Re: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] [MLUG][Politics]The great immigration wash-out

[Mike Miller <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

On Tue, 2 May 2006, Rick wrote:

> And you can rest assured that I *do* sometimes post just to annoy you, 
> but it's usually because I feel that you're way out in left field.

Right.  It's just insane, wildly insane, out in left field to suggest that 
it costs more than it is worth to round up 12 million illegal immigrants 
and deport them.  What a fool I was.  Also, I had this crazy idea that 
Americans want to hire illegal immigrants.  What the heck was I smoking?! 
Obviously, no one wants to hire them.  None of them are working.  I stand 
corrected.  Thank you for annoying me.


> Where are your hard numbers to support this? A quick google yields:
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/25/AR2005072501605_pf.html

  ...the first-ever estimate of costs associated with arresting,
  detaining, prosecuting and removing immigrants who have entered the
  United States illegally or overstayed their visas. The total cost would
  be $206 billion to $230 billion over five years, depending on how many
  of the immigrants leave voluntarily, according to the study.

Is that all?  Only $200 billion over five years?  What a bargain!  Just 
think of how happy you'll be when they are gone.  I guess I was wrong: 
$200 billion is chump change when you have a big spender like GWB in 
office.


> Ok, so let's assume $41B per year to deport. Simply taking into account 
> the estimated $8-10B per year that California claims to pay, added to 
> the additional cost for the rest of the states (where supposedly %70 of 
> them live), comes to roughly $34-43B per year to keep them here. If you 
> then make any number of reasonable upgrades to border security, the 
> influx should be decreased, lowering the deportation costs over time 
> until we have a net gain.

And this doesn't take into account the reason that these people are here: 
To do crappy work for low wages.  What will be the effect of not having 
their labor?  I think it's pretty simple politically:  Bush, or whoever 
has the authority, will allow large numbers to come in "legally" to do 
this work.  We'll have to pay a little more for them, but they'll probably 
be better workers, on average.  They'll pay taxes at the same low rate and 
they'll cost us just as much in education and medical expenses as the 
people they are replacing.  Net gain:  gone!


> > Of course it makes sense.  What don't you understand about it?  Maybe 
> > you want them to leave, but they are making your taco or mopping your 
> > floor or whatever.
>
> No, it's circular. You say we don't want them to leave and I say we do. 
> I will gladly pay another $0.50 for a taco if it means that the person 
> making it is a US citizen paying taxes on their wages...just like the 
> rest of us.

But the employers want it just the way it is.  If they didn't want it like 
this, they wouldn't hire these people.


> > This is an important question and I don't know the answer.  Does anyone 
> > have data on the cost to the government of having undocumented people 
> > living here?  We have to at least subtract off the benefit to the 
> > government in terms of the taxes these people pay.
>
> $10B: http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalrelease.html
> Among the largest federal costs: Medicaid ($2.5 billion); treatment for the 
> uninsured ($2.2 billion); food assistance programs ($1.9 billion); the 
> federal prison and court systems ($1.6 billion); and federal aid to schools 
> ($1.4 billion).
>
> $7.7-9B in CA: 
> http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2004/12/06/news/top_stories/19_56_5812_5_04.txt
> Martin's study looks specifically at the costs of educating illegal 
> immigrants' children, providing medical care to illegal immigrants and 
> jailing those convicted of committing crimes. The report estimates the total 
> cost at $10.5 billion each year, but that is offset by about $1.7 billion in 
> taxes that illegal immigrants pay.

I'm not sure how this agrees with earlier statements, but it seems that 
the costs are not high enough to warrant sending them home (on economic 
grounds alone).

Thank you for looking up some numbers.  That was informative.


> > > > I know it seems simpler than it is:  "Illegal" means "illegal" after 
> > > > all. But we have many years of policy that encourages people to do 
> > > > what they have been doing.  The occasional amnesty proclamation tells 
> > > > them "hang in there."  Isn't it ironic that the same people who talk 
> > > > about rounding them up and shipping them out are also considering 
> > > > giving them amnesty?  What are these poor immigrants supposed to 
> > > > think?  What is the message they are hearing?
> > >
> > > Get the hell out?
> >
> > OK, but also "stay a while and you might get amnesty."  Right?  That 
> > was my point.  Your inability to understand my is really surprising. 
> > I think this means that I will have to stop replying to you pretty soon 
> > because you might be one of those people who just likes to annoy.
>
> Your blatant refusal to entertain any viewpoint but your own is every 
> bit as surprising. You ask what message the "poor *[illegal]* 
> immigrants" are supposed to be getting to which I answer, Get the hell 
> out. How is that confusing?

I'm not refusing - I'm reading all of your messages, even the bad ones and 
replying to them over and over again.  What more do you want?

Regarding the stuff above.  This is the last time I explain it -- We are 
sending two messages:

(1) get the hell out (this comes from people like you)
and
(2) stick around and you might get amnesty.

The message you want them to hear is "get the hell out."  But they are 
hearing both messages.  We are sending a third message: "We will pay you 
good money to work here."

I'm done repeating the obvious and re-explaining things that are already 
clear.

Mike

_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion