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

[JSt0rm]

Any links to these "many reports"?


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

give them 6 months and they will have a study that says what they want it to.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

I’ll say it again. I’m all for a wall provided either Mexico pays or it’s a business tax that covers the cost of the wall, additional staffing costs and ongoing maintenance costs for as long as the wall exists. No playing games with we’ll tax you for a couple of years then spread the cost out.

 

[feralkid]

give them 6 months and they will have a study that says what they want it to.

I wouldn't be surprised.

 

[alien42]

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?

do you not realize that you are the ONLY person in this thread campaigning for "open borders"?

absolutely no one else is, the irony is amazing.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

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?

And Europeans are more open minded and liberal than us - why don't they have welcome banners and decorative necklaces to welcome them all? Why are they paying Turkey $3billion to keep them from coming if they are net positive?

 

[glenn1]

do you not realize that you are the ONLY person in this thread campaigning for "open borders"?

absolutely no one else is, the irony is amazing.

Okay so you want closed borders but after someone illegally crosses that border to still allow them into the U.S. for months/years. That's a very loose version of "closed borders" which your supporting which makes me wonder why you support it at all. It's like you're the guy who put up this gate with no fence attached.

 

[realibrad]

And Europeans are more open minded and liberal than us - why don't they have welcome banners and decorative necklaces to welcome them all? Why are they paying Turkey $3billion to keep them from coming if they are net positive?

So they are not more open minded than us, and I am on record for saying that Europe is largely more racist than the US. Are you asking me this because I believe this, or because you think I do not believe this?

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

So they are not more open minded than us, and I am on record for saying that Europe is largely more racist than the US. Are you asking me this because I believe this, or because you think I do not believe this?

Sarcasm. I'm agreeing with you

If refugees was overall profitable (from a government taxation perspective) every country would welcome with open arms. That's simply not the case - as someone that works in tax, knowing that most immigrants work in low wage jobs - it's mathematically impossible to pay federal income taxes when... you aren't paying them... because you don't have enough income to even get past the standard deduction - and are typically within the realm of applying for benefits, SNAP, welfare, etc.

 

[OutHouse]

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

I am very very familiar with the FCMP with ICE. opps you mean the one run by a private prison company? of course they say they had a 99% success, their stock depends on favorable news. FYI the program has not ended, its just a new name buried in ICE/DHS red tape.

 

[alien42]

Okay so you want closed borders but after someone illegally crosses that border to still allow them into the U.S. for months/years. That's a very loose version of "closed borders" which your supporting which makes me wonder why you support it at all. It's like you're the guy who put up this gate with no fence attached.

speak for yourself jackass, not others who strongly disagree with you. "closed borders" would suggest zero immigration which would be a complete disaster to our country. that's exactly what trump and his deplorables want out of fear of losing their ethnic majority.

 

[alien42]

I am very very familiar with the FCMP with ICE. opps you mean the one run by a private prison company? of course they say they had a 99% success, their stock depends on favorable news. FYI the program has not ended, its just a new name buried in ICE/DHS red tape.

more bullshit, no surprise there, reality is that the trump administration shut down FCMP a year ago.

 

[OutHouse]

more bullshit, no surprise there, reality is that the trump administration shut down FCMP a year ago.

dude,,, do you even know the name of the company running that program?

im curious why you said my comment was bullshit?

 

[HomerJS]

Sarcasm. I'm agreeing with you

If refugees was overall profitable (from a government taxation perspective) every country would welcome with open arms. That's simply not the case - as someone that works in tax, knowing that most immigrants work in low wage jobs - it's mathematically impossible to pay federal income taxes when... you aren't paying them... because you don't have enough income to even get past the standard deduction - and are typically within the realm of applying for benefits, SNAP, welfare, etc.

You are asking us to believe you and Trump vs Dept HHS? Who has lied more?

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

You are asking us to believe you and Trump vs Dept HHS? Who has lied more?

Can you link the actual report? Would be glad to give it a full look but didn't see it in the article.

 

[realibrad]

Sarcasm. I'm agreeing with you

If refugees was overall profitable (from a government taxation perspective) every country would welcome with open arms. That's simply not the case - as someone that works in tax, knowing that most immigrants work in low wage jobs - it's mathematically impossible to pay federal income taxes when... you aren't paying them... because you don't have enough income to even get past the standard deduction - and are typically within the realm of applying for benefits, SNAP, welfare, etc.

That 2nd part I disagree with you on. The overall impact of immigration is a net growth and a raise in the standard of living. So, even if the individuals contribute very little in terms of their taxes, the growth of the economy as a whole means the government is gaining revenue. That is what the data shows.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

That 2nd part I disagree with you on. The overall impact of immigration is a net growth and a raise in the standard of living. So, even if the individuals contribute very little in terms of their taxes, the growth of the economy as a whole means the government is gaining revenue. That is what the data shows.

That's not the topic of discussion. The topic is contributing via US taxes

63 billion more in government revenues

The only government revenue that might have significant increase would be sales tax - which is at the state/local level - not the federal level. Even then that is debatable as to how much - again, I haven't seen this report and the article doesn't show it either.

Then there is a question of how much of their income made within the states is actually sent back to family/friends in their home country - which is obviously not beneficial to the US economy at all, and if anything props up others and hinders ours.

 

[realibrad]

That's not the topic of discussion. The topic is contributing via US taxes



The only government revenue that might have significant increase would be sales tax - which is at the state/local level - not the federal level. Even then that is debatable as to how much - again, I haven't seen this report and the article doesn't show it either.

Then there is a question of how much of their income made within the states is actually sent back to family/friends in their home country - which is obviously not beneficial to the US economy at all, and if anything props up others and hinders ours.

You are missing something very important. If the total pie of the economy gets bigger, then the total taxable income gets bigger. Even if the immigrants are not paying taxes, you have to look at the effect they have on the overall economy. If they make that grow more than the expense, then they are a net benefit in terms of economics. This is the justification for tax cuts, because the economy grows overall so the government gets more revenue.

 

[interchange]

Okay so you want closed borders but after someone illegally crosses that border to still allow them into the U.S. for months/years. That's a very loose version of "closed borders" which your supporting which makes me wonder why you support it at all. It's like you're the guy who put up this gate with no fence attached.

Months to years with accounting of entry is far different than indefinite entry without caring who you are or what you bring with.

Your idea that an imperfectly secured border is comparable to an open border is a false equivalence.

It is also wagging the dog. Instead of addressing legitimate questions about your stated position, you attack another's. Actually it's worse. You attack (badly) an assumed position which isn't even accurate.

 

[glenn1]

Months to years with accounting of entry is far different than indefinite entry without caring who you are or what you bring with.

Your idea that an imperfectly secured border is comparable to an open border is a false equivalence.

It is also wagging the dog. Instead of addressing legitimate questions about your stated position, you attack another's. Actually it's worse. You attack (badly) an assumed position which isn't even accurate.

So I'll rephrase it then. Do you support changes in the law to formally reduce restrictions on immigration to basically allow anyone entry provided they meet minimal screens (e.g. no contraband, not a terrorist, etc.) and allowing them to stay for months/years until if/when we decide to deport them? This would basically codify in law what we're already doing.

Or #2, do you think we should make efforts (amount TBD) to forcibly restrain from entry those without legal approval to visit/stay in the U.S. so they are not able to gain access to the U.S. at all?

If we're going to allow situation one then why are we even bothering with #2 at all since it's a waste of time and money if we're going to allow them to stay anyway if they avoid the countermeasures in #2?

 

[realibrad]

Months to years with accounting of entry is far different than indefinite entry without caring who you are or what you bring with.

Your idea that an imperfectly secured border is comparable to an open border is a false equivalence.

It is also wagging the dog. Instead of addressing legitimate questions about your stated position, you attack another's. Actually it's worse. You attack (badly) an assumed position which isn't even accurate.

I think its more than an imperfectly secured border though. Its understood that many will get through not because we were not good enough to stop it, but because that is better than trying to keep out 100%. Its a purposely broken.

 

[glenn1]

I think its more than an imperfectly secured border though. Its understood that many will get through not because we were not good enough to stop it, but because that is better than trying to keep out 100%. Its a purposely broken.

I think if we could snap our fingers and magically 100% secure the border, many here would oppose that solution. It's not about the means it's about the goal and illegal immigration actually isn't something they truly want to see stopped.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

I think if we could snap our fingers and magically 100% secure the border, many here would oppose that solution. It's not about the means it's about the goal and illegal immigration actually isn't something they truly want to see stopped.

Nope see my previous. 100% effective and 100% free. I’m in.

*Provided that solution isn’t something stupid like nuking South America off the planet or tossing grenades at kids

 

[realibrad]

I think if we could snap our fingers and magically 100% secure the border, many here would oppose that solution. It's not about the means it's about the goal and illegal immigration actually isn't something they truly want to see stopped.

I would be part of that group. I can fully understand many that flee violence and risk getting across the border. Its perfectly rational. I would much rather see a more compassionate system for getting more people into the country. Right now its more of a luck lottery, where the people willing to take the risk are the only ones that get the reward. Under our current structure we would not be able to let in everyone as the initial shock to our social programs would collapse them, but we can fix that.

 

[realibrad]

Nope see my previous. 100% effective and 100% free. I’m in.

*Provided that solution isn’t something stupid like nuking South America off the planet.

How would you manage the massive influx of cost for the people coming over?

 

[interchange]

So I'll rephrase it then. Do you support changes in the law to formally reduce restrictions on immigration to basically allow anyone entry provided they meet minimal screens (e.g. no contraband, not a terrorist, etc.) and allowing them to stay for months/years until if/when we decide to deport them? This would basically codify in law what we're already doing.

Or #2, do you think we should make efforts (amount TBD) to forcibly restrain from entry those without legal approval to visit/stay in the U.S. so they are not able to gain access to the U.S. at all?

If we're going to allow situation one then why are we even bothering with #2 at all since it's a waste of time and money if we're going to allow them to stay anyway if they avoid the countermeasures in #2?

I am more than happy to answer, however you haven't addressed the criticism of your statement that enforcement prior to Trump is de facto open borders. If you walk that back, I'll happily state my ideas of how we should handle immigration policy.