Do you think illegal immigrants pay for themselves?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Do you think illegal immigrants are a net benefit to the economy?

  • Yes

  • No

  • I don't know / Neither


Results are only viewable after voting.

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,518
271
136
Tell it to Dr. Donald Huddle, Professor Emeritus of Economics at Rice University. He says otherwise.

Fern

His study has been widely discredited by most thinking individuals quite a number of times, and even include some basic errors. From Snopes (http://www.snopes.com/politics/immigration/taxes.asp )

It is true that Rice University economist Donald Huddle has conducted studies and
concluded that immigrants (both legal and illegal) in the U.S. receive billions of dollars
more in social services from local, state and federal governments than they contribute
in revenue. It's also true that others have criticized his studies as flawed and arrived at
exactly the opposite conclusion (i.e., that immigrants actually produce a net revenue
surplus). For example, a University of California Davis Migration News article on "Illegal
Immigration: Numbers, Benefits, and Costs in California" notes:

There is a great deal of disagreement over the costs and benefits of immigrants to
the US and California. Studies in the early 1980s in Texas and New York concluded
that the taxes paid by immigrants exceeded the cost of providing public services to
them, but that the federal government got the surplus of taxes over expenditures,
and local governments had deficits. Los Angeles did a study in 1992 that reinforced
this conclusion.

Donald Huddle of Rice University set the benchmark for today's debate with a
study that concluded that the legal and illegal immigrants who arrived since 1970
cost the US $42.5 billion in 1992, and $18.1 billion in California. According to
Huddle, 7.2 million immigrants arrived legally and illegally in California since 1970,
and the state incurred costs of $23 billion to provide them with services — half of
the costs were for education and health care, and one-sixth were due to the costs
of providing services to US residents displaced by these immigrants.

As with all such studies, Huddle made assumptions about how many illegal aliens
there are, their usage of welfare and other public services, the taxes they paid,
and their indirect economic impacts. Jeff Passel of the Urban Institute reviewed
and revised Huddle's US estimates, and his calculations turned the $42 billion net
cost into a $29 billion net benefit.

Most of the $70 billion difference between these studies arises from their estimates
of the taxes paid by immigrants — Huddle assumes that post-1970 immigrants paid
$20 billion in taxes to all levels of government, and Passel assumes they paid
$70 billion. And the major reason for the difference in tax estimates is that Huddle
did not include the 15 percent of each worker's earnings that are paid in Social
Security taxes, while Passel did — this accounts for over one-third of the
$70 billion difference.

Huddle excluded Social Security taxes because, in his view, contributions today
need to be offset by the promise of benefit payments to immigrants when they
retire. Passel included them because the federal government treats Social Security
on a pay-as-you-go basis.

An article published by the Urban Institute drew similar conclusions:

According to the most controversial study of those discussed here, the benefits
and costs of immigration to the United States in 1992 add up to a total net cost to
all levels of government of $42.5 billion. This study, by Donald Huddle, was
sponsored by the Carrying Capacity Network, a nonprofit group that advocates
major reductions in immigration to the United States. "The Costs of Immigration"
(Huddle 1993) uses estimation procedures that include a variety of errors. When
these errors are corrected, the post-1970 immigrants in Huddle's study actually
show a surplus of revenues over social service costs of at least $25 billion.

Nice try, though some basic research would have been nice instead of linking to sites with blatantly right-wing rhetoric ("anchor babies") or some the Rice study funded by a group that wants less legal immigration.
 
Last edited:

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
The CBO weighed in quite adequately and despite admittedly leaving out their direct consumption impact on small businesses, they were only able to find a small net negative economic impact. Any reasonable measure of their impact on consumption, which powers 70% of GDP and therefore payroll for small businesses that only survive based on said consumption, is VERY likely to be more than the several billion they take away in social services. There's really very little question any negative impact they have is quite small, and that it's far more likely they have some sort of positive net economic impact. Anything else is pure bluster.
Were that kind of "thinking" valid, government would merely have to borrow a trillion trillion dollars, hire everyone in the country, and begin spending on overtime, and we'd achieve Heaven on Earth. Wealth creation enriches a society. Wealth consumption is a mark of that increase in wealth. Wealth consumption without attendant greater or at least matching wealth creation merely puts a society into collective debt.
 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
The CBO weighed in quite adequately and despite admittedly leaving out their direct consumption impact on small businesses, they were only able to find a small net negative economic impact. Any reasonable measure of their impact on consumption, which powers 70% of GDP and therefore payroll for small businesses that only survive based on said consumption, is VERY likely to be more than the several billion they take away in social services. There's really very little question any negative impact they have is quite small, and that it's far more likely they have some sort of positive net economic impact. Anything else is pure bluster.

I read the paper. It's only 10 pages. It's extremely light on analysis or even calculations. I don't even see where they quantify "most likely modest" whatever that means. They also point out that they didn't consider the cost of so-called "anchor baby" education. Even if you can't legally stop anchor babies from being publicly educated, it's clearly a cost associated with illegal immigration.

I see absolutely nothing to suggest that high-fertility illegal immigrants are generating enough state income to educate their children let alone the rest of the services they consume. Considering that they pay on average $1000 in taxes and that it costs at least $7000 to educate each of their children, I can't see how it isn't having a huge impact on the education system, which your CBO paper says is the largest item of state budgets.
 

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,518
271
136
Were that kind of "thinking" valid, government would merely have to borrow a trillion trillion dollars, hire everyone in the country, and begin spending on overtime, and we'd achieve Heaven on Earth.

Troll troll troll your boat. The gov't can't create demand out of thin air nor should they try to. Illegals, like any consumer, will only consume if they demand something. Without that demand there's little to no incentive for someone to produce. This is basic economics.

Wealth creation enriches a society. Wealth consumption is a mark of that increase in wealth. Wealth consumption without attendant greater or at least matching wealth creation merely puts a society into collective debt.

Huh? We've been a 2/3rds consumption-driven economy for about 200 years. Not sure why you think production and consumption should be equal in magnitude, unless you're trying to say something else more (presumably) murky.
 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
Immigrants in 19th and 20th century didn't send their kids to school?

Not at all like today. I suggest you read the Wikipedia article on the history of education in the US. Even at the end of the progressive era, only 50% of young adults had high school diplomas.
 

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,518
271
136
I read the paper. It's only 10 pages. It's extremely light on analysis or even calculations. I don't even see where they quantify "most likely modest" whatever that means. They also point out that they didn't consider the cost of so-called "anchor baby" education. Even if you can't legally stop anchor babies from being publicly educated, it's clearly a cost associated with illegal immigration.

I see absolutely nothing to suggest that high-fertility illegal immigrants are generating enough state income to educate their children let alone the rest of the services they consume. Considering that they pay on average $1000 in taxes and that it costs at least $7000 to educate each of their children, I can't see how it isn't having a huge impact on the education system, which your CBO paper says is the largest item of state budgets.

I don't think you read the paper carefully, or my comments, either.
 

Svnla

Lifer
Nov 10, 2003
17,986
1,388
126
If ILLEGAL immigration is a net benefit, then why no country on Earth is doing it? Did Italy, German, and France crack down the ILLEGALS from northern Africa a few months back?

I know for a fact that if you want to immigrate to other developed countries such as Australia and Canada, you HAVE TO pass the immigration test with many factors such as able to speak and write English, have been skillfully employed, no criminal record, financial stable, healthy and no diease, and on and on.

You can't just sneak in and then wave your home country flag while screaming "rrrrrraaaaaaccccciiiiiiiisssssttttt" and demand to be LEGAL.

Don't take my words, take a look.

http://www.immi.gov.au/immigration/

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/immigrate/index.asp

I am pretty sure that other developed countries are the same. I don't remember a country that will let ILLEGALS come in and demand to be LEGAL.

Another thing, more and more jobs in the US are the types that demanding skills, we don't have a lot of good paying jobs left for the uneducated and unskilled.
 
Last edited:

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,518
271
136
If ILLEGAL immigration is a net benefit, then why no country on Earth is doing it? Well, I know for a fact that if you want to immigrate to other developed countries such as Australia and Canada, you HAVE TO pass the immigration test with many factors such as able to speak and write English, have been skillfully employed, no criminal record, financial stable, healthy and no diease, and on and on.

You can't just sneak in and then wave your home country flag while screaming "rrrrrraaaaaaccccciiiiiiiisssssttttt" and demand to be LEGAL.

Don't take my words, take a look.

http://www.immi.gov.au/immigration/

http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/immigrate/index.asp

I am pretty sure that other developed countries are the same. I don't remember a country that will let ILLEGALS come in and demand to be LEGAL.

Your post is not particularly convincing. 90%+ of the rest of the world is also mostly socialist or quasi-socialist styles of economies.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Troll troll troll your boat. The gov't can't create demand out of thin air nor should they try to. Illegals, like any consumer, will only consume if they demand something. Without that demand there's little to no incentive for someone to produce. This is basic economics.



Huh? We've been a 2/3rds consumption-driven economy for about 200 years. Not sure why you think production and consumption should be equal in magnitude, unless you're trying to say something else more (presumably) murky.
Production HAS to be at least equal to consumption, else the difference must be made up with borrowing. No one can consume a good or service not produced. We were a net wealth producing nation until the fifties, which is why our standard of living so greatly increased. Create more wealth, you can consume more wealth. Consume more wealth without producing equally more, you merely drive up the price as a non-increasing supply meets an increasing demand. If you import more goods and services to meet the increased demand without producing more wealth to pay for it, you must borrow to procure the balance. We've been doing that as a culture for the last five or six decades, with the result that our debt is now so high that our credit rating WILL be reduced, not matter how this current kerfuffle is settled, unless we can significantly decrease our debt. Or at the least, our debt as related to GDP.

If demand and consumption were the most important thing in an economy, North Korea and Vietnam would be the two most prosperous nations per capita in the world, as they have the most control of any nations over demand and consumption - with near-total control of production to boot.
 

shortylickens

No Lifer
Jul 15, 2003
80,287
17,082
136
I dont know if anyone else has grasped it or not but it doesnt matter any more.
Good or bad they are here to stay. Obama practically stated it during his campaign and first couple years in office. He wants them here. Plenty of politicians want them here. Amazingly plenty of middle and lower class Americans want them here. They are staying. Better to learn how to deal with it than complain. I finally caved in and started taking Spanish lessons. Would rather illegals came from a wide variety of backgrounds and learned to speak English like everyone else was supposed to do, but thats life.
 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
Amazingly plenty of middle and lower class Americans want them here. They are staying.

I haven't really seen any polls that suggest widespread support for illegals among any group of Americans.

And really if you're out of school and have time to learn Spanish you're better off learning professional skills. It's mostly beneficial to learn Spanish if you work in social services or other industries that serve low-income people. Not exactly a money-making prospect but hey if you're doing it because you think the literature is beautiful more power to you.
 

theeedude

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
Not at all like today. I suggest you read the Wikipedia article on the history of education in the US. Even at the end of the progressive era, only 50% of young adults had high school diplomas.

So you are disputing that immigrants in 19th and 20th centuries sent their kids to schools or not?
 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
Which is no different from the illegals now.

Ugh... Yes it is different. We spend more as a society on education than we did in the 19th and early 20th century. This is paid for by taxes which are much higher than in the 19th and early 20th century. And that's generally fine by me. But the fact remains that in the 19th century nobody was subsidizing immigrants. They truly earned their own way considering there was not much help for them. Today it's different. Today you can move here and automatically get first-world social services that other people pay for. If you like that, and I'm sure you do, that's great. The point is that is that it's a cost to immigration that didn't exist in the past huge waves of migrants.
 

theeedude

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
Ugh... Yes it is different. We spend more as a society on education than we did in the 19th and early 20th century. This is paid for by taxes which are much higher than in the 19th and early 20th century. And that's generally fine by me. But the fact remains that in the 19th century nobody was subsidizing immigrants. They truly earned their own way considering there was not much help for them. Today it's different. Today you can move here and automatically get first-world social services that other people pay for. If you like that, and I'm sure you do, that's great. The point is that is that it's a cost to immigration that didn't exist in the past huge waves of migrants.

You could move here and send your kids to public schools for a very long time. Certainly in the 20th century.
 

DAGTA

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
8,172
1
0
I live in Phoenix. Illegals here take way more resources than they give back.
 

Pia

Golden Member
Feb 28, 2008
1,563
0
0
The whole US immigration situation looks like a gigantic WTF to my Scandinavian sensibilities. Many millions of illegal immigrants right under the government's eyes in the US? We might have a couple of thousands, but AFAIK everyone who shows on the radar at all is either granted some kind of legal status or turned away. I don't really see why an immigration system should be ran any other way - either you want someone in your country, or not. Also, why not *really* secure your border, and get a major amnesty/crackdown program going where the existing illegals can either take a reasonable path to legal status or will get kicked out?
 

SparkyJJO

Lifer
May 16, 2002
13,357
7
81
So First is in favor of illegals. Why does this not surprise me? :rolleyes:

Huh? We've been a 2/3rds consumption-driven economy for about 200 years. Not sure why you think production and consumption should be equal in magnitude, unless you're trying to say something else more (presumably) murky.

That is one part of our whole economic PROBLEM we have now. We as a nation have been consistently using more than we have produced. Do you REALLY think that will work out in a positive fashion in the long run? How is consuming more than is produced sustainable in the long run?

The whole US immigration situation looks like a gigantic WTF to my Scandinavian sensibilities. Many millions of illegal immigrants right under the government's eyes in the US? We might have a couple of thousands, but AFAIK everyone who shows on the radar at all is either granted some kind of legal status or turned away. I don't really see why an immigration system should be ran any other way - either you want someone in your country, or not. Also, why not *really* secure your border, and get a major amnesty/crackdown program going where the existing illegals can either take a reasonable path to legal status or will get kicked out?

I wish we would do something about it, and many Americans and states are taking steps, but our retarded federal government is catering to the illegals and the legal citizens' expense. It's pure insanity.
 
Last edited:

Carmen813

Diamond Member
May 18, 2007
3,189
0
76
Myeahh we already went over the SS and medicare. GDP is not the same as tax revenues.

Unless I'm misunderstanding the OP you were asking if undocumented workers are a net economic benefit.

"So, if you think illegals are a net economic benefit, please explain (even if its only in back of the envelope calculations) how this can be so. "

Nonetheless, there is evidence that suggests that undocumented workers pay more into government then they utilize in services when you account for sales tax and SS/Medicare.
 

Double Trouble

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,270
103
106
Seems to me like this is one of those subjects where the politics or ideology can easily trump the science, and you can come up with a study to 'prove' or support any position.

On the whole, I certainly find it very hard to believe that the math could possibly add up such that illegal immigrants use up fewer resources than they consume, considering the cost of education and medical care.

Beyond the dollars and cents, if you've been to an ER recently in any major city in the US, you're very familiar with some of the other major costs associated with illegal immigration. How does one quantify or put a dollar cost on the fact that I had to wait 4 hours at the ER with a very sick child because there were a hundred illegal immigrants there who don't have access to regular medicine and clog up the ER for primary care? How does one quantify the lower education standards legal citizens receive because teachers and schools have to waste resources teaching illegal immigrants in another language?

I'm sure it's a very difficult thing to measure all the factors involved, but I find it hard to believe that when you measure all the tangible and intangible costs involved you conclude that illegal immigrants are a net benefit.
 

BoomerD

No Lifer
Feb 26, 2006
66,438
14,842
146
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/07/02/immigration-costs-fair-amnesty-educations-costs-reform/

Illegal Immigration Costs U.S. $113 Billion a Year, Study Finds

The cost of harboring illegal immigrants in the United States is a staggering $113 billion a year -- an average of $1,117 for every “native-headed” household in America -- according to a study conducted by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR).

The study, a copy of which was provided to FoxNews.com, “is the first and most detailed look at the costs of illegal immigration ever done,” says Bob Dane, director of communications at FAIR, a conservative organization that seeks to end almost all immigration to the U.S.

FAIR's opponents in the bitter immigration debate describe the organization as "extremist," though it is regularly called upon to testify before Congress.

Groups that support immigration reform immediately attacked FAIR's report and pointed out that it is the polar opposite of the Perryman Report, a 2008 study that found illegal immigration was actually a boon to the American economy. It estimated that illegal immigrants add $245 billion in Gross Domestic Product to the economy and account for 2.8 million jobs.

The FAIR report comes as President Obama moves immigration reform to the top of his agenda, and it is likely to be a rallying point for those who oppose the president. At a speech Thursday at American University in Washington, D.C., Obama argued that the entire immigration system is broken and needs sweeping reforms. Among the changes he said are needed is "a path for [farm] workers to earn legal status," which the president's critics called an opening for a new amnesty program.

FAIR's report argues that there are two choices in the immigration debate: “One choice is pursuing a strategy that discourages future illegal migration and increasingly diminishes the current illegal alien population through denial of job opportunities and deportations. The other choice,” it says, “would repeat the unfortunate decision made in 1986 to adopt an amnesty that invited continued illegal migration.”

The report states that an amnesty program wouldn’t appreciably increase tax revenue and would cost massive amounts in Social Security and public assistance expenses. An amnesty “would therefore be an accentuation of the already enormous fiscal burden,” the report concludes.

The single largest cost to the government of illegal immigration, according to the report, is an estimated $52 billion spent on schooling the children of illegals. “Nearly all those costs are absorbed by state and local governments,’ the report states.

Moreover, the study’s breakdown of costs on a state-by-state basis shows that in states with the largest number of illegals, the costs of illegal immigration are often greater than current, crippling budget deficits. In Texas, for example, the additional cost of immigration, $16.4 billion, is equal to the state’s current budget deficit; in California the additional cost of illegal immigration, $21.8 billion, is $8 billion more than the state’s current budget deficit of $13.8 billion; and in New York, the $6.8 billion deficit is roughly two-thirds the $9.5 billion yearly cost of its illegal population, according to Jack Martin, the researcher who completed the study.

“The most important finding of the study is the enormous cost to state and local governments due to lack of enforcement of our immigration laws,” Martin wrote.

The report found that the federal government paid $28.6 billion in illegal related costs, and state and local governments paid $84.2 billion on an estimated 13 million undocumented residents. In his speech, Obama estimated that there are 11 million.

But FAIR's critics said the report wrongly included American-born children of undocumented workers in its study.

“The single biggest 'expense' it attributes to unauthorized immigrants is the education of their children, yet most of these children are native-born, U.S. citizens who will grow up to be taxpaying adults," said Walter Ewing, a senior researcher at the American Immigration Council. "It is disingenuous to count the cost of investing in the education of these children, so that they will earn higher incomes and pay more in taxes when they are adults, as if it were nothing more than a cost incurred by their parents."

He added that “the report fails to account for the purchasing power of unauthorized consumers, which supports U.S. businesses and U.S. jobs” and that it “ignores the value added to the U.S. economy by unauthorized workers, particularly in the service sector.”

Martin said FAIR expected that criticism, but that because the children are a direct result of illegal immigration, their inclusion was both fair and reasonable.