US Politics: Plan for the Future of Immigration

[Tywin Manderly]

Please continue.

[Suttree]

@SC

Economists have long known immigrants are a net positive to the native born population(no that Harvard study linked isn't trying to trick you, rather telling use of language on your part.)

How big is the net benefit of immigration to the native-born population? Harvard Economist George Borjas is probably the most established academic critic of immigration. But even he admits that immigrants create net benefits for the native-born and, in the Concise Encyclopedia of Economics, puts this gain at $22 billion a year.2 Using his method of calculation and updating for more recent immigrant flows puts the number at more than $36 billion.

As part of a $14 trillion economy, $36 billion is a rather small number. However, a few words of caution are in order. First, other methods of calculating the net benefits of immigration lead to larger numbers, though all remain modest as a percent of our economy. Second, the current level of benefits that natives derive from immigration is directly related to the U.S. government's restrictive immigration policies. If greater numbers were let in, if the U.S. government didn't severely limit the number of skilled-worker H1-B visas, and if illegal immigrants had better access to formal-sector employment, the net gains could be larger. In any event, economists have wide agreement that immigration, like free trade, brings net benefits to the existing native-born population.

From Harvard professor Richard Freeman in the National Bureau of Economic Research:

Restrict trade and cries of protectionism resound. Suggest linking labor standards to trade and it's protectionism in disguise. Limit capital flows and the International Monetary Fund is on your back. But restrict people flows? That's just an accepted exercise of national sovereignty! During the last few decades, when most countries reduced barriers to trade in goods and services and liberalized financial capital markets, most also sought to limit immigration.1

This topic has been exhaustively studied so instead of making things up off the top of your head per usual please present us with a fact based counter argument if you disagree.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

There's no way any poor american, legal or illegal, pays 10k in property and sales taxes. No way.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_tax_levels_in_the_United_States

...and? The point is that immigrants are paying into the system as it's established. Yes, there's a redistributive aspect here. Even if you want to abolish the public school system as it currently exists (you might, for all I know), you can't complain about immigrants not paying in- they do pay in. If you do want to abolish the public school system as it currently exists, that's an entirely separate discussion from the immigration discussion. Essentially you're just complaining about poor people being freeloaders at this point, not about immigrants.

[The Fallen]

prince,

I know your'e one of our members most concerned about the poor. Thus, I am here to tell you that the issue of poverty can be eradicated through basic income (http://www.vox.com/2014/11/14/7220291/basic-income-poverty-plan). Essentially, we would give every American an X amount of money monthly that they can live off of. This would assure that no one would be poor and it would lessen the need for the welfare programs you so hate.

This is a plan that has been supported by the likes of President Richard Nixon - who tried passing it in the early 1970's - and libertarian economists Milton Friedman, Veronique de Rugy and Charles Murray - the last two included because they're right-wing hacks and even they're in favor of the plan. Of course, there are also left-leaning economists that support it, such as Emmanuel Saez and Jonathan Gruber.

It was tried in several U.S. cities in the 1970's and the results are deemed controversial. It seems that the controversial part was that work hours went down slightly (it seems more people stayed in school longer) and unemployment went up as more people chose to hold out for a better job rather than settling for a second choice. But income and health was improved.

There are also critics, both on the left and right, that criticize the plan. But the criticism isn't that it won't end poverty, but rather with how responsible people would be with the money received and such. The U.K. has a similar, albeit smaller, program with criteria for meeting the requirements. Maybe some of our U.K. members can share with us how, and if, it works.

I think it's a step in the right direction. How do our more knowledgeable members feel about it?

[sToNED_CAT]

@SC

Economists have long known immigrants are a net positive to the native born population(no that Harvard study linked isn't trying to trick you, rather telling use of language on your part.)

The study includes both legal and illegal immigrants in the same group, to make the surplus look more imposing, because wealthier legal immigrants contribute much more (and don't take much of SS and MC because most of them are still young). The resulting number (SS and Medicare surpluses) is then used by the authors of article to advocate for amnesty. How is that not misleading? What have all those H1B immigrants who earn more than average US citizen common with illegals barely earning minimum wages? Yet, the article makes no distinction between them. It implies, that because the cost of all immigrants is net positive, for post amnesty illegals it must be the same, while they belong to completely different income group.

...and? The point is that immigrants are paying into the system as it's established. Yes, there's a redistributive aspect here. Even if you want to abolish the public school system as it currently exists (you might, for all I know), you can't complain about immigrants not paying in- they do pay in. If you do want to abolish the public school system as it currently exists, that's an entirely separate discussion from the immigration discussion. Essentially you're just complaining about poor people being freeloaders at this point, not about immigrants.

The point was that illegal aliens don't pay more to the system, than they recieve. The articles quoted suggested, that they do - by concentrating just on Social Security and Medicare, they implied their presence is good for public resources, but that's not true if you include all things like education, or if you look at the full healthcare cost over their lifetime.

[aceluby]

Um... how much SS and Medicare can one be qualified for if one is not here legally?

[Suttree]

@sc

It's not about the article, it's about the studies and a consensus with economists. Immigrants are a net positive, that has been proven. Ignoring that while quibbling over roughly 3% of education spending is rather telling. Stop being so dishonest and making up facts off the top of your head. Source your claims or give over.

[Commodore]

If the supply of labor increases, the price of labor (wages) goes down relative to if the supply of labor did not increase.

Now perhaps the immigrants start businesses and hire people, or their productivity leads to growth/expansion/hiring. Or the influx of cheap labor reduces the cost of the items/services they provide, improving everyone's purchasing power. Everything has a trade off, cost and benefit.

But the notion that millions of poor unskilled laborers entering the work force has no impact on wages... Correlation doesn't mean causation, but we've had flat-lining wages to go along with waves of illegal immigrants for awhile now.

[Suttree]

But the notion that millions of poor unskilled laborers entering the work force has no impact on wages...

That's correct, it has raised wages across all segments of the native born population accept for those without a HS degree. That has dipped slightly. It should be noted in that particular segment there are a number of other factors aside from immigration in play(trade practices, declining unionization rates, reduced real value of minimum wage, etc).

[OnionAhaiReborn]

The point was that illegal aliens don't pay more to the system, than they recieve. The articles quoted suggested, that they do - by concentrating just on Social Security and Medicare, they implied their presence is good for public resources, but that's not true if you include all things like education, or if you look at the full healthcare cost over their lifetime.

Are you sure about that? We know immigrants are a huge boon to entitlements, and we know that they do pay into the education system so their cost to that system is no different than any other American of similar income. For healthcare, they certainly pay into Medicare and Medicaid, so there already is a large portion of healthcare costs that immigration is hugely helpful in covering. Under the ACA they might be a drag on the system if they go uninsured, but if they're made legal citizens they'll be required to purchase health insurance and share risk and cost. We also know that immigration boosts economic growth, which will by its nature put more money into the system across the board. Given all of this it's very difficult to see how immigration is an overall drag, even if you don't want to only look at entitlements.

[Lord Mord]

I don't understand. If the net result of the immigrant presence -- legal and illegal combined -- is not only so positive, but is only limited at its current levels by the restrictive policies we impose, then how can it matter that illegals are included?

Commodore, I understand your insistence on plain reason, but surely you must see that your last post was sort of meandering? You lead off great guns, with a bold maxim and then immediately admit you don't know what all the trade-offs are. You move into what is meant to be a telling question daring us to deny basic reason and can't finish it. Instead, you make one last swipe at the problem by inviting us to correlate as cause two conditions without providing any evidence they are even much correlated by time.

In my book, you're a conservative with some credibility, but if this is the best you can come up with, can you see why, even as a conservative myself -- albeit an unschooled one, not like some here -- I would not be persuaded against more liberal immigration?

[Commodore]

this should scare everyone

do what I want, or I will decree it

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

this should scare everyone

It's scary that he's sick of obstructionist bullshit? If anything, I think he's shown an extreme level of patience regarding this.

[Commodore]

It's scary that he's sick of obstructionist bullshit? If anything, I think he's shown an extreme level of patience regarding this.

he's sick of opposition?

welcome to democracy

[Suttree]

this should scare everyone

RR

Conservative commentator Charles Krauthammer says any executive action from the president on the issue of immigration would constitute “an impeachable offense.” Republican Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) says “impeachment would be a consideration.” Republican Walter Jones (R-North Carolina) says “we have the option of impeachment.”

Can they please get a grip? A president has the constitutional responsibility to decide how to enforce laws and focus scarce enforcement resources. If the Republicans want to impeach Obama for using his enforcement discretion over deportations of undocumented people in America, let them try.

he's sick of opposition?

welcome to democracy

It's your assertion that the type of obstructionism we have seen is just business as usual?

[sToNED_CAT]

... we know that they do pay into the education system so their cost to that system is no different than any other American of similar income.

Yes, that's true. But the point is : is it good idea to import even more poor people (who can't take care of themselves and their families) to US? Is affordable to have few millions more on welfare when the system has difficulties to deal with existing poor?

For healthcare, they certainly pay into Medicare and Medicaid, so there already is a large portion of healthcare costs that immigration is hugely helpful in covering.

Yes, they pay, but not enough. Like I said, based on the example of that "Mr. Martinez" - he pays 450$/yr into Medicare. Medicare costs are now 12 000/yr per capita. If he's legalized, later retires and lives 15 years on Medicare it means he'll cost the feds 180k (15x12000). He'd need to work and contribute 400 years (180k/450)to cover his (future) Medicare. This number clearly show how laughably low and blown out of proportion is their contribution to the budget. So people like him are only helping a little (it takes 26 Martinez to cover just one retiree's yearly Medicare cost) in short term, but in long term their presence will be complete fiscal disaster.

There is some chance of upward mobility so he can earn (and contribute) more. But in current situation, when even Americans without colleges have difficulty to find well paid job, how likely is it that someone, who probably doesn't even have HS will be able to do better?

Under the ACA they might be a drag on the system if they go uninsured, but if they're made legal citizens they'll be required to purchase health insurance and share risk and cost.

They'll either enroll in expanded Medicaid or become eligible for huge subsidies under ACA, like other low income folks. That will make the fiscal situation even worse. Either way they won't be sharing much of costs.

We also know that immigration boosts economic growth, which will by its nature put more money into the system across the board.

It is unknown if immigration of low income people (compared to more educated better of legal immigrants) boosts the growth at all and especially per capita growth. And if it does, are people better off because of it? The fact, that wages in US have been stagnating for pretty long time suggests that it doesn't help at all.

[Commodore]

RR

It's your assertion that the type of obstructionism we have seen is just business as usual?

Obviously the voters endorsed the political opposition to Obama's agenda, specifically, and especially amnesty.

I swear the way this guy is fucking babied and excuses made for him, you would think no president has had political opposition before.

GWB tried to push through amnesty and got the exact same pushback. But he didn't try to decree it afterward.

[MerenthaClone]

So you're not complaining about immigrants, you're complaining about poor people.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

Reagan, Bush also acted alone to shield immigrants

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama's anticipated order that would shield millions of immigrants now living illegally in the U.S. from deportation is not without precedent.

Two of the last three Republican presidents — Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush — did the same thing in extending amnesty to family members who were not covered by the last major overhaul of immigration law in 1986.

...

In 1986, Congress and Reagan enacted a sweeping overhaul that gave legal status to up to 3 million immigrants without authorization to be in the country, if they had come to the U.S. before 1982. Spouses and children who could not meet that test did not qualify, which incited protests that the new law was breaking up families.

Early efforts in Congress to amend the law to cover family members failed. In 1987, Reagan's Immigration and Naturalization Service commissioner announced that minor children of parents granted amnesty by the law would get protection from deportation.

Spouses and children of couples in which one parent qualified for amnesty but the other did not remained subject to deportation, leading to efforts to amend the 1986 law.

In a parallel to today, the Senate acted in 1989 to broaden legal status to families but the House never took up the bill. Through the INS, Bush advanced a new "family fairness" policy that put in place the Senate measure. Congress passed the policy into law by the end of the year as part of broader immigration legislation.

[sToNED_CAT]

Can they please get a grip? A president has the constitutional responsibility to decide how to enforce laws and focus scarce enforcement resources. If the Republicans want to impeach Obama for using his enforcement discretion over deportations of undocumented people in America, let them try.

It is questionable, that stopping enforcement of laws against (almost) half of target group is still enforcement discretion and not nullification of entire law. Besides he's not just prioritizing some cases over others. He's giving them work permits, which means they'll be able to work legally, despite the fact, that they are still de iure illegal and according to law anyone employing such person should be fined. That goes far beyond prosecutorial discretion.