented workers paying in under fake SSNs, an estimated 10% of the Social Security surplus would not accrue -- true whether those workers were legalized and had legitimate SSNs, or whether they were deported, or pushed further underground, where employers make no effort to ensure payment of Social Security and income taxes. More immediately, were undocumented workers suddenly documented, many would be recovering overpaid income taxes, just as does anyone else who overpays income taxes.

Who loses under the current arrangement? Certainly undocumented workers, who get no benefit for what they pay in. Likewise, state and local governments that fund services for undocumented workers but get no share back from the largess that flows to the feds. But all that has nothing to do with the b.s. put out by the racists opposing immigration reform.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Morereason Donating Member (496 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-18-07 12:20 AM
Response to Original message
25. Oh yes, the "we need more skilled workers" propaganda
Edited on Fri May-18-07 12:21 AM by Morereason
Most of us are aware that the unemployment numbers are innacurate. I am old enough to know what 4% unemployment really looks like, and this does not look like it.

Try and lose your job and have to restart your career at 40+. There is enough extra labor out there that you will have a hard time even getting a job at a fast food joint. That is not how %4 unemployment economies acted in the past.

We do not need more foreign labor. We can use foreign labor for field work, which should be payed a living wage. But otherwise we have plenty of people who can take on most of the jobs we have either straight off the street or with a little training and a living wage. There are plenty of Americans who would like to up their education but cannot afford the high cost.

Talk to the many in the IT field who have solid qualifications and still have to fight for decent work.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Oct 24th 2017, 01:33 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC