Illegal Immigration: a fact-based cost/benefit analysis

[fushigi]

Let's debate this issue based on facts, shall we?

My rule for this thread is simple: no appeals to emotion, on EITHER side. That means no asking us to lament the loss of this housewife or this soldier who was killed by an illegal immigrant drunk driver; it also means no saying "it's unfair and racist not to let immigrants enter the country." I want a nice, clean, fact-based debate.

The way I see it, there are two aspects to the debate: economic and law enforcement.

On the economic side, services for illegal immigrants (including prisons) cost taxpayers $10.0bn more than illegal immigrants pay in taxes. However, their presence provides a 0.12% net increase for the US economy - $15.8bn in 2006. That's nearly a $6bn net benefit.

Of course, this benefit is paid for by taxpayers and received by business owners. Some would argue this concentrates power in the hands of the elites; others would say money out in the economy is better than money in our government's hands.

Furthermore, while increasing overall American productivity, the presence of illegal immigrants depresses labor costs by 3% in the US. Some view this as a good thing; others would contend it's bad for America.

On the law enforcement side, the DOJ states that 17% of US prisoners are illegal immigrants, while they only make up 3% of the population. We should consider, however, that this does not mean 17% of crimes in the US are committed by illegals. In fact, higher rates of incarceration per crime for ethnic minorities has been an established argument; racial and ethnic discrimination and lack of funds to hire a good lawyer may be behind the fact that, for example, 75% of those incarcerated on drug charges are minorities.

[Duke1985]

I guess I have to shoot for positive, although at the moment I'm leaning far more to the indifferent side, but there is no button for that.

On to business.

ECONOMICS:
Well I see nearly 5 Billion dollars profit from illegals being here as a good thing. I don't particularly care what my tax dollars go to, personally.
I also see an extra 5 Billion floating around our economy as a good thing 5 Billion could probably buy a few jobs for some of our out of work Americans, more money for the business owners mean they can afford to hire more people.

As for law enforcement, an easy solution to this would be deport the 17% incarcerated illegals. Why have them jailed in this country and crowding up our jails when we can just as easily send them back. Hell you don't even really have to try them after you catch them, if they don't have work visas or green cards, or whatever other papers you need, then back you go. That way we're not spending the extra tax dollars for the public defenders and tying up our courts with their trials and the immigration department can handle it.

[tinybear]

I think the same benefits are obtainable by legal immigration. So why do we have to tolerate illegal immigration?

Fact: illegal immigration is, by definition, contrary to the law.

Fact: The USA is governed by the rule of law.

Fact: Any government of the USA must abide by and enforce the law.

[fushigi]

Quote by: tiny I think the same benefits are obtainable by legal immigration. So why do we have to tolerate illegal immigration?

No, the conditions would be totally different. Please provide evidence for your argument.

As for the legal aspect, AGAIN, this debate does NOT ask you to state your personal beliefs about illegal immigration. It DOESN'T EVEN ASK you to tell us what the laws are. The purpose of the debate is to determine, according to fact, whether illegal immigration has a net positive effect.

[Duke1985]

Immigration generates a surplus in the form of extra income to domestic factors of production. By increasing the supply of labor, immigration raises the productivity of factors that are complementary to labor. More workers allow U.S. capital, land, and natural resources to be exploited more efficiently. These gains in productivity result in income gains to owners of these factors.

Well tiny the quote above (from Fushigi's link) would be a reason the US tolerates illegal immigration.
As for legal immigration, it wouldn't have the same effect as illegals work significantly cheaper then legals, thus the benefit to company owners, which in turn is one of the sources of the economic bonus Fushigi's first post mentions.

[tinybear]

Quote by: fushigi No, the conditions would be totally different. Please provide evidence for your argument. As for the legal aspect, AGAIN, this debate does NOT ask you to state your personal beliefs about illegal immigration. It DOESN'T EVEN ASK you to tell us what the laws are. The purpose of the debate is to determine, according to fact, whether illegal immigration has a net positive effect.

That was my point: if you erode the rule of law for economic reasons or in the name of expediency, there is no net positive effect. The effect can only be negative.

If you look at the experience of other countries who take a hard line on illegal immigration and import the type of skill & labor which they really need through legal immigration, I think you can readily see that the benefits are attainable via legal means.

Take Hong Kong, for example. Every Hong Kong resident has to carry identity cards on them when they visit any public place and such i/d cards are to be produced on demand by the police or immigration authorities. It is a criminal offense for anyone to employ a non-employable person. All illegal immigrants are repatriated immediately on discovery and the people who employ them are charged too. On the other hand there is a scheme run by the HK government to permit certain classes of persons to live and work in Hong Kong. These are people whose talents are ones which are needed by HK. Result: the rule of law is intact and the law is enforced; HK obtains the sort of skill and labor which it needs by legal means. It's a win-win situation. :)

[Duke1985]

The only way for that work here is the exact same way, we'd all have to carry cards that say "Yup I'm a citizen." You can hardly just approach every Mexican you see and demand papers.
More than likely the people hiring illegals aren't asking questions and have a good idea that they aren't citizens.

Which raises the next question I have, and it might sound a bit dumb but here it goes.
I take it these illegals are working under the table, so their contribution comes in the form of cheap labor and money saved rather than income tax revenue?
I'm pretty sure I know its under the table, but not entirely.

[fushigi]

No, the average illegal household pays $4,500 a year in taxes. Still doesn't cover their services, though.

[Duke1985]

Doesn't cover their welfare services or what their putting into the economy?
(Sorry its way late over here and I'm getting pretty tired, not comprehending things as well)

[fushigi]

Doesn't cover the services run by the fed/state gov't -- in total. Welfare, education, prisons, and so forth cost the US $29bn a year, but they only pay $19bn in taxes.

[Duke1985]

Quote by: fushigi On the economic side, services for illegal immigrants (including prisons) cost taxpayers $10.0bn more than illegal immigrants pay in taxes. However, their presence provides a 0.12% net increase for the US economy - $15.8bn in 2006. That's nearly a $6bn net benefit.

So the question is now, is the $6 Billion Net Profit worth the cost of the services?

Wow I guess we just restated that whole thing, but I understand now.
So despite the $10 Billion in services their taxes don't cover, they still bring in 15.8 Billion. Thats were the nearly 6 Billion Net profit comes in from, I'd say in my mind thats pretty open and shut right there.
My vote for positive at the moment, still stands.

[fushigi]

Exactly. Some would argue taking $10bn out of the government's hands and putting $16bn in the market is a very good thing.

[Duke1985]

As I stated before on the market the money can create more jobs, better benefits, and the more a company can afford hopefully prices on goods and services would drop as well.
At least thats one way to look at it.

[Jason]

There's always the question, fushigi, of whether we should simply permit more immigration. It's not entirely the illegality that's causing problems. I think the poll could reflect a cost/benefit analysis of the extra people.

That's a tangent, though. Not to interrupt Carry on.

[Duke1985]

Jason does have a point, does anyone have a statistic for how many legal immigrants are a part of these stats opposed to illegals?

[tinybear]

We turn a blind eye towards illegals, but we make a big fuss about how many legal immigrants we should accept? Gosh, how ironic.

[Duke1985]

Not everyone is turning a blind eye. Look at the minutemen on the border with guns, hardly a blind eye. But I digress Fushighi doesn't want us appealing to emotion or opinions, this is entirely fact based. Lets not throw irony or logic in the mix.

[brien]

This doesn't seem to me, to be an "either or" situation. In some cases, as in the economy, illegal workers contribute to the GNP. On the other hand, they are undermining law and order when they aren't arrested for being in this country illegally. When it is discovered that a person is in this country illegally, they should be arrested and charged with a misdemeanor. They should be ajudicated and the courts should decide the consequences. However, this is not the case. In many cities, such as Houston, Los Angeles, Chicago, NYC, amoung others, the police are instructed to not arrest and detain someone in this country illegally. This preempts the courts and the rule of law. This is a clear violation of the law and the ramifications are such that, the law is applied on a discriminatory basis.

FOXNews.com - U.S. Cities Provide Sanctuary to Illegals - Blog | Blogs | Popular Blogs | Video Blogs

Any immigration lawyer who has been practicing long enough will tell you that people who are in the U.S. with no legal immigration status know the locales where they are least likely to be apprehended by immigration authorities and where they can resort to public services without fear of being found out. Since 1996, it has been illegal for states and municipalities to take any action that prevents the reporting of illegal immigrants to federal immigration authorities. On July 23, the New York Times (search) ran a 1355-word article (which used the term "illegal alien" exactly four times) on New York City's response to a recent Federal Court ruling that compels the city to change a policy it has had for more than a decade. That policy prevented city agencies from reporting illegal aliens (search) to federal immigration authorities. But rather than do what the court has stated he must, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg (search) has developed a new policy -- city agencies now won't inquire as to a person's immigration status except in the most extraordinary circumstances. The goal is for the city to have nothing to report. If mayors whose cities employ sanctuary policies are truly concerned with exposure to lawsuits, they might reconsider their sanctuary policies and do what the law requires: report illegal aliens to federal immigration authorities. The days of the sanctuary policy might be numbered. Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo. (search), has offered an amendment to two appropriations bills that would bar federal funding to states and localities that restrict any government agency from sending information to, or receiving information from, federal immigration authorities regarding an individual's citizenship or immigration status.

I, as a citizen, can be arrested on a misdemeanor charge of, lets say, possession of marajuana, and I will be ajudicated in the courts of law, but the illegal immigrant will not be arrested and ajudicated on the misdemeanor charge of being in this country illegally. Where is the justice in this? They are both misdemeanors, are they not? This is something that hardly outweighs any benefit to the economy.

Furthermore, there are more serious ramifications as pointed out in this link:

The Social Contract Press - Sanctuary Cities and States -- Undermining the American Republic

Entry into the United States without inspection is a misdemeanor; but harboring, shielding, or concealing illegal aliens is a felony (Immigration and Nationality Act). Federal, state, and local officials may not restrict the sending to or receiving from the Immigration and Naturalization Service information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual (Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigration Responsibility Act; Welfare Reform Act). Thus those entering the United States illegally can be charged with a federal misdemeanor, but aiding and abetting illegal aliens within the United States is a far more serious charge – a federal felony. What about the new immigrant sanctuary cities and states popping up across the nation? They are in statutory violation of U.S. immigration laws. By their defiance of U.S. laws, these sanctuaries or “civil liberties safe zones,” as some call themselves, are undermining the American Republic

The standard of the law must be applied equally no matter what the consequences, or the law should be changed to accomodate the reality of the situation. One can't have it both ways.

While all the statistics about illegal immigrants in the U.S. are suspect for the obvious reasons about data collection, it does appear to be true that illegal immigrants now play such an important role in the U.S. economy that without them there would be a significant negative effect on the U.S. economy. Some sectors, for example agriculture, can no longer operate competitively without the reduced costs of using illegal immigrants who can be intimidated to work at less than the minimum wage. Therefore, illegal immigration must be a net benefit to the U.S. economy.

Regards
S.

[Duke1985]

I can defiantly believe some agriculture companies have come to rely very heavily on illegal immigrants and the reduced cost of employment.
Good contribution thanks S.