Refugees brought in $63 billion more than they cost. Trump admin shut down the report

[Phokus]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/18/us/politics/refugees-revenue-cost-report-trump.html

This seems to be a recurring theme within the Trump administration where studies that go against their narrative are shut down.

Also, i hope people in the military enjoy drinking poisoned water (another suppressed report).

 

[zinfamous]

Data is always shamefully inconvenient for the Republican platform. This axiom hasn't changed in decades.

 

[sandorski]

Fake news! The only News comes from the True content of Trump's Tweets.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

I do want to point out that a chunk of that money was (I believe) monies given by the state to cover food/rent. Which isn’t really a net profit. However that is some of it not all of it, the thing I heard while half asleep was it’s like 30-50%. The figure is still a net positive. Also it touches upon money needs to be spent & moved person to person for good growth.

*figures may be incorrect*

 

[kage69]

Data is always shamefully inconvenient for the Republican platform. This axiom hasn't changed in decades.

This, absolutely.

The environment, gun violence, remember the troop enlistment shit when Cheney was in office? Facts are anathema to banana republicans.

 

[brycejones]

Also, i hope people in the military enjoy drinking poisoned water (another suppressed report).

Lead in the water makes them immune to bullets!

 

[glenn1]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/18/us/politics/refugees-revenue-cost-report-trump.html

This seems to be a recurring theme within the Trump administration where studies that go against their narrative are shut down.

Also, i hope people in the military enjoy drinking poisoned water (another suppressed report).

That's fine, now you have your rationale to come out and call for open borders. I'm guessing you won't because you still see some utility in the ability to threaten deportation using the laws you don't want enforced but someone being honest about this subject for once would be truly refreshing.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

That's fine, now you have your rationale to come out and call for open borders. I'm guessing you won't because you still see some utility in the ability to threaten deportation using the laws you don't want enforced but someone being honest about this subject for once would be truly refreshing.

Who called for open boarder here?

Please do become this person. It’s really irritating

It Has Come To This

 

[glenn1]

Who called for open boarder here?

There seems to be no appreciable difference between open borders and "catch and release" a.k.a. after they illegally cross the border then let them into the U.S. with an ankle bracelet and hope they show up for their status hearing in 3 or 4 years. Since this OP is touting all the cost savings you might as well just eliminate the "see you in court in a few years, maybe" farce and just go de jure open borders rather than de facto open borders and save all that money on immigration judges, lawyers, etc.

 

[soulcougher73]

My guess is this is not the issue with refugees that the Trumpers care about.

 

[alien42]

There seems to be no appreciable difference between open borders and "catch and release" a.k.a. after they illegally cross the border then let them into the U.S. with an ankle bracelet and hope they show up for their status hearing in 3 or 4 years. Since this OP is touting all the cost savings you might as well just eliminate the "see you in court in a few years, maybe" farce and just go de jure open borders rather than de facto open borders and save all that money on immigration judges, lawyers, etc.

that's bullshit, are you even familiar with the Family Case Management Program? it had a 99% success rate, until trump ended it.

 

[glenn1]

that's bullshit, are you even familiar with the Family Case Management Program? it had a 99% success rate, until trump ended it.

You're missing my point - they're still being allowed to live in the country for an extended period of time no matter what method you use to "manage their cases." Ankle bracelet, FCMP, whatever, if after you enter the country illegally you're still allowed to stay for months or much more typically years afterwards how is that functionally different than open borders? Functional control of our borders would mean that anyone who couldn't show valid permission to be in the U.S. would never be allowed into the country in the first place. Asylum cases could be argued as an exception but those still represent a fraction of overall unauthorized immigration (plus it will only incentivize everyone to claim asylum so they can be granted access to the U.S. while their case is being adjudicated).

 

[alien42]

You're missing my point - they're still being allowed to live in the country for an extended period of time no matter what method you use to "manage their cases." Ankle bracelet, FCMP, whatever, if after you enter the country illegally you're still allowed to stay for months or much more typically years afterwards how is that functionally different than open borders? Functional control of our borders would mean that anyone who couldn't show valid permission to be in the U.S. would never be allowed into the country in the first place. Asylum cases could be argued as an exception but those still represent a fraction of overall unauthorized immigration (plus it will only incentivize everyone to claim asylum so they can be granted access to the U.S. while their case is being adjudicated).

you're missing my point, or at the very least you are ignoring the very successful program created under Obama and destroyed by trump. the solution to the problem is indeed process that works, not a symbolic wall.

 

[HomerJS]

You're missing my point - they're still being allowed to live in the country for an extended period of time no matter what method you use to "manage their cases." Ankle bracelet, FCMP, whatever, if after you enter the country illegally you're still allowed to stay for months or much more typically years afterwards how is that functionally different than open borders? Functional control of our borders would mean that anyone who couldn't show valid permission to be in the U.S. would never be allowed into the country in the first place. Asylum cases could be argued as an exception but those still represent a fraction of overall unauthorized immigration (plus it will only incentivize everyone to claim asylum so they can be granted access to the U.S. while their case is being adjudicated).

I assume you were just as outspoken when GOP promoted seeking asylum as long as it came from Cuba.

 

[Ackmed]

And yet many reports show just the opposite. Things can be twisted to fit any agenda and narrative. A simple search of "refugees costs taxpayers" shows this.

 

[realibrad]

The ultimate question is, why limit immigrants at all if they are a net positive? I get doing some background checks on limiting people that are criminals, but, why not let them in?

 

[glenn1]

you're missing my point, or at the very least you are ignoring the very successful program created under Obama and destroyed by trump. the solution to the problem is indeed process that works, not a symbolic wall.

Again, the process works to grant access for months to years for people who illegally entered. You're conceding the granting access for months or years in your focus on the "success" of people showing up in a courtroom eventually. If I touted the "success" of a program that gained 100% compliance for accused rapists showing at their court dates but did nothing whatsoever to actually reduce the amount of rapes happening would you consider that a successful "rape policy"?

 

[Jaskalas]

They'll probably tell you illegal immigration is a victimless crime.
Or that it is beneficial.

Mind you, the OP started the topic talking about refugees, not illegal aliens.

 

[glenn1]

They'll probably tell you illegal immigration is a victimless crime.
Or that it is beneficial.

Mind you, the OP started the topic talking about refugees, not illegal aliens.

Which again goes to my question in post 7, if immigration is a net benefit and our current system already allows them in for months/years at a time then why maintain the current status quo farce? Just go to open borders and prosecute/deport any immigrant who later commits a major crime (presuming they've not naturalized since). There seems to be zero practical or moral reason to maintain the status quo of "closed" borders when in reality they're anything but.

 

[alien42]

Again, the process works to grant access for months to years for people who illegally entered. You're conceding the granting access for months or years in your focus on the "success" of people showing up in a courtroom eventually. If I touted the "success" of a program that gained 100% compliance for accused rapists showing at their court dates but did nothing whatsoever to actually reduce the amount of rapes happening would you consider that a successful "rape policy"?

immigrants and rapists are not analogous, no matter what your despicable idol says.

 

[glenn1]

immigrants and rapists are not analogous, no matter what your despicable idol says.

It must be very tiring ignoring a question over and over again. Here's another opportunity: If immigration is a net benefit and our current system already allows them in for months/years at a time then why maintain the current status quo farce and simply go with de jure instead of de facto open borders?

 

[interchange]

There seems to be no appreciable difference between open borders and "catch and release" a.k.a. after they illegally cross the border then let them into the U.S. with an ankle bracelet and hope they show up for their status hearing in 3 or 4 years. Since this OP is touting all the cost savings you might as well just eliminate the "see you in court in a few years, maybe" farce and just go de jure open borders rather than de facto open borders and save all that money on immigration judges, lawyers, etc.

Have you actually looked at data on this yourself? The rate of appearance is around 70%, and even if no catch/release or detainment, the very presence of border patrol to check papers and stop contraband is far different from an open border. This kind of hyperbole is what got the country in this mess.

 

[feralkid]

And yet many reports show just the opposite. Things can be twisted to fit any agenda and narrative. A simple search of "refugees costs taxpayers" shows this.

Any links to these "many reports"?


But of course the point is that this study is from our own HHS.

 

[Blackjack200]

Just go to open borders and prosecute/deport any immigrant who later commits a major crime (presuming they've not naturalized since). There seems to be zero practical or moral reason to maintain the status quo of "closed" borders when in reality they're anything but.

This, but unironically.

 

[Blackjack200]

Any links to these "many reports"?

They have binders full of reports.