What if we threw out all the illegal immigrants?

Parent Cafe
141

<p>I’ve found Wikipedia to be very good in many areas. The problem is that sourcing can be suspect. Your typical English Lit I (research writing) course wouldn’t permit Wikipedia as a source.</p>

<p>CIA World Factbook has Mexico’s GDP at $1.149 trillion for 2006,
net oil exports at 1.9 million BPD (2004). The average price in 2006 looks to be about $65/barrel (stockcharts.com $WTIC ticker symbol). So net oil exports would be about $130 million per day or about $47 billion per year. Cantarell, Mexico’s main oilfield, started going into decline in 2006 so volume should be declining while the price has doubled.</p>

142

<p>“Are we only permitted to ask a question or pose an opinion on this forum if we are a student or professor or armed with wikipedia level reliable research?”</p>

<p>Of course not. However, I was about to suggest, when Bay beat me to it, even some very recent news sources for this, also backed up by gov’t & banking agencies, such as her citations. Some major media news outlets have reported the same information referenced by others here. Nothing obscure about it. </p>

<p>But what’s not helpful, when posing an opinion, is to claim that you ‘know’ (because you assume, given U.S. practices & standards) that, for example, immigrants would not be in a position to send $$ home equal to what they spend here (resulting in much less net to U.S. business than you might assume). They do without. Period. They buy pagers instead of cell phones. Typically they do not own a computer, for many, many years. What we consider essential they just do not. When they have cars, theirs are used & quite old, often barely running. </p>

<p><em>Later</em>, much later – maybe 15 years after their arrival – they tend to join the middle class in some of their spending habits, though not all. And they do continue nevertheless to send $ in large quantities southward.</p>

<p>A correction: Mexico is not “South America.” In fact Mexico is part of North America. Perhaps you meant Latin America.</p>

143

<p>BCEAGLE: Thanks for the fact check. Have to go to work now, so I’ll take a look at wikipedia later for how Mexican remittances compare to the oil/commodities/GDP data- didn’t see the remittance number in your or Bay’s post (sorry if I missed it).</p>

<p>Epiphany- so, where in the above post are the “facts” and citation to support the assertion that poor family illegal immigrant families struggling to survive here nevertheless each manage to remit big sums of money. And while you are being self righteous about not being quoted wrong, note that I never said Mexico was in South America; I merely asked for information about it by name.d</p>

144

<p>question for epiphany: assuming what i think is your position: that while each family may send little,the total remittances are large, what gives us the right to dictate what another person does with his or her money if the use is not prohibited by law? Is support of poor families in country of origin less worthy than another family’s saving for a house, clothing, or even (God forbid) a big TV? Are remittances themselves bad? From your perspective, don’t remittances help the balance of the family stay in country rather than feel so desperate as to take on the perils of illegal immigration? If the country of origin’s economy is improved by remittances, isn’t it more likely to be able to buy goods and services from the US?</p>

145

<p>

The point is that the money used to remit to the home countries is coming straight out of the American economy.</p>

<p>

No.</p>

<p>

That is not the responsibility fo the American taxpayer. It is the responsibility of the governments of the countries in which the immigrants were born. Our economy is in crisis. We CAN NOT support the entire world.</p>

146

<p>“Our economy is in crisis. We CAN NOT support the entire world.”</p>

<p>You’ll be surprised to learn how much our own economy is being popped up by “foreign money”, including money from Mexico.</p>

<p>The way not to “support the entire world” is stopped subsidizing military budgets for the rest of the word. Why do we still maintain military forces in Japan and Northern Europe? The little bit of money sent back home by illegal immigrants is but a infinitesimal fraction of what we have been spending on the “illegal war” in Iraq.</p>

147

<p>The Japanese have been very good at helping to prop up our currency over the last seven years when it has been in trouble. There’s a debate in Japan on rebuilding their military and it is a tough debate. But the US does get something in return for providing military support to Japan.</p>

148

<p>“lilybbloom:
The same question although from your posts it seems that you lean more towards ‘they’re here and have managed to not be caught yet so therefore we should allow them to stay here’. Does this mean that as long as they’ve gotten away with it so far we should just forget about enforcing the laws towards them? And if we did that, what’s the point in the laws in the first place so would you also advocate an open border?”</p>

<p>how do we enforce our laws against 12 million undocumented immigrants already here? zoosermom thinks that by cracking down on the employers, we can force them to return home of their own free will. but is that something we really want to do, considering the fact that many if not most of them have children who were born here, or themselves came here as babies/young children and have little to no knowledge of their “home” countries? i would hardly call that humane.</p>

<p>i do not advocate open borders. i advocate providing a path to legalization for those undocumented immigrants already here, and bolstering border security and law enforcement against employers. in short i support a COMPREHENSIVE approach.</p>

149

<p>

Same crap, different name.</p>

<p>You still don’t address the families and communities left behind or the fact that many of the immigrants don’t want to be here and don’t want to stay here. You also ignore poor Americans victimized by these policies and the consequences of legalization. Therefore, you are still not to be taken seriously.</p>

150

<p>how am i not addressing the people who don’t want to be here? they can leave at any time as far as i know. of course, i do support more aid to countries like mexico to give people incentive to stay. but i guess i’m not quite understanding what you’re getting at. many undocumented immigrants (obviously not all) HAVE made lives for themselves here in the u.s., and want to stay and be a part of society.</p>

151

<p>“I never said Mexico was in South America.”</p>

<p>^^ except that all the previous postings were essentially about immigrants from Mexico, El Savador, Guatemala, after which your response in post 130 was:</p>

<p>“So if we manage to ship all the illegals back to South America (interesting that you assume illegals only come from South America,”. </p>

<p>[^^ Never once had I mentioned South America.]</p>

<p>“I haven’t thought through an immigration policy”</p>

<p>“I don’t have the facts”</p>

<p>Yet you want others to do the research & provide the facts that you are too lazy to provide for yourself. About three posters here have given you statistics attesting to “the assertion that poor family illegal immigrant families struggling to survive here nevertheless each manage to remit big sums of money.” Those of us who do not reside in ivory towers, but in workplaces & agencies which serve these populations, see on a daily basis the indiividual behaviors which are verified collectively in the aforementioned citations. Whether the collective statistics prove that “each” family does that is another straw man argument. Probably zoosermom, certainly myself, certainly every other peron I know who interacts with undocumented workers, has never met any such immigrant who does <em>not</em> send money home.</p>

<p>"assuming what i think is your position: that while each family may send little,the total remittances are large,…“what gives us the right to dictate what another person does with his or her money …”</p>

<p>No, it’s NOT my position. That’s entirely the point. I never argued that they dare not send money home. I accept it as reality & as legitimate. It’s YOUR position that because they spend SOME money here, they are a net contribution. The latest research (and I’m not going to do your research for you), supports the numbers that illegal immigration has regressed from intially a net gain, to a zero sum, to now a net loss to the economy. I was responding to your non-factual statement about billions of dollars in social services & redirected wages from a largely unskilled or low-skilled, largely functionally illiterate population being an economic effect we can easily absorb & should not get exercised about. If you believe that, then you need some serious education in economics. That’s not “self-righteous.” It’s an important deficit of those who deal only in the infinite theory realm. Economics is about finite realities & the limits of supply & demand. The subtext of U.S. responsibility tends to be, for too many, that our practical availability to others should match our limitless ideals. So rather than use that important idealism to help provide the framework for others to enrich themselves, we would prefer to take the lazy, easy way out & contribute our remaining limited funds, so that we’re both in debt, or nearly so. That’s not idealism; it’s stupidity & irresponsibility.</p>

152

<p>Epiphany: What the posters kindly demonstrated is an aggregate sending of money,not that each family is sending a large amount.(By the way thanks, guys, for the research.) Doesn’t make common sense does it? What is acknowledged by all to be a bottom income family, which all economic data shows spends nearly all of its income (which was the part of the thought behind the $600 tax rebate and the hope of jump starting the economy through resumed consumer spending) can somehow hoard big amounts to remit…and only will start “consuming” in 10 or 15 years when they make it to middle class.</p>

<p>As most of the illegals seem to be working, albeit under paid and without benefits, they would seem to be adding something to the economy in labor supply as well as on the demand side with the purchases other than remittances. I get (though disagree) Zooser’s argument about the negative aspect of taking jobs from others. Ironically, those not working (and unable to live off savings or investment) are the real economic drain, regardless of why they don’t work. </p>

<p>I’m not here trying to overwhelm others with my zeal, I’ll leave that to you. I’m just a simple guy trying to ask a couple questions.</p>

153

<p>

</p>

<p>This ought to be the most laughable comment in a thread where people have been advancing “theories” and “facts” without much regard for the relevance of “facts.” and almost no knowledge of the issues debated. This lack of knowledge is most apparent in the economic analysis of the cost of illegal immigration. </p>

<p>For what it is worth, one CANNOT look at one side of the ledger by measuring … expenses only. While it is undebiable that illegals are contributing to additional costs in education and services, one cannot simply add the costs and advance ridiculous figures such as a COST of 60 billion for educating illegals. To arrive at a correct NET figure, one needs to factor the revenue side. Our system of public education is mostly funded by state revenues and property taxes and illegals DO pay of their housing costs, be it directly through home ownership or indirectly via rentals. Yes, even slums need tenants! The economic contributions of illegals are often complementary to the mainstream contributions of a more established population. </p>

<p>When approaching the debate on illegal immigration, it is VERY easy to reach erroneous conclusions, especially when seeking to … make a point. The reality is that there is an abundance of scholarly research on the economics of immigration that support that immigration (legal AND illegal) yield a SMALL economic benefit to the country in general, albeit one that is geographically variable. In so many words, states with a large percentage of illegals and cities such as Los Angeles or New York do bear a net cost … but others benefit. </p>

<p>The issue of downward pressures on wages falls in the same category. Removing illegals from one dynamic area of the country would indeed offer better opportunities to other minorities (especially african-americans) but the increase of wages would only be temporary as people would move in the area from other cities and again displace the workers who have historically suffered. An increase of the labor pool would also eliminate the temporary increase in wages. That is why economists can support conclusions that show small benefits or small losses … but never anything close to the numbers presented by a few misinformed alarmists in this thread. </p>

<p>So, before telling people to get the facts straight, it might be wise to do a modicum of research yourself, and perhaps accept the conclusions of people who happen to this for a living rather than throwing economic and political non-sense around with such amazing whiffs of self-importance and arrogance. </p>

<p>Charit</p>

154

<p>Caleno, Again you’re proceeding from a U.S. model of consumption and lifestyle. It’s amazing how frugally some people can live. Poor immigrant Asians are able to do similarly, btw. Their habits are slightly different, but they parallel the frugality of immigrants from other lands, such as Latin America & the Middle East. They rent tiny places in edgy neighborhoods, often crowding themselves to do so, & often putting their tenancy at risk by doing so, I might add. They do without. It is basically a 3rd world existence in a 1st world environment. Middle Easterners do the same. A Muslim family that I recently homeschooled lived in a very scary place (scary for me to go to, also!): broken windows, very “slummy,” for want of a better word. An entire family sharing an upper flat above a store. Very little privacy for family members. Asian families often live near/above their own small businesses (laundromats, restaurants, etc.), in similar uncomfortable surroundings for absolutely years. They do so in NY, in CA, etc. They save on <em>everything</em>. They bring in their own recyclables for cash, etc. Again, I’ve homeschooled these families & my daughters have been friends of some of these families. (Myself, I do not deal in theory or in ivory towers, but in experience.)</p>

<p>In fact it was exactly 15 years that one of the “illegals” that I have known was finally able to purchase a cell phone of her own. (She also became legal after about 10 years here.) There’s a lot more sharing of goods among immigrant families than among most U.S. families. One shared, broken-down car for one extended family/close friends. Food shared (much more economical, as we have probably all experienced, than cooking for a tiny group). The 3rd world diet, not the 1st world diet, etc. You need to give up on transferring your model of living to theirs, & then assuming that no one would be able to save a dime in such an existence. They save dimes & dollars & much more than that.</p>

<p>And again it’s a straw man argument to say that since no one has <em>individual</em> statistics proving <em>universal</em> remittances out of the country from every illegal immigrant, that it therefore is not signficant. We don’t need to show you that to demonstrate that the statistics back up the drain on the economy. Given common experiences of those who interact with the undocumented, it will be the vast exception to the rule that money is not sent home within a few years of arrival, at the latest.</p>

155

<p>Post 153 was all theory, no facts, with “support” being a generalized tirade, with such amazing whiffs of self-importance and arrogance, against those who have provided statistics & who have experience daily with the economic realities of the undocumented, & who have done their research.</p>

<p>You are not contributing anything constructive to the debate but you are being extremely insulting & rude.</p>

156

<p>Xiggi: many thanks for a really well reasoned presentation that makes sense!!</p>

157

<p>

This isn’t true when there are multiple families in a dwelling planned for a single family since property taxes are assuming a single family. When the number of kids multiplies by orders of magnitude and the property taxes remain the same, there’s a net loss. There are many dwellings around here where there are multiple families living in single family dwellings.</p>

158

<p>“You are not contributing anything constructive to the debate but you are being extremely insulting & rude.”</p>

<p>I thought this is nothing but a bashing thread, whether it is against immigrants or posters here.</p>

159

<p>Epiphany, do you really believe that your well selected anecdotes and wikipedia excerpts amount to “research” that is superior to anyone else’s? </p>

<p>And when it comes to rude and insulting, how would you characterize your replies to Caleno in this thread?</p>

160

<p>For the people who are supporters of all the illegal immigrants here now – would you support having ANY laws governing immigration? Or do you want one set of rules (or lack thereof) for immigrants to our south, and another for everyone else? Curious.</p>