by Jack
This is a problem that is not going away anytime soon, so we ought to get the facts straight. Step One: Establish a bi-partisan committee to determine exactly what the cost’s are associated with illegal immigration!!!! The truth is, nobody really knows, not the left or the right, we only know that there are costs associated with illegal immigration and depending on your politics, it is estimated to be from moderate to severe. That’s not an acceptable answer. Taxpayers need to know within a reasonable margin of error, if we are ever to mount an effective campaign to reform illegal immigration and stop the practice of sanctuary cities and states. Well, make that state (singular) as CA is only state stupid enough to be a magnet for illegals.
The problem hasn’t changed much over the years, the democrats love illegals because they represent a kept class of people, dependent on them. And quite a few in businesses and this of course includes farms, like the cheap labor. Neither reason can justify pushing the costs of illegals onto the backs of the taxpayers.
I tried to find the costs of illegal immigration in some government study and this is what I found: “Estimates vary widely, and no consensus exists. The Urban Institute put the net national cost at $1.9 billion in 1992; a Rice University professor, whose work the Urban Institute criticized, said it was $19.3 billion in 1993. More recently, a 2007 report by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office examined 29 reports on state and local costs published over 15 years in an attempt to answer this question. CBO concluded that most of the estimates determined that illegal immigrants impose a net cost to state and local governments but “that impact is most likely modest.” CBO said “no agreement exists as to the size of, or even the best way of measuring, that cost on a national level.”
Next: Californians bear an enormous fiscal burden as a result of an illegal alien population estimated at almost 3 million residents. The annual expenditure of state and local tax dollars on services for that population is $25.3 billion. That total amounts to a yearly burden of about $2,370 for a household headed by a U.S. citizen.
FAIR’s report says $113 billion represents the total cost at the federal, state and local levels for undocumented immigrants. The vast majority — $84 billion — is paid by state and local governments.
The $113 billion is not a net cost. Taking into consideration federal, state and local tax payments made by the undocumented population, the net cost would be about $99 billion, according to the FAIR report.
The report details federal expenses for education, medical treatment, law enforcement, public assistance and general expenditures covering people here illegally.
Californians bear an enormous fiscal burden as a result of an illegal alien population estimated at almost 3 million residents. The annual expenditure of state and local tax dollars on services for that population is $25.3 billion. That total amounts to a yearly burden of about $2,370 for a household headed by a U.S. citizen.
Nearly half of those expenditures ($12.3 billion) result from the costs of K-12 education for the children of illegal aliens — both those illegally in the country and those born in the United States. Another major outlay ($2.1 billion) results from the need to provide supplemental English language instruction to Limited English Proficient students, many of whom are children of illegal aliens. Together, these educational costs are 57.1 percent of total expenditures.
Other fiscal outlays result from the costs of medical care ($4.0 billion), public assistance services ($800 million), administration of justice functions ($4.4 billion), and general governmental services ($1.6 billion).
Because some tax revenue is collected from the illegal alien population, we include an estimate of this revenue from sales, income, property and “sin” taxes. Yet, it should be kept in mind that the $3.5 billion in tax collections is not truly an offset to the fiscal costs, because similar, and likely greater, tax revenue would be collected if the same jobs were filled by legal workers.
California is paying the most: (2014 report) The adoption of new amnesty legislation, such as Senate bill S.774, the so-called Gang of Eight bill, backed by the Obama administration, would not be an economic benefit to Californian taxpayers as some have argued. Amnesty advocates assert that providing legal status to illegal aliens would reduce the cost of “undocumented immigrants.” That is akin to arguing that the way to reduce speeding on the highways is to abolish speed limits. Doing so would eliminate speeding, but it would not eliminate the danger of operating vehicles at excessive speed, and, arguably, would have the opposite effect. Similarly, converting illegal aliens into legal residents would reduce the size of the illegal alien population, but it would not reduce the overall fiscal outlays associated with that population, and arguably would significantly increase them as the newly legalized residents became eligible for public assistance that was denied to them while they did not have legal status. It would also lead to additional illegal immigration as happened following the 1986 amnesty, which would further increase the fiscal burden.
“The problem hasn’t changed much over the years, the democrats love illegals because they represent a kept class of people, dependent on them.”
This horsepucky is way typical of why no consensus can be reached on the the subject. The right’s inclination to go with prejudice over fact makes any resolution impossible. If it were proved that illegals contribute way more than they cost … you would simply refuse to accept it … like always.
Yes remember to add the taxes they pay as well.
Also would be nice to add up all the corporations who pay no tax and what their taxes should be without all the loopholes. Wells Fargo for one.
Also add up corporations who pay no taxes but after all the credits get a refund check just because they made money on credits
Why do you not take this up.
Truth will shock everybody.
If you want to know the truth about immigration costs you need to watch this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4u1J6EEhkyM
If Republican state leaders were smart they’d use icon Cesar Chavez who had the support of JFK and Bobby Kennedy in his fight to stop illegals, “Wetbacks” (his word not mine,” from entering our state. His fight to stop them was strictly economic. He knew their presence was not only taking jobs from farm workers, but was impacting the communities too with the cost of additional services for education and health.
IMO, using Chavez and the Kennedy’s would be a huge weapon to use against today’s Democrats and turn this state around by educating the public and voters. If the iconic Chavez and Kennedys knew it was wrong and harmful then nothing has changed since to prove them wrong, in fact has proved them right.
Come on Senator Nielsen and Assemblyman Gallagher, wake up?
Cesar Chavez Used The Term “Wetbacks” and “Illegals” to Describe Migrant Workers from Mexico:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQ9jIXHhFJI
Cesar Chavez: Anti-Immigration to His Union Core:
“Call it the whitewash of Cesar Chavez. Yes, that Cesar Chavez: the late farm worker unionizer (he died in 1993) honored repeatedly by President Obama. The man the Left loves to name drop for his role in organizing all-those grape and lettuce and melon pickers in the day.
But there is a considerable twist to the story. In fact, Cesar Chavez believed ferociously in the border of the United States — because that border protected his union. So ferociously did he hold this view that the New York Times ran a story detailing an accusation that the union Chavez founded, the United Farm Workers, set up a 100 mile “wet line” to keep “wetbacks” and “illegals” — yes, all of those are Chavez’s words — out of the United States. So let’s go back in the time machine to the period when Chavez was rocketing to fame.
It was just after midnight on June 5, 1968. Forty-six years ago. Senator Robert F. Kennedy, the brother and confidante of the martyred JFK, now himself a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, had just won the California primary. The Democratic National Convention was set for August, and, President Lyndon Johnson having withdrawn from the race, what lay ahead were two and a half months of political combat with Minnesota Senator Eugene McCarthy and LBJ’s vice president, Hubert Humphrey.
That would be the Cesar Chavez who was already a Hispanic icon. Founder of the National Farm Workers Association (later renamed as the United Farm Workers or UFW), Chavez was the Martin Luther King of Chicanos who, like King and their mutual hero Gandhi, believed and supposedly practiced non-violence. Chavez was a member of Kennedy’s victorious California slate of delegates elected in the primary. Chavez wasn’t on the platform because he’d stepped away to look for his wife. But that didn’t stop the crowd from chanting at RFK’s arrival at the podium: “We want Chavez! We want Kennedy! We want Chavez!”
https://spectator.org/59956_cesar-chavez-anti-immigration-his-union-core/
Cesar Chavez Legacy: From ‘Wet Lines’ To An ‘Illegals Campaign,’ A Dark Side In Latino Icon’s Opposition To Undocumented Immigrants:
“But two UFW projects cast doubt on Huertas’ claim that Chavez’s disdain for undocumented workers was limited to strikebreakers.
Probably the most severe example came in the form of the so-called “wet lines.” As Miriam Pawel, a Pulitzer-winning editor and longtime journalist with Newsday and the Los Angeles Times, notes in “The Crusades of Cesar Chavez,” the wet lines were set up by Chavez’s close cousin Manuel, who in 1974 paid about three hundred United Farm Worker members to patrol a stretch of the border between Yuma, Arizona and San Luis, Mexico. They were intended to intercept unauthorized crossers en route and persuade them to turn back, thereby forcing the hand of lemon growers who were resisting a UFW strike for contracts. “If we can get the illegals out of California,” he would often say, “we will win the strike overnight.”
The patrols turned violent quick. Stories began surfacing in papers on both sides of the border about crossers being beaten and even robbed. Mexicali’s La Voz wrote that thirty-seven people were attacked in all — possibly a fraction of the actual total, since as Pawel notes, unauthorized crossers were usually loathe to report crimes to the police. Meanwhile, the UFW bribed Mexican officials in San Luis to patrol their own side of the border for people heading north.
There was also the Illegals Campaign, a central piece of strategy which saw the UFW direct members to report the presence of undocumented immigrants in the fields and turn them in to the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), the agency which preceded Customs and Border Protection (CBP). In East Fresno alone, Cesar bragged in 1974, twenty-two hundred undocumented workers had been identified through the Campaign. Michael Harpold, who spent 35 years patrolling the border with the INS, says he remembers meeting Chávez in 1965 near Delano, California. “He explained that the growers would break his striking union if we did not prevent them from hiring illegals; he would provide us carefully screened information to act on.”
http://www.latintimes.com/cesar-chavez-legacy-wet-lines-illegals-campaign-dark-side-latino-icons-opposition-162528
The net estimates Jack supplied in his article DO take into account the taxes paid by people under illegal status living and working in the country. There are many things to consider. One is that many of these people come to America to work so they can send money back home to their families. The sacrifice a few dollars paid into SS, MC, and unemployment (most make too little to pay CA and Fed tax) in order to send most of the remaining pay out of the country is worth “living in the shadows.” Duh! That alone should tell us something.
According to figures cited in 2013 in the Daily Mail migrants send $120 billion out of the US yearly…$23 billion into Mexico. What’s wrong with this picture?
Well the obvious question is why do they need to come to America? Wouldn’t it be better if they made that money at home and paid taxes there to educate and care for Mexican families in their own homeland? Of course it would!
But America does more to incentivize the people of Mexico, the cartels that corrupt Mexico, and the government of Mexico to keep the borders open and the crime and drugs flowing north along with the desperate people who just want an opportunity to adequately care for their families.
This problem is not the fault of the migrants, legal or illegal. It is the responsibility of foreign governments to enact policies that create opportunity and prosperity at home. It is also their responsibility to “provide” education and safety nets for their people.
Trumps recent idea…raise the minimum wage in Mexico…is a good one with meaning that extends well beyond wage rates.
Another of his ideas, fully inform our young people of the very real dangers to themselves and others and the social and fiscal problems that drugs represent and encourage them to stay away from the “poison.” Tell them the whole truth. EDUCATE fully for a change.
The bottom line is we must do more to support the governments of other nations to embrace capitalism, freedom, and individual equality and justice.
We cannot be the world’s babysitters, mental and physical health safety nets, providers, and protectors without ultimately joining them in becoming just another dangerous, dysfunctional, inefficient, failing states.