This is why we have an illegal immigration problem.

[Texsox]

Those low-paying jobs exist and need to be filled, regardless of the legal status of the employee.

 

I don't think you are advocating hiring illegals, are you? Although undocumented illegals are less likely to apply for and receive government benefits I do not believe that is a good option for America.

[StrangeSox]

I don't think you are advocating hiring illegals, are you? Although undocumented illegals are less likely to apply for and receive government benefits I do not believe that is a good option for America.

 

No, not at all. I'm just disputing this line of logic:

 

Now take that $1.1 million per person times 12 million for the low estimate of illegals in the US and that ends up giving you 13.2 TRILLION dollars. Even if you take the law of diminishing marginal returns for some costs, and lower it by half to $6.6 trillion that is still only 1.4% of the cost of having them stay here, even without factoring the 20 childhood years into the equation.

 

Those 12 million low-paying jobs that the illegals have will be there, whether or not they are filled by legals or illegals. You can't count that against the illegals as their drain on the system.

[NorthSideSox72]

Those 12 million low-paying jobs that the illegals have will be there, whether or not they are filled by legals or illegals. You can't count that against the illegals as their drain on the system.

That is only sort of true. For one, not all the 12 million have regular jobs at all. For another thing, if a farmer is currently working 10 illegals in the field at like $3 an hour, and he is then forced to hire legal folks at $5.50 an hour... he might not hire as many people. Just something to keep in perspective.

 

Also, frankly, some businesses are being artificially propped up by illegal labor. Companies that are just scraping by using under-minimum wage labor, in some cases, won't survive without that labor. And that is actually better for the economy anyway, in the long run. Companies that would not otherwise survive their competition don't help the economy, they hurt it.

 

[StrangeSox]

That is only sort of true. For one, not all the 12 million have regular jobs at all. For another thing, if a farmer is currently working 10 illegals in the field at like $3 an hour, and he is then forced to hire legal folks at $5.50 an hour... he might not hire as many people. Just something to keep in perspective.

 

Also, frankly, some businesses are being artificially propped up by illegal labor. Companies that are just scraping by using under-minimum wage labor, in some cases, won't survive without that labor. And that is actually better for the economy anyway, in the long run. Companies that would not otherwise survive their competition don't help the economy, they hurt it.

 

I'll concede that point, but I still don't think that southsider's analysis is correct.

[southsider2k5]

That is only sort of true. For one, not all the 12 million have regular jobs at all. For another thing, if a farmer is currently working 10 illegals in the field at like $3 an hour, and he is then forced to hire legal folks at $5.50 an hour... he might not hire as many people. Just something to keep in perspective.

 

Also, frankly, some businesses are being artificially propped up by illegal labor. Companies that are just scraping by using under-minimum wage labor, in some cases, won't survive without that labor. And that is actually better for the economy anyway, in the long run. Companies that would not otherwise survive their competition don't help the economy, they hurt it.

 

That actually makes things worse, not better. Now those people would be on the rolls of all of the applicable social programs, and not paying any taxes at all, instead of paying a small amount of taxes in someway, shape, or form.

[NorthSideSox72]

That actually makes things worse, not better. Now those people would be on the rolls of all of the applicable social programs, and not paying any taxes at all, instead of paying a small amount of taxes in someway, shape, or form.

I think that slowly having illegals taken off he payrolls makes it better in the long run. Because then ultimately, businesses either have to hire legal laborers (who then all pay their taxes), and any businesses that can't survive don't, which relieves artificial price pressures. And if they are here illegally, they shouldn't be allowed on any social programs. If those things occurred, they'd go home, or find a way to work here legally. That's the goal, isn't it?

 

[Texsox]

That is only sort of true. For one, not all the 12 million have regular jobs at all. For another thing, if a farmer is currently working 10 illegals in the field at like $3 an hour, and he is then forced to hire legal folks at $5.50 an hour... he might not hire as many people. Just something to keep in perspective.

 

Also, frankly, some businesses are being artificially propped up by illegal labor. Companies that are just scraping by using under-minimum wage labor, in some cases, won't survive without that labor. And that is actually better for the economy anyway, in the long run. Companies that would not otherwise survive their competition don't help the economy, they hurt it.

 

Actually I would not be as concerned if it was just some businesses, when it is an entire industry, especially one as important as agriculture, we better look at that. Your farmer example isn't true based on what I know down here. In fact, on an hourly wage basis the wages are nice. Typically $12-$15 per hour for an experienced worker, up to $20 if everything is right. The problem is, it is very seasonal and even if you follow the crops north and back, it is still less than a year of work. So just comparing hourly wages does not paint a clear picture.

 

I thought SS was strictly talking about those with jobs. I don't believe anyone is in favor of allowing immigrants of any type to be without jobs.

 

And he rightfully points out that once these jobs go "on the books" it will cost us more in taxpayer supported benefits. Another reason why politicians looked the other way and do not want to seriously tackle the problem today.

[Texsox]

I think that slowly having illegals taken off he payrolls makes it better in the long run. Because then ultimately, businesses either have to hire legal laborers (who then all pay their taxes), and any businesses that can't survive don't, which relieves artificial price pressures. And if they are here illegally, they shouldn't be allowed on any social programs. If those things occurred, they'd go home, or find a way to work here legally. That's the goal, isn't it?

 

You may be overlooking a key point in SS posts. Even in paying your taxes, low wage earners collect more in benefits than they pay.

[NorthSideSox72]

You may be overlooking a key point in SS posts. Even in paying your taxes, low wage earners collect more in benefits than they pay.

Yes, that is true. But here is the thing - those illegal immigrants are still using all kinds of services unofficially. They may not be getting a check, but they are a drain on resources, without paying it. That is far worse than someone at a low wage earning position that at least contributes SOME tax money, and keeps more of their spending and cash in the country. So even if low wage earners end up getting 90% of their taxes back in terms of federal income tax, they are still paying all sorts of other taxes into the system.

 

Economically, the more illegal laborers are hired, the worse things will be later. Its an artificial, short-term cost reduction for businesses that is offset by greater costs to the entire country.

 

[southsider2k5]

I think that slowly having illegals taken off he payrolls makes it better in the long run. Because then ultimately, businesses either have to hire legal laborers (who then all pay their taxes), and any businesses that can't survive don't, which relieves artificial price pressures. And if they are here illegally, they shouldn't be allowed on any social programs. If those things occurred, they'd go home, or find a way to work here legally. That's the goal, isn't it?

 

If they leave the US. If they don't leave, it is worse.

[southsider2k5]

Yes, that is true. But here is the thing - those illegal immigrants are still using all kinds of services unofficially. They may not be getting a check, but they are a drain on resources, without paying it. That is far worse than someone at a low wage earning position that at least contributes SOME tax money, and keeps more of their spending and cash in the country. So even if low wage earners end up getting 90% of their taxes back in terms of federal income tax, they are still paying all sorts of other taxes into the system.

 

Economically, the more illegal laborers are hired, the worse things will be later. Its an artificial, short-term cost reduction for businesses that is offset by greater costs to the entire country.

 

That is the point. Even if you don't believe the numbers fully, the point remains that low earning illegals who become citizens will be a much larger drain in the long run on resources versus having a rising wage and paying more for a product in the short term. It falls under the ounce of prevention/pound of cure category.

[NorthSideSox72]

If they leave the US. If they don't leave, it is worse.

 

If they have nothing to stay for (no jobs, no check from the government), most will leave on their own, and/or find a way to be here legally (depending on how a guest visa program might work).

 

That is the point. Even if you don't believe the numbers fully, the point remains that low earning illegals who become citizens will be a much larger drain in the long run on resources versus having a rising wage and paying more for a product in the short term. It falls under the ounce of prevention/pound of cure category.

 

Exactly. It may take some pain in the short run, but long run, we'll all be better off. Including them by the way, as they become entitled to legal protections and social services.

 

[Texsox]

That is the point. Even if you don't believe the numbers fully, the point remains that low earning illegals who become citizens will be a much larger drain in the long run on resources versus having a rising wage and paying more for a product in the short term. It falls under the ounce of prevention/pound of cure category.

 

From your earlier post I followed the link and found some interesting points.

Rector has just published a study, “The Fiscal Cost of Low-Skill Households to the U.S. Taxpayer,” that is ostensibly not about immigration at all. He takes the most detailed look yet at the economics of the 17.7 million American households made up of people without a high-school degree.

 

Illegals, and low skilled, immigrants make up a majority of this catagory. Also included are High School dropouts who earn quite a bit less.

 

Here's where all these stop making sense to me. Would these jobs for low skilled workers, suddenly pay more if a high skilled worker stepped in? Would White Hen pay $60,000 a year to have Kap sit behind the counter? Would Joe Rogalski's landscape company pay FlaSoxJim $60,000 to trim some hedges? Of course not. We have low paying jobs, not low earning people. We could send everyone to college and we'd still have low paying jobs.

 

To SS point, how far would salaries need to rise before a worker is no longer a burden? IIRC the number is around $27,000. That is a very big jump from minimum wage to $13.50 per hour.

[Texsox]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/10/03/military....ref=mpstoryview

JACKSONVILLE, Florida (CNN) -- Eduardo Gonzalez, a petty officer second class with the U.S. Navy, is about to be deployed overseas for a third time. Making his deployment even tougher is the fact his wife may not be around when he comes back. His wife faces deportation to Guatemala -- her home country that she hasn't seen since 1989. He also doesn't know what would happen to his young son, Eduardo Jr., if that happens.

 

Their case

 

 

In Gonzalez's case, his wife, Mildred, came to the United States with her mother in 1989 when she was 5 years old. They were granted political asylum because of their status as war refugees from Guatemala.

 

In September 2000, Mildred's mother applied for legalization and included her daughter in that application. Her mother was granted legal status in July 2004, according to Gonzalez.

 

However, six weeks earlier, Gonzalez and Mildred got married, canceling Mildred's ability to apply for legal status through her mother because she was no longer an unmarried daughter under the age of 21. As a result, her legal status still remains in jeopardy.

 

Conservatives Point of View:

That's just fine, according to Mark Krikorian, the executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, which lobbies for tougher laws on illegal immigration.

 

"What you're talking about is amnesty for illegal immigrants who have a relative in the armed forces, and that's just outrageous," he said. "What we're talking about here is letting lawbreakers get away with their actions just because they have a relative in the military. ... There's no justification for that kind of policy."

 

One more thing

 

 

Gonzalez himself entered the country legally, crossing the Mexican border with his family when he was about 10. He joined the Navy as a so-called "green-card sailor" and became a U.S. citizen in July 2005. The military does accept some immigrants who aren't U.S. citizens.

 

Shall we file this under support our troops and family values?

[southsider2k5]

We should just annex Mexico, maybe even Central America. We are pretty much expected to be their welfare system anyway, we might as well collect some taxes while we are at it.

[NorthSideSox72]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/10/03/military....ref=mpstoryview

Their case

Conservatives Point of View:

One more thing

Shall we file this under support our troops and family values?

Just curious... if she is married to a citizen, and the marriage is legal, doesn't she pretty much become a citizen at that point? Especially since she entered the country legally to begin with?

 

And why on earth does a marriage to a citizen nullify citizenship? I'm sorry but that is just assinine.

 

[southsider2k5]

Also interesting to note, Illinois could be losing some national influence because of illegals...

 

http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_News/2007...nal_seats/6221/

 

WASHINGTON, Oct. 2 (UPI) -- U.S. states with large numbers of undocumented immigrants could receive additional seats in Congress after the 2010 census is conducted.

 

A University of Connecticut study concluded Arizona, Texas and Florida could all see their House delegations increase due to rising populations that include sizable numbers of illegal immigrants.

 

Although they can’t vote, such aliens are included in the census. The San Jose (Calif.) Mercury News predicted Tuesday the pending 2010 headcount could be the subject of a political fight as Democrats and Republicans jockey for position before House seats are reallocated.

 

The Connecticut study also predicted California and New Jersey would likely keep their current number of seats while states with fewer immigrants, including New York, Illinois and Ohio, will lose a seat or two.

[NorthSideSox72]

Also interesting to note, Illinois could be losing some national influence because of illegals...

 

http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_News/2007...nal_seats/6221/

Major flaw there in that article... Illinois gets HUGE numbers of hispanic immigrants. Chicago gets more than any other city, including cities in those border states - the Trib released those stats a while back. Assuming that the percentage among them that are illegal is similar from state to state, Illinois would not lose, but may in fact gain.

 

[EvilMonkey]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/10/03/military....ref=mpstoryview

Their case

Conservatives Point of View:

One more thing

Shall we file this under support our troops and family values?

No, that is Mark Krikorian, the executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies point of view, one conservative. Don't use such a broad brush next time.