Immigration

Legacy

New member
Messages
7,871
Reaction score
321
even if it is half right...claiming illegal immigration is a net positive is a joke. I've read estimates ranging from $80B in costs to $113B...fine cut the small number in half...$40B is what illegals cost this country...what numbers do they contribute...12.5 Billion, lets double that. Guess what, in a very conservative estimate they cost twice as much as they contribute...this line of discussion is mind numbing.

The Forbes article I posted (#169) about Georgia losing hundreds of millions due to strict immigration laws starts off:
To forgo a repeat of last year, when labor shortages triggered an estimated $140 million in agricultural losses, as crops rotted in the fields, officials in Georgia are now dispatching prisoners to the state’s farms to help harvest fruit and vegetables.

The labor shortages, which also have affected the hotel and restaurant industries, are a consequence of Georgia’s immigration enforcement law, HB 87, which was passed last year. As State Rep. Matt Ramsey, one of the bill’s authors, said at the time, “Our goal is … to eliminate incentives for illegal aliens to cross into our state.”

Now he and others are learning: Be careful what you wish for, because you may get more than you bargained for.

Georgia’s law, similar to those in Alabama, Arizona and a few other states, gives police the authority to demand immigration documentation from suspects when they detain them for other possible violations. The law also makes it more difficult for businesses to hire workers and creates harsher punishments for those who employ or harbor illegal immigrants.

The Pew Hispanic Center estimated that some 425,000 illegal immigrants lived in Georgia when the legislation was passed – seventh highest in the nation. Those numbers are now down, as hoped for, but the state’s economy is paying a heavy price.

The dirty secret that everybody knew was that most of the state’s agricultural workers were immigrants, many of them illegal. Some lived in the state; others migrated with the harvest from southern Florida up to New York and back. Some of the former have moved away, while many of the latter are bypassing Georgia. Without them, according to a University of Georgia study, farmers were about 40 percent short of the number of workers they needed to harvest last year’s crop.

I'm open to solutions. Georgia moved prisoners to harvest crops. Maybe we could make those unemployed Americans in Georgia and up the coast move out into the fields. Wages? Benefits provided by employers? These unemployed should be getting federal assistance with health benefits. If not, employers can buy them temp insurance.

How about Alabama's experience?
How America’s harshest immigration law failed

The lead sponsor of the bill boasted to state representatives that the law “attacks every aspect of an illegal alien’s life.” Among its key provisions: landlords were banned from renting homes to undocumented immigrants, schools had to check students’ legal status, and police were required to arrest suspected immigration violators. Even giving unauthorized immigrants a ride became a crime.

The vast scope of the law turned Alabama into an unprecedented test for the anti-immigration movement. If self-deportation didn’t work there, it’s hard to imagine where it could. Early reports suggested success: undocumented immigrants appeared to flee Alabama en masse. But two years later, HB 56 is in ruins. Its most far-reaching elements have proved unconstitutional, unworkable, or politically unsustainable. Elected officials, social workers, clergy, activists, and residents say an initial immigrant evacuation that roiled their communities ended long ago. Many who fled have returned to their old homes.

Now Alabama is back where it started, waiting for a solution from Washington that may never come.
 

Legacy

New member
Messages
7,871
Reaction score
321
What Migration Can (and Can’t) Do for a Country’s GDP (Wharton School of Business)

The biggest predictors of the financial success of an immigrant are age and educational level, according to the OECD. A highly educated immigrant who arrives at the beginning of his or her career provides more in taxes and social contributions than he or she benefits from schools, health care or pension programs. Young immigrants, who tend to have longer working lives, create a positive net fiscal contribution, according to the OECD report. Studies conducted in France, Belgium and Scandinavian countries demonstrated that migrants actually raise the GDP between 0.5% and 1.3% when they are employed at the same levels as native-born residents.

Carefully planned immigration policy also goes a long way toward stimulating economic growth, Liebig says. “With the growing focus on skilled-labor migration during the past two decades, one can be confident that recent migrants will produce more favorable results than preceding migrant waves, which often [included] low-educated migrants or humanitarian migrants [and] their families, particularly in Europe,” Liebig notes. “Also, in the past, labor-market integration was less a priority for policy than it is now.”

Another factor to consider, observers say, is that the children of immigrants have a profoundly beneficial financial impact on the countries in which they live. The OECD study found that no matter what the educational level of the parents, the children of immigrants generate a very strong financial gain — as much as $80,000 in present value terms. Shifting accumulated government debt to a larger future population could help spread the burden of debt, as well as make up for an aging workforce.

“The underlying argument is that whatever you decide on the migrant outlook, it shouldn’t be the fiscal impact that is driving public policy. In the context of the U.S. deficit, we find virtually no differences [in terms of fiscal impact] between immigrant and native-born households,” says Liebig. However, Wharton experts agree that future government immigration policies can have a direct and beneficial fiscal impact on a country’s booming entrepreneurial sector as well as its GDP.
 

kmoose

Banned
Messages
10,298
Reaction score
1,181
The point is that they are not the drain on society that they are made out to be. In fact, the average American would be worse off than if they stayed, no matter how much worse off. We would not be better off as your argument goes. If you can say I'm not willing to pay more taxes to support them and it is disproven that you do, I can say I'm not willing to take a hit for sending them back to the despicable circumstances. Now that I'm making the same economic argument you were making, it is BS, but when you make it, it is sound. Weak sauce.

Keep reading. I posted four articles not just a sentence pulled out of one of them. And all of them agree that illegal immigrants is not costing Americans, but benefitting them.

But here you go again, claiming that I am making an argument that I am not making. I have never bitched about them hurting the economy. My bitch is that they are here illegally, and people who want to keep them here act like that is of NO consequence. I'm all for hammering businesses that hire them, as well, once we secure the border and have better databases for who is here legally.
 

GoIrish41

Paterfamilius
Messages
9,929
Reaction score
2,120
But here you go again, claiming that I am making an argument that I am not making. I have never bitched about them hurting the economy. My bitch is that they are here illegally, and people who want to keep them here act like that is of NO consequence. I'm all for hammering businesses that hire them, as well, once we secure the border and have better databases for who is here legally.

If you want to stop people from coming to better place from a shitty place, make the shitty place better. And it won't hurt to legalize the drugs that create black market demand for American customers. There are 2 million people in US prisons, half of which who are there on drug charges. Drug cartels are a major contributor to people fleeing here in the first place and a factor in the gun violence in this country. Put the cartels out of business by legalizing the product at the center of it all.
 

IrishBroker

New member
Messages
1,278
Reaction score
50
If you want to stop people from coming to better place from a shitty place, make the shitty place better. And it won't hurt to legalize the drugs that create black market demand for American customers. There are 2 million people in US prisons, half of which who are there on drug charges. Drug cartels are a major contributor to people fleeing here in the first place and a factor in the gun violence in this country. Put the cartels out of business by legalizing the product at the center of it all.

Uhhh..no.

That's not our job. Are you kidding me!??? That is utter insanity.

So when someone breaks into your home, eats your food, bangs your wife, watches your TV...it's YOUR problem because you have nice stuff?



And weed is only ONE drug. And I don't think that legalizing weed is going to have the effect on the cartels that you think it will. Meth and Coke are also huge exports for the cartels. Should those be legal?

Staying OUT OF other countries should be our goal. Let them figure it out
 

kmoose

Banned
Messages
10,298
Reaction score
1,181
If you want to stop people from coming to better place from a shitty place, make the shitty place better. And it won't hurt to legalize the drugs that create black market demand for American customers. There are 2 million people in US prisons, half of which who are there on drug charges. Drug cartels are a major contributor to people fleeing here in the first place and a factor in the gun violence in this country. Put the cartels out of business by legalizing the product at the center of it all.

Why don't we just legalize all crime? Then we won't have ANY people in prisons, or black markets. And we can take all of the money that USED to be spent on silly things like prisons and say............ law enforcement, and we can build free housing and give away free Starbucks to the rest of the world.
 

GoIrish41

Paterfamilius
Messages
9,929
Reaction score
2,120
Uhhh..no.

That's not our job. Are you kidding me!??? That is utter insanity.

So when someone breaks into your home, eats your food, bangs your wife, watches your TV...it's YOUR problem because you have nice stuff?



And weed is only ONE drug. And I don't think that legalizing weed is going to have the effect on the cartels that you think it will. Meth and Coke are also huge exports for the cartels. Should those be legal?

Staying OUT OF other countries should be our goal. Let them figure it out

Yes. Everything, including prescription narcotics, should be legal. Nobody is sitting around saying to themselves. "ya know, if Meth was legal I'd try it." People who want to a abuse drugs abuse drugs. And right now, it is a boon for the cartels that make the lives of Mexicans suck. Legalize their product and they will go out of business.
 

IrishBroker

New member
Messages
1,278
Reaction score
50
Yes. Everything, including prescription narcotics, should be legal. Nobody is sitting around saying to themselves. "ya know, if Meth was legal I'd try it." People who want to a abuse drugs abuse drugs. And right now, it is a boon for the cartels that make the lives of Mexicans suck. Legalize their product and they will go out of business.

Then I'm assuming that you agree all guns and firearms should be legal.
 

IrishBroker

New member
Messages
1,278
Reaction score
50
Also, legalizing it doesn't mean that we would supply it to them.

They'd still be buying from drug dealers. Unless you think stores should carry coke and meth.
 

GoIrish41

Paterfamilius
Messages
9,929
Reaction score
2,120
Also, legalizing it doesn't mean that we would supply it to them.

They'd still be buying from drug dealers. Unless you think stores should carry coke and meth.

There a ton of prescription that have the same effects as street drugs. The heroine epidemic that is sweeping the nation would disappear if we weren't so tight assed about pain medications. People with chronic pain move on to illegal products when doctors cut them off and leave them to suffer. Think dispensaries and doctor issued medical cards (like California does with weed) where people can get their drug. He'll we've been doing this with alcohols for decades. And tax the sales and use the increased funding to pay down the national debt or provide universal healthcare. Because, the demand isn't going away.
 

GoIrish41

Paterfamilius
Messages
9,929
Reaction score
2,120
Then I'm assuming that you agree all guns and firearms should be legal.

You would be wrong. Guns are used to shoot others who don't wish to be shot. People who abuse drugs are a using themselves ... whether they are legal or not.
 

IrishBroker

New member
Messages
1,278
Reaction score
50
You would be wrong. Guns are used to shoot others who don't wish to be shot. People who abuse drugs are a using themselves ... whether they are legal or not.

And you'd be wrong to assume drug abuse doesn't have a dramatic effect on those around said person who is abusing them.

Or neighbors of those who cook them.

Or people who are victims of sexual and violent crimes committed by those addicted.


I could go on and on.
 

kmoose

Banned
Messages
10,298
Reaction score
1,181
The heroine epidemic that is sweeping the nation would disappear if we weren't so tight assed about pain medications.
How is legalizing morphine going to get rid of Xena Warrior Princess, or Buffy the Vampire Slayer?
 

GoIrish41

Paterfamilius
Messages
9,929
Reaction score
2,120
And you'd be wrong to assume drug abuse doesn't have a dramatic effect on those around said person who is abusing them.

Or neighbors of those who cook them.

Or people who are victims of sexual and violent crimes committed by those addicted.


I could go on and on.

Well if you run out of things to say, I'm sure their are websites that describe the dark side of alcohol sales and distribution that can be easily adapted to the topic at hand. But that's legal. During Probibition it was't and that created all sorts of unintended problems, including a dramatic rise in violent crime because while it became illegal, the demand never stopped. That's what is happening today with the criminalization of drugs. Remove the prohibition and the crime subsides and the same people who are abusing drugs today will continue to abuse drugs. Also who is going to cook meth if hydrocodone is readily available and legal? That's the type of black market BS that goes away if we legalize drugs. Are folks going to abuse them? Sure they will ... they are doing that now and it is illegal. People abuse alcohol all the time but someone can go buy a fifth of whiskey every day and drink it until I'm sloppy drunk. That causes family problems and sexual and violent crime too.
 
Last edited:

IrishBroker

New member
Messages
1,278
Reaction score
50
Well if you run out of things to say, I'm sure their are websites that describe the dark side of alcohol sales and distribution that can be easily adapted to the topic at hand. But that's legal. During Probibition it was't and that created all sorts of unintended problems, including a dramatic rise in violent crime because while it became illegal, the demand never stopped. That's what is happening today with the criminalization of drugs. Remove the prohibition and the crime subsides and the same people who are abusing drugs today will continue to abuse drugs. Also who is going to cook meth if hydrocodone is readily available and legal? That's the type of black market BS that goes away if we legalize drugs. Are folks going to abuse them? Sure they will ... they are doing that now and it is illegal. People abuse alcohol all the time but someone can go buy a fifth of whiskey every day and drink it until I'm sloppy drunk. That causes family problems and sexual and violent crime too.

And alcohol is still extremely dangerous. And still the cause of violent crimes, accidents, and overdoses. And that has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with prohibition.

It would still happen simply because it's a dangerous substance that is addictive and gets abused.

I'm not debating the merits of booze. And you can't justify the legalization of crack, meth, coke, and heroin "because alcohol is legal"...that's crazy. And based on way too many assumptions.

You are saying that once those hard, addictive, destructive drugs are legal, crackheads are suddenly going to behave?


I'm 100% on board with pot legalization, but I can't get behind other stuff that I mentioned above.

And every argument you made, you can make for guns...except guns are a right. Drugs are not. Big difference.
 

Whiskeyjack

Mittens Margaritas Ante Porcos
Staff member
Messages
20,894
Reaction score
8,126
I'm 100% on board with pot legalization, but I can't get behind other stuff that I mentioned above.

I think the argument is to decriminalize possession, and treat drug addiction as a health problem, while still prosecuting dealers harshly. That sort of policy shift has worked well in places like Portugal already.
 

GoIrish41

Paterfamilius
Messages
9,929
Reaction score
2,120
And alcohol is still extremely dangerous. And still the cause of violent crimes, accidents, and overdoses. And that has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with prohibition.

It would still happen simply because it's a dangerous substance that is addictive and gets abused.

I'm not debating the merits of booze. And you can't justify the legalization of crack, meth, coke, and heroin "because alcohol is legal"...that's crazy. And based on way too many assumptions.

You are saying that once those hard, addictive, destructive drugs are legal, crackheads are suddenly going to behave?



I'm 100% on board with pot legalization, but I can't get behind other stuff that I mentioned above.

And every argument you made, you can make for guns...except guns are a right. Drugs are not. Big difference.

Meth, heroin and crack are garbage drugs that became popular because they are cheap and because their prescription cousins were made less available by over the top laws that restrict their use. Make the safer, better regulated alternatives readily available and people will choose the safer legal route. And nobody is saying that crackheads are going to behave. Legal or not, people are going to abuse drugs. What I'm saying is that the same group of people who are not behaving now are going to continue to misbehave. But if you want to stop illegal immigration, legalization of drugs is the quickest, cheapest and most effective way to do it. It has the added effect of taking a huge bite out of violent crime right here at home and curbing the enormous cost of incarcerating a million people. And who knows how many jobs these new industries would create? How much new tax revenue would be generated?

Also, guns point away from the user. Drugs are taken by the user ... their choice. There is not a high demand for being shot, but there is a huge demand for drugs in this country.
 

kmoose

Banned
Messages
10,298
Reaction score
1,181
Meth, heroin and crack are garbage drugs that became popular because they are cheap and because their prescription cousins were made less available by over the top laws that restrict their use. Make the safer, better regulated alternatives readily available and people will choose the safer legal route. And nobody is saying that crackheads are going to behave. Legal or not, people are going to abuse drugs. What I'm saying is that the same group of people who are not behaving now are going to continue to misbehave. But if you want to stop illegal immigration, legalization of drugs is the quickest, cheapest and most effective way to do it. It has the added effect of taking a huge bite out of violent crime right here at home and curbing the enormous cost of incarcerating a million people. And who knows how many jobs these new industries would create? How much new tax revenue would be generated?

Also, guns point away from the user. Drugs are taken by the user ... their choice. There is not a high demand for being shot, but there is a huge demand for drugs in this country.

Bullshit. They became popular because they are HIGHLY ADDICTIVE and cheap. People didn't get hooked on prescription painkillers and then move on to meth. People got hooked on meth and then moved on to prescription painkillers because prescription drugs are subsidized by insurance companies and government programs. That, and prescription drugs are easier to steal from prescription holders.
 

Legacy

New member
Messages
7,871
Reaction score
321
In additon to the links on the costs of strict immigration laws in Georgia, Alabama etc and the hundreds of millions of dollars those cost residents, here's another link on a raid in Postville, Iowa in 2008, and its immediate impact with some residents subsequent opinions.

Postville, Iowa, Is Up for Grabs

Around 10 on a clear May morning in 2008, two black helicopters circled over Postville, Iowa, a town of two square miles and fewer than 3,000 residents. Then a line of S.U.V.’s drove past Postville’s main street and its worn brick storefronts. More than 10 white buses with darkened windows and the words “Homeland Security” on their sides were on their way to the other side of town. Postville’s four-man police force had no forewarning of what was about to happen. Neither did the mayor.
 

tommyIRISH23

Well-known member
Messages
1,629
Reaction score
156
Meth, heroin and crack are garbage drugs that became popular because they are cheap and because their prescription cousins were made less available by over the top laws that restrict their use. Make the safer, better regulated alternatives readily available and people will choose the safer legal route. And nobody is saying that crackheads are going to behave. Legal or not, people are going to abuse drugs. What I'm saying is that the same group of people who are not behaving now are going to continue to misbehave. But if you want to stop illegal immigration, legalization of drugs is the quickest, cheapest and most effective way to do it. It has the added effect of taking a huge bite out of violent crime right here at home and curbing the enormous cost of incarcerating a million people. And who knows how many jobs these new industries would create? How much new tax revenue would be generated?

Also, guns point away from the user. Drugs are taken by the user ... their choice. There is not a high demand for being shot, but there is a huge demand for drugs in this country.

What are the "prescription cousins" to crack and meth? There is absolutely no prescription drug comparable to crack and meth. Crack and meth were abused well before drugs like aderol were created and, well pretty much abused because the high is amazing. Heroin was abused well before prescription pills came to be and abused. This wave of heroin addiction is largely because of prescription pills but that wasn't the case a few decades ago. What about mdma, what's the prescription cousin to that?

And you're wrong. Drug addicts won't choose the "safer" choice. They will choose the most potent high that comes closet to satisfying their fix. That's why they sell their method one, suboxone...etc. another point, look at it like this. Drug dealers mix fentynal inter their bundles (10-15 bags) depending where you live. Maybe 1 or 2 bags every 3 bundles is loaded with fentynal. The dealers know that someone or a few people will OD. Why would they do that you ask? Because their heroin will quickly get a reputation as being the strongest around and the drug addicts will literally run (I've seen them running down the street) to buy from said dealer. They know full and well how dangerous is it and will drive for miles to buy from the dealer who is selling dope that is killing people. It happens all day and everyday.

The black market will never end. Legalize heroin? Sure. I can garuntee that a stronger and more potent black market variation or total different drug will emerge: the drug addict will ALWAYS go for the most intense and potent high over "safety" any day.

It's not your fault you don't know this stuff. Most people don't, I've told this to professors and they won't listen. I wouldn't have believed it either. Then I became a narc and saw how ugly this really is. Treat the addicts. But there is no way you can legalize the distribution of heroin. (Crack Coke and meth as well). The addiction is nowhere near comparable to alcohol.
 

Rizzophil

Well-known member
Messages
2,431
Reaction score
579
Taking page from Trump? UK building 'big new wall' to stop illegal immigrants | Fox News

new wall' to stop illegal immigrants
Adam Shaw

By Adam Shaw Published September 07, 2016 FoxNews.com
Facebook Twitter livefyre Email Print
Sept. 6, 2016: Migrants walk in the northern area of the camp called the "Jungle" in Calais, France.

Sept. 6, 2016: Migrants walk in the northern area of the camp called the "Jungle" in Calais, France. (Reuters)

In what could be a "told you so" moment for Donald Trump, the U.K. on Tuesday announced plans to build a "big new wall" at a border port in France to prevent migrants in nearby camps from sneaking aboard vehicles heading to Britain.

Robert Goodwill, minister of state for immigration, announced the plan for a wall in Calais, France, at a Home Affairs Committee hearing Tuesday, saying it would be in addition to an already existing fence.

“We’re going to start building this big new wall very soon,” Goodwill said. “We’ve done the fence, now we’re doing a wall.”

The proposal is far smaller in scope than the kind of U.S.-Mexico wall Trump is demanding.

A Home Office spokeswoman told FoxNews.com the four-meter-high wall (about 13 feet) would be built along both sides of a one-kilometer (.6 mile) stretch of the main road into the Calais port. The office estimates it will be done by the end of the year.

Calais is a common point for migrants trying to enter the U.K. illegally. It is the narrowest point of the English Channel and has the most ferry crossings to England as well as being an access point to the Eurotunnel – the rail system that goes underneath the channel. The wall is intended to protect the road from migrants who frequently try to intercept vehicles approaching the port and jump on board.

Though the wall is significantly smaller than what Trump has proposed – and would protect a road rather than an entire border -- it weaves into Trump’s narrative that walls work and are a vital part of a comprehensive immigration policy.

Proponents of Trump’s plan have noted the success of other countries in building a border wall. The most commonly cited example is Israel, which built a wall along the West Bank that it says has been effective in reducing the threat of terrorism. Trump has cited Israel’s wall as justification for his own plan.

"You ask Israel whether or not a wall works," Trump told a New Hampshire crowd last year.

The migrant crisis in Calais has been a frequent issue of tension between the U.K. and France, with many in the U.K. concerned the French do not do enough to keep migrants from passing through.

In 2003, France, Belgium and the U.K. established “juxtaposed controls” – an arrangement by which British officials conduct immigration checks before passengers board the train or ferry from Calais, to prevent illegal immigrants from being able to lodge an asylum application on arrival in the U.K. Some French politicians have called for the arrangement to be undone.

The British government, meanwhile, has been pushing for stronger controls in Calais. A Home Office Committee report said the U.K. and France had invested in “additional fencing and floodlighting, CCTV, and infra-red detection technology.”

However, the report said the situation remained a “threat to UK security,” and noted the most common nationalities of migrants at Calais are Syrian, Eritrean, Sudanese, Iranian and Iraqi. It also found that between 5,000 and 7,000 migrants live in camps surrounding the area.

Bob Dane, executive director of the Federation for American Immigration Reform -- which advocates for stricter immigration controls -- welcomed the U.K. move but warned that more needs to be done.

“Border fences are not only visible, physical symbols that proclaim a country’s sovereignty and right to maintain a rule of law, but they also slow the flow of unauthorized entry. That said, Britain, just like the United States, must understand that unless the incentives for illegal entry are eliminated, border barriers will be breached,” Dane told FoxNews.com

Dane said Trump's immigration plan could offer guidance for Europe. “In his speech the other night, Trump moved beyond just building the fence and addressed the broader push-and-pull factors. Britain, and really all of Europe, will need to similarly take this holistic approach if it ever intends to mitigate the impact of mass migration,” he said.

The wall comes as new Conservative Prime Minister Theresa May sets her sights on cracking down on immigration in light of the British vote to leave the European Union in June. Goodwill told the committee the government wants to reduce immigration to “tens of thousands” of people “as soon as we possibly can.”
 

calvegas04

Well-known member
Messages
11,874
Reaction score
8,443
Taking page from Trump? UK building 'big new wall' to stop illegal immigrants | Fox News

new wall' to stop illegal immigrants
Adam Shaw

By Adam Shaw Published September 07, 2016 FoxNews.com
Facebook Twitter livefyre Email Print
Sept. 6, 2016: Migrants walk in the northern area of the camp called the "Jungle" in Calais, France.

Sept. 6, 2016: Migrants walk in the northern area of the camp called the "Jungle" in Calais, France. (Reuters)

In what could be a "told you so" moment for Donald Trump, the U.K. on Tuesday announced plans to build a "big new wall" at a border port in France to prevent migrants in nearby camps from sneaking aboard vehicles heading to Britain.

Robert Goodwill, minister of state for immigration, announced the plan for a wall in Calais, France, at a Home Affairs Committee hearing Tuesday, saying it would be in addition to an already existing fence.

“We’re going to start building this big new wall very soon,” Goodwill said. “We’ve done the fence, now we’re doing a wall.”

The proposal is far smaller in scope than the kind of U.S.-Mexico wall Trump is demanding.

A Home Office spokeswoman told FoxNews.com the four-meter-high wall (about 13 feet) would be built along both sides of a one-kilometer (.6 mile) stretch of the main road into the Calais port. The office estimates it will be done by the end of the year.

Calais is a common point for migrants trying to enter the U.K. illegally. It is the narrowest point of the English Channel and has the most ferry crossings to England as well as being an access point to the Eurotunnel – the rail system that goes underneath the channel. The wall is intended to protect the road from migrants who frequently try to intercept vehicles approaching the port and jump on board.

Though the wall is significantly smaller than what Trump has proposed – and would protect a road rather than an entire border -- it weaves into Trump’s narrative that walls work and are a vital part of a comprehensive immigration policy.

Proponents of Trump’s plan have noted the success of other countries in building a border wall. The most commonly cited example is Israel, which built a wall along the West Bank that it says has been effective in reducing the threat of terrorism. Trump has cited Israel’s wall as justification for his own plan.

"You ask Israel whether or not a wall works," Trump told a New Hampshire crowd last year.

The migrant crisis in Calais has been a frequent issue of tension between the U.K. and France, with many in the U.K. concerned the French do not do enough to keep migrants from passing through.

In 2003, France, Belgium and the U.K. established “juxtaposed controls” – an arrangement by which British officials conduct immigration checks before passengers board the train or ferry from Calais, to prevent illegal immigrants from being able to lodge an asylum application on arrival in the U.K. Some French politicians have called for the arrangement to be undone.

The British government, meanwhile, has been pushing for stronger controls in Calais. A Home Office Committee report said the U.K. and France had invested in “additional fencing and floodlighting, CCTV, and infra-red detection technology.”

However, the report said the situation remained a “threat to UK security,” and noted the most common nationalities of migrants at Calais are Syrian, Eritrean, Sudanese, Iranian and Iraqi. It also found that between 5,000 and 7,000 migrants live in camps surrounding the area.

Bob Dane, executive director of the Federation for American Immigration Reform -- which advocates for stricter immigration controls -- welcomed the U.K. move but warned that more needs to be done.

“Border fences are not only visible, physical symbols that proclaim a country’s sovereignty and right to maintain a rule of law, but they also slow the flow of unauthorized entry. That said, Britain, just like the United States, must understand that unless the incentives for illegal entry are eliminated, border barriers will be breached,” Dane told FoxNews.com

Dane said Trump's immigration plan could offer guidance for Europe. “In his speech the other night, Trump moved beyond just building the fence and addressed the broader push-and-pull factors. Britain, and really all of Europe, will need to similarly take this holistic approach if it ever intends to mitigate the impact of mass migration,” he said.

The wall comes as new Conservative Prime Minister Theresa May sets her sights on cracking down on immigration in light of the British vote to leave the European Union in June. Goodwill told the committee the government wants to reduce immigration to “tens of thousands” of people “as soon as we possibly can.”

They gotta do it, its getting real crazy over there
 

phgreek

New member
Messages
6,956
Reaction score
433

I was PISSED huh? I wish I had a cool meme. Prolly mad cause I knew I couldn't spend all day kicking your ass on this...hehehe...I kid.

Here ya go, my stream of concious thoughts on the matter...

Yes I've read all of that shit.....most before I shot bolts out of my neck.

There are currently`8 million working illegals. They are arranged in ~3M households caring for 4.5M kids under 18. They average 35K/year in income/household. Multiple sources claim Illegal households pay 10K into various and assundry "taxes" etc . Leaves 25 K to live on. For a single adult to simply maintain themselves, the average minimum cost of living is ~28 K. For two parents and a child it is ~56K. For single parent one kid families lets shoot for the middle ~ 42K, since an estimate wasn't published that I recall...Not hard to see the going in position is net negative. Especially since approx. half the households have at least one kid and a single adult (47%), thus requiring significant aid.
So using these numbers
~1.25M illegal Households were short 56K-25K = 26K to meet average cost of living. They didn't get that much.
~1.25M illegal Households were short 40K-25K = 15K to meet average cost of living. They didn't get that much.
The point I'm making is, we have people who out of the gate are not ok financially, and lack education to get "ok"....the money they make is probably great money wherever they came from...HINT.

SO based on things I've read, consensus says those households got assistance largely due to their children, who are indeed mostly citizens but whose welfare cost is directly caused by one or more of their parents being here illegally. Estimates range that welfare type payments total 10B in 2004 dollars, which is likely more like 17B in 2016 dollars after credit is given for taxes paid.

Speaking of taxes... much of the tax revenues are not federal or payroll taxes, just cash paid through sales taxes, property taxes and city and state fees. The only way they can pay federal taxes is to STEAL, or FAKE an SSN or get an ITIN, only about 700K out of the 1.6M Illegal filers used ITIN...Hmmm, how'd the rest submit....we'll hit that later.

Next, many arguments presume you can't get the supposed economic benefit of illegals' labor without them staying here...many are concentrated in jobs that have a seasonal component...for instance many (not all) grounds keeping gigs are seasonal, most Fishing, farming, forestry, construction gigs are seasonal. A conservative estimate would be 20-30 could be living elsewhere and coming here to work seasonally. You could avoid some significant cost, and get the "benefits" in a pretty good chunk of these.


Other Numbers:
Consider the ~100K illegals incarcerated that have an annual cost of 3B. Thats not considering costs related to initial prosecution and defense, courts, special services for interpreters etc. If we assume these are mostly drug related cases, it was estimated at 70K per case in 1991, which in today's value is 120K per case. So Illegals currently incarcerated have cost us 12B 2016 dollars on the way in the door so to speak, and as we turn them over or add to the numbers held, there is ongoing cost there. I'll ignore it here, but it is there, and it is significant.

There is ~20B in Social security identity fraud perpetrated on the IRS alone...who holds most of the fraudulent SSNs, and are in fact ENCOURAGED by the IRS to make and Steal SSNs? Even if you simply cap illegals participation in this activity at their % of the workforce...ie they are no more or less likely to engage in fraud (beyond making a SSN) than any other workers, they get 5% of the fraud number.)...there is another 1B. I'd add on the costs of investigation and prosecution, but The IRS doesn't really do much...neither does Ice. Although because this issue indeed exists, we have a special government agency within ICE for this very problem...50M.

Further, the cost to private citizens is hard to calculate but it is there. Based upon the policies of the IRS and LAWS which restrict telling you when your SSN is being used to deliver money to the IRS from someone other than you. Yup, your SSN is compromised, but uncle sugar is getting paid, so screw you selfish natavist. You'd have to admit, this is a pretty good indication your SSN is compromised, and folks can't tell you, and so you can't do anything until someone uses it to access your credit...so if you aren't paying a credit monitoring service with an insurance component, thats all on you. Whats that cost? Well Credit monitoring is a 5 Billion dollar industry...how much you want to attribute to Illegals? How much of the private losses (50B) experienced by people do you want to attribute to illegals. If we just use their population 3%, thats 150M and 1.5B respectively.

What about actual medicare, medicaid, and SS payment fraud...not just tax returns...But instances where our government does not have the resources to run down benefit payment fraud? Well Improper payments in 2015 totaled 137B. Again, what percentage do you want to hang on illegals...they are no more or less likely to commit fraud or simply allow payments to come to them not owed. I think its fair to use 3%...so, there is another 4B....I already got a part of this in IRS discussion, so 4-1 =3. So 3B more.

12B in prosecution costs (one time)

Welfare Cost (17B)
Prison Cost (3B)
Special ICE division for SSN fraud (50M)
Cost of ID fraud insurance (150M)
Cost of Private loss due to ID theft (1.5B)
Cost of IRS Fraud and other Improper payments (4B)

So far thats about 25.7B.

Education...
The 8 Million Illegals currently working make ~36K per household, in ~3M families...and that pay rarely increases due to their low education level. There are ~4.5M kids < 18 y/o have at least one undocumented parent . So, Illegals make up 3% of the population BUT their kids make up 6% of the K-12 population. Lets say each family does indeed contribute 10K taxes etc....thats break even for the education costs of one kid. However you slice it, that leaves 1.5M heads, and 10K/head to educate. So, in reality we are ~15B light in education funds.

This kid discussion should cause re-iteration of an important point...Yea anchor babies are citizens in the benefits sense, but they are a direct result, in a cost sense, of Illegal immigration, and benefits paid them, and the services they consume go on the ledger as a cost of illegal immigration in this discussion.

Estimates regarding unpaid services in the medical community jump around, we know it is likely a function of what percentage of the poor population illegals comprise. Estimate 2B.

We are at ~42.7B in costs, most of which are taxpayer costs. I'm sure there are things I didn't think of...just pitching off of memory mostly.

And BTW, I didn't even attribute any cost associated with displacement of American workers, whom, for every one who would take a job currently performed by an illegal...if said illegal went home, we'd save because we'd only have to prop one of them up. I think matching folks to jobs is a worthwhile endeavor where investment would show some benefit to the tax payer. I want the guy I have to pay for to be working.

Now I'm to believe that 40B in costs is just fine because the money these folks spend in the marketplace is worth the taxpayer "investment". Really...because it sounds alot like subsidies for business, like farms...don't I already subsidize farms directly...now through keeping them in cheap labor? Seems like this is kinda like ... you tax payers (ya know people who pay more than they take) keep the cheap labor afloat here, while the cheap laborers spend what little they have in the market place...sound about right?

Its some part QEx fueled stock market investment and some part farm subsidy. If chambers of commerce or companies who employ and depend on illegals want to cover the cost of their presence...I'm good with it...otherwise...not so good with it.

As I've said before, you can't punt 11 Million people. Most have kids...since the kids can stay, who'd pay for them if mom and dad got ejected. But we can stop illegal immigration from continuing. Yes it has slowed, but lets get it under control, be able to quantify it better before the next economic boom. And this concept of some greater economic benefit... Meh. Too much unknown and unseen... I'm against more of the same. I'm for knowing absolutely who and how many illegals are here. I'm for selecting folks for immigration whom we want as citizens... who bring skills we need...can be menial labor, should be short term if we need to ramp.
 

phgreek

New member
Messages
6,956
Reaction score
433

I think migrant workers are fine, so long as they go home. Seems to me there is an issue of incentive for someone to be here lining up requirements, recruiting, and setting up worker credentials, and then bringing in seasonal workers as needed. Then ensuring they get home, thus insulating farmers from any legalities. If I were a younger man I'd go figure that out...
 

Legacy

New member
Messages
7,871
Reaction score
321
Having posted articles on
- Georgia's $140 million losses from their strict immigration laws and now needing to put prisoners in the fields to harvest (Forbes)

- Alabama's local businesses went into a tailspin after their immigration law change and were a "disaster" that left lawmakers scrambling to amend them. The law was opposed by Alabama's police chiefs who ended up jailing people and local businesses suffered. State courts gutted much of it, costing state taxpapers the legal bills. The CEO of Mercedes Benz was jailed because he could not produce the proper ID.

- nationally, the American Bureau Federation estimates last year's produce losses were $9 billion due to immigration law changes (Time)

- Postville, Iowa's federal immigration raid resulted in losses in a processing plant and left the town's native population and their primary employer suffering economically- "At its peak, Agriprocessors employed nearly 1,000 workers in a town with a population of about 2,200."

- California farmers, who produce 50% of our fruits and vegetables, have 70% of their workers are undocumented and necessary to their livelihood since "Americans won't take these jobs" and are not skilled enough. (LA Times)
"Bottom line, if I have to verify everyone, I'm not going to be able to harvest my crop."
and
Some farmers, like Teixeira, pay by the hour — $9 in his case, $1 over the state minimum wage. "We also provide health insurance and a 401(k)," he says. And unlike San Joaquin Valley farmers, Teixeira offers a great climate along the ocean. But he still can't find enough hands for his 800 acres.
"Not just any bozo off the street can come in and harvest produce," he says, noting there's a special skill to, for example, cutting lettuce just right.
"Americans won't take these jobs," asserts Dave Puglia, senior vice president of the Western Growers Assn. "Not even the farmworkers raise their own children to take these jobs. It's hard work. And it's not unskilled labor."
California growers need a more reliable source of labor — one they believe would come from immigration reform. Workers would be here legally, able to move freely from farm to farm and able to cross back and forth across the border without worrying about being jumped by some federal agent.

- A long-time border patrol agent who gave his opinions about securing the border and whether walls would keep criminals out.


I'd like to offer another article on Arizona's severe immigration laws' impacts which cover both sides of the issue in terms of costs of illegals and to residents

The Thorny Economics of Illegal Immigration
Arizona’s economy took a hit when many illegal immigrants left, but benefits also materialized
(Wall Street Journal)
Moody's Analytics looked at Arizona’s economic output for The Wall Street Journal, with an eye toward distinguishing between the effects of the mass departures of illegal immigrants and the recession that hit the state hard beginning in 2008. It concluded that the departures alone had reduced Arizona’s gross domestic product by an average of 2% a year between 2008 and 2015. Because of the departures, total employment in the state was 2.5% lower, on average, than it otherwise would have been between 2008 and 2015, according to Moody’s.

Economic activity produced by immigrants—what economists call the “immigration surplus”—shrank because there were fewer immigrants around to buy clothing and groceries, to work and to start businesses.
These days, construction, landscaping and agriculture industries, long dependent on migrants, complain of worker shortages. While competition for some jobs eased, there were fewer job openings overall for U.S.-born workers or legal immigrants.
According to the Moody’s analysis, low-skilled U.S. natives and legal Hispanic immigrants since 2008 picked up less than 10% of the jobs once held by undocumented immigrants. In a separate analysis, economists Sarah Bohn and Magnus Lofstrom of the Public Policy Institute of California and Steven Raphael of the University of California at Berkeley conclude that employment declined for low-skilled white native workers in Arizona during 2008 and 2009, the height of the out-migration. One bright spot: the median income of low-skilled whites who did manage to get jobs rose about 6% during that period, the economists estimate.

“It was like, ‘Where did everybody go?’ ” says Teresa Acuna, a Phoenix real-estate agent who works in Latino neighborhoods. Real-estate agent Patti Gorski says her sales records show that prices of homes owned by Spanish-speaking customers fell by 63% between 2007 and 2010, compared with a 44% drop for English-speaking customers, a difference she attributes partly to financial pressure on owners who had been renting homes to immigrants who departed.

SB 1070 prompted some unions and other organizations to boycott the state, in some cases canceling conventions. In Latino neighborhoods, sales declined at grocery stores and other businesses catering to migrants. At the Maryvale Market, in an immigrant community of ranch homes, Ashok Patel says his business is down by half since 2008.

On the other side of the economic ledger, government spending on immigrants fell. State and local officials don’t track total spending on undocumented migrants or how many of their children attend public schools. But the number of students enrolled in intensive English courses in Arizona public schools fell from 150,000 in 2008 to 70,000 in 2012 and has remained constant since. Schooling 80,000 fewer students would save the state roughly $350 million a year, by one measure.

During that same period, annual emergency-room spending on noncitizens fell 37% to $106 million, from $167 million. And between 2010 and 2014, the annual cost to state prisons of incarcerating noncitizens convicted of felonies fell 11% to $180 million, from $202 million.

“The economic factor is huge in terms of what it saves Arizona taxpayers,” primarily on reduced education costs, says Russell Pearce, who as a state senator sponsored SB 1070.

On the positive side, wages have gone up for workers in Arizona and California with health and 401ks for some illegals due to the shortage of illegals. On the negative side in all these states, Americans are not taking these jobs and these industries are suffering. "Immigration surplus" - the economic impact on local businesses, is an issue that must be addressed with a decreased tax base due American employers output, etc. All employers are asking the federal government for a comprehensive immigration law that addresses these issues and those raised by many of you.

Are we going to import our fruits and vegetables from Mexico, who have minimal restrictions on pesticides? Should we fine the construction, landscaping and agribusinesses for employing them illegally? Have the governmental costs - education, medical and prisons - that have saved Arizonans' money just shifted to other states? Do we deny hospitalization for a heart attack, massive bleeding, inability to breathe patients to those who cannot produce proper identification? Should our police be filling local jails with anyone who cannot produce proper identifications? Is it wrong for industries to raise their wages for illegals more than minimum wage and provide them benefits? Will unemployed Americans whose employment rate is 4.9% move for these seasonal jobs? We also don't want the prices of the products in these industries to increase due to increased labor costs.
 
Last edited:

phgreek

New member
Messages
6,956
Reaction score
433
Having posted articles on
- Georgia's $140 million losses from their strict immigration laws and now needing to put prisoners in the fields to harvest (Forbes)

- Alabama's local businesses went into a tailspin after their immigration law change and were a "disaster" that left lawmakers scrambling to amend them. The law was opposed by Alabama's police chiefs who ended up jailing people and local businesses suffered. State courts gutted much of it, costing state taxpapers the legal bills. The CEO of Mercedes Benz was jailed because he could not produce the proper ID.

- nationally, the American Bureau Federation estimates last year's produce losses were $9 billion due to immigration law changes (Time)

- Postville, Iowa's federal immigration raid resulted in losses in a processing plant and left the town's native population and their primary employer suffering economically- "At its peak, Agriprocessors employed nearly 1,000 workers in a town with a population of about 2,200."

- California farmers, who produce 50% of our fruits and vegetables, have 70% of their workers are undocumented and necessary to their livelihood since "Americans won't take these jobs" and are not skilled enough. (LA Times)
and


- A long-time border patrol agent who gave his opinions about securing the border and whether walls would keep criminals out.


I'd like to offer another article on Arizona's severe immigration laws' impacts which cover both sides of the issue in terms of costs of illegals and to residents

The Thorny Economics of Illegal Immigration
Arizona’s economy took a hit when many illegal immigrants left, but benefits also materialized
(Wall Street Journal)






On the positive side, wages have gone up for workers in Arizona and California with health and 401ks for some illegals due to the shortage of illegals. On the negative side in all these states, Americans are not taking these jobs and these industries are suffering. "Immigration surplus" - the economic impact on local businesses, is an issue that must be addressed with a decreased tax base due American employers output, etc. All employers are asking the federal government for a comprehensive immigration law that addresses these issues and those raised by many of you.

Are we going to import our fruits and vegetables from Mexico, who have minimal restrictions on pesticides? Should we fine the construction, landscaping and agribusinesses for employing them illegally? Have the governmental costs - education, medical and prisons - that have saved Arizonans' money just shifted to other states? Do we deny hospitalization for a heart attack, massive bleeding, inability to breathe patients to those who cannot produce proper identification? Should our police be filling local jails with anyone who cannot produce proper identifications? Is it wrong for industries to raise their wages for illegals more than minimum wage and provide them benefits? Will unemployed Americans whose employment rate is 4.9% move for these seasonal jobs? We also don't want the prices of the products in these industries to increase due to increased labor costs.

I understand what you are saying. I think we need robust guest worker systems. I think there really should be no reason farmers don't have the help they need...I do understand why that is an issue now.

However, farmers and builders and the like can't be excused from some regulations regarding their employees, products, and work place...just like everyone else. We need to strive for competent technological solutions to streamline security and identification processes. That takes competent leadership at home and cooperation with nations from whom we get the workers.

I don't think anyone is against guest workers...
 

Legacy

New member
Messages
7,871
Reaction score
321
I understand what you are saying. I think we need robust guest worker systems. I think there really should be no reason farmers don't have the help they need...I do understand why that is an issue now.

However, farmers and builders and the like can't be excused from some regulations regarding their employees, products, and work place...just like everyone else. We need to strive for competent technological solutions to streamline security and identification processes. That takes competent leadership at home and cooperation with nations from whom we get the workers.

I don't think anyone is against guest workers...

I understand what you are saying too. We need to secure our borders as much as possible, reduce our costs while encouraging immigrants productive to our economy, provide disincentives to illegals not on permits, monitor those entering to assist our economy, improve our arrest and detention of criminals crossing illegally, and limit benefits. A thorny issue is "anchor babies". My person opinion is, if under a certain age or if mom crosses to give birth, they should go back. After another age where they can be independent, they can stay while parents who crossed illegally have to leave. Many national legislators have a family history of immigration, sometimes illegally. Many illegal immigrant family's sons and daughters enter the military. Many more thorny issues.

Thank you for your valuable contributions.

Some links (through ND sites):
U. of ND, General Counsel - Government Immigration Links

Notre Dame International - Immigration Information "intended for Notre Dame international students in F-1 and J-1 immigration status and their dependents. International scholars (post-doctoral researchers, visiting researchers and visiting faculty) should visit the J-1Scholars page for immigration resources and information."

ND Law School - National Immigrant Justice Center Externship
 
Top