Pelosi, Schumer To Trump: "Let's Debate Border Funds in Private"

[fredtoast]

(12-17-2018, 05:30 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: That is why I keep asking what is the most effective way to keep migrants out besides a wall?

Video surveillance with drone technology.  You have admitted that even if you build the wall you will still have to watch it constantly, so why waste the money on the wall.  Just do the surveillance.

But, by far the biggest point I need to keep making is that 2/3rds of the illegal immigrants enter the country legally.  No wall or surveillance is going to help with that problem.

[hollodero]

(12-17-2018, 07:19 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Perhaps the point was that a man-made barrier was established. But you're most likely right that the difference between a barrier wall and fence is the main point. 

I really don't know how to respond to that. I don't know how the concept that a fence definitely is something quite different from a wall makes me a target for caustic irony.
Have a nice thread.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(12-17-2018, 05:41 PM)Au165 Wrote: Trying to make their country better so they want to stay. Desperate people looking for a way out will always find a way, so throwing money at physical restraints is a futile effort.

 I actually feel like the better approach is partnering with the Mexican government to "go to war" with the cartels but for political reasons it will never happen. Between politicians being scared or on the payroll of the cartels no one really wants to do it. Then add in the fact that Mexicans will perceive us as an "occupying force" going to war with their people and it creates a bit of a nightmare. To be honest that is a more worthwhile "war" than any of the wars we have fought in Iraq or Afghanistan. When you look at how many people the cartels kill each year and the drugs flowing in it is more of a national security threat then anyone in the Middle East. 

Would love to partner up with the Mexican politicians, and tackle the Cartels, but we both know, that'd be a dead politician in less than a week. So no one is going to do that. If we send our troops in to deal with the Cartels, then it's just another War we have to pay for. How much have the other 2 wars cost us (Iraq and Afghanistan) $5 going on $6 Trillion?

(12-17-2018, 06:05 PM)hollodero Wrote: Still, not the same thing. Your Hungary example might be useful to advocate fencing, it's not that useful to advocate a wall.
Fences are way cheaper. And there's a point to be made that whoever can cross a fence also can cross a wall.



One of your own links pointed out that people don't think they are that awfully effective. But sure, it's hard to find numbers.

As for your questions how to keep migrants out. Every case is different, for sure. In Europe's case, it wasn't the Hungary fence, but the EU paying Turkey to keep many refugees. The decline in refugee numbers, mostly stemming fom that, is seen all over Europe, not just in fenced Hungary. The fence probably has little to do with that.
In case of Syria, of course, the most effective way to stop migrants is to end the war in Syria. With Mexico, helping them reach a better economic situation might be way more effective than a wall. With the 1 billion each year to maintain a wall, along with the maybe 20 billions to erect it (which is an awfully low estimate), many steps could be taken. Use the funds to build them up. Help them fight the cartels, and so on. Would be my initial suggestions to deal with that. Which makes the US a better neighbor, is the more civil way and would also avoid mass expropriations.
It might also help to deny illegals housing or jobs. Undocumented immigrants seem to have quite an easy time to get work and a place to stay (is my impression). More audits might help. Maybe, and I don't know, the US is also giving away visas too freely. Most illegal immigrants seem to just come with a visa and never leave again. A wall would do nothing about that.
Sure, surveilling the border is a necessity too. A wall seems like a bad way to do it. A wall can be climbed, so you would need to surveil it anyway. A wall also can be tunneled. The Israeli "anti-tunnel" technology costs around 800 million for 37 miles of wall. Which would mean 43 billions for the US border, which kind of seems a lot of additional costs.

Already explained the Cartel part above.

It's not that it's easy for them to get jobs/homes, you have heard of fake ids?

(12-17-2018, 06:06 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: First, I never said we were inhumane. I merely stated that the journey is not an easy one.

Second, the same terrain that makes the border crossing so treacherous is what makes a wall not only difficult to put in place, but also an unnecessary expense. The natural landscape acts as a barrier in much of the border lands and makes construction difficult and costly.


If only I was the one making a claim. You made a claim and used evidence that was tainted by racist origins and/or pulled out of thin air. You've made the declarative statement, not me. I have stated that the evidence I have read goes either way and that there is no way to be certain that undocumented immigrants are a benefit or a burden to our economy. You claim they are a burden.  You have the burden of proof.

Nope, I said in the beginning I thought the first report was high.

Then because if you guys trying to discredit the whole thing, I went and got REAL data to prove my point.
297k Anchor babies born per year average
https://cis.org/Report/Births-Legal-and-Illegal-Immigrants-US

In 2014, one in five births (791,000) in the United States was to an immigrant mother (legal or illegal). Our best estimate is that legal immigrants accounted for 12.4 percent (494,000) of all births, and illegal immigrants accounted for 7.5 percent (297,000).

Among the native-born, a large share of new mothers (42 percent) are either uninsured or on Medicaid. The rate is even higher among new mothers who are legal immigrants (47 percent) and higher still for new mothers who are in the United States illegally (67 percent). Almost all of these births are likely paid for by taxpayers.

We estimate that the cost to taxpayers for births to immigrants (legal and illegal) is roughly $5.3 billion — $2.4 billion of which is for illegal immigrants.

----
Average cost of birth in US, $10,808

https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2018/04/23/a-typical-american-birth-costs-as-much-as-delivering-a-royal-baby

States spent on average $12,903 per student (using nationwide average, but states like NY, CA, FL & TX costs are higher and number of illegals is also concentrated more in these states).

https://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/state_edwatch/2018/01/how_much_does_america_spend_on_its_schools.html

Cost of Anchor Babies to US Gov.
So again, 297k x 13 (number of years kids are currently in school) x $12,903 = $49.82 Billion annually.

Cost to birth these babies annually:
297k x .67 x 10,808 = $3.2 Billion annually.

These 2 costs alone is $53 Billion annually

Because the majority of them live in Poverty, the USC Children are eligible for:
CHIP, TANF, Medicaid, WIC, School Breakfast and Lunches etc

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/us-taxpayers-bear-weight-of-anchor-babies/
Welfare programs make up a significant share of federal and state spending — $670 billion at the federal level alone — and illegals who receive it pay little or no income tax to help defray those costs. So birth tourism is creating a net fiscal burden for the country.

CIS notes that the Department of Homeland Security undercounts the illegal immigrant population by at least 10% and that Census undercounts the number of people on welfare. That means that the actual welfare-use rate for illegals is much higher.
====
So 10% of $670B is another $67B annually. These numbers are based on 10% even though it says the numbers are low..

so now $130 Billion annually.

https://itep.org/immigration/

A newly updated report released today provides data that helps dispute the erroneous idea espoused during President Trump’s address to Congress that undocumented immigrants are a drain to taxpayers. In fact,  like all others living and working in the United States, undocumented immigrants are taxpayers too and collectively contribute an estimated $11.74 billion to state and local coffers each year via a combination of sales and excise, personal income, and property taxes, according to Undocumented Immigrants’ State and Local Tax Contributions by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy.

-----

So $130B-$11.74B = $118.26B

Is it me or did I just do all of the work that the original report stated that you all claim is debunked using various resources???

I didn't even make it yet to how much it costs us annually to imprison the illegals yet.. of which 30% of federal prisoners are illegals.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/federal-prison-illegal-immigrants-taxpayers-pay-about-billion/

The U.S. Department of Justice released statistics today regarding aliens incarcerated in the Federal Bureau of Prisons. It found that as of March 25, there were 41,528 illegal immigrants in its prison system. The cost of this to the American taxpayer runs into the billions.

Which is to say that U.S. taxpayers are spending in the ballpark of $1.2 billion per year on the incarceration of illegal immigrants. The Federal Bureau of Prisons spends on average $29,226 per year on each inmate (this average takes into account all inmates, including those who need high security, medium security, and low security). Moreover, U.S. taxpayers are footing a bill of roughly $660 million per year — or $1.8 million per day — for inmates who have already received deportation orders.

---

So add back $1.2B+$118.26B=$119.46B

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/dec/15/legalizing-dreamers-would-cost-26-billion-cbo/
Then there is DACA Kids. CBO Estimates costs to the US Tax Payer at $26B/Annually for the next decade

$26B + $119.46B = $145.46B

Then Court costs for fighting the Sanctuary Cities to release convicts.

NOW, with all of that said. I think it's safe to say it's really a problem.

[Belsnickel]

(12-17-2018, 09:03 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Nope, I said in the beginning I thought the first report was high.

Then because if you guys trying to discredit the whole thing, I went and got REAL data to prove my point.
297k Anchor babies born per year average
https://cis.org/Report/Births-Legal-and-Illegal-Immigrants-US

In 2014, one in five births (791,000) in the United States was to an immigrant mother (legal or illegal). Our best estimate is that legal immigrants accounted for 12.4 percent (494,000) of all births, and illegal immigrants accounted for 7.5 percent (297,000).

Among the native-born, a large share of new mothers (42 percent) are either uninsured or on Medicaid. The rate is even higher among new mothers who are legal immigrants (47 percent) and higher still for new mothers who are in the United States illegally (67 percent). Almost all of these births are likely paid for by taxpayers.

We estimate that the cost to taxpayers for births to immigrants (legal and illegal) is roughly $5.3 billion — $2.4 billion of which is for illegal immigrants.

----
Average cost of birth in US, $10,808

https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2018/04/23/a-typical-american-birth-costs-as-much-as-delivering-a-royal-baby

States spent on average $12,903 per student (using nationwide average, but states like NY, CA, FL & TX costs are higher and number of illegals is also concentrated more in these states).

https://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/state_edwatch/2018/01/how_much_does_america_spend_on_its_schools.html

Cost of Anchor Babies to US Gov.
So again, 297k x 13 (number of years kids are currently in school) x $12,903 = $49.82 Billion annually.

Cost to birth these babies annually:
297k x .67 x 10,808 = $3.2 Billion annually.

These 2 costs alone is $53 Billion annually

Because the majority of them live in Poverty, the USC Children are eligible for:
CHIP, TANF, Medicaid, WIC, School Breakfast and Lunches etc

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/us-taxpayers-bear-weight-of-anchor-babies/
Welfare programs make up a significant share of federal and state spending — $670 billion at the federal level alone — and illegals who receive it pay little or no income tax to help defray those costs. So birth tourism is creating a net fiscal burden for the country.

CIS notes that the Department of Homeland Security undercounts the illegal immigrant population by at least 10% and that Census undercounts the number of people on welfare. That means that the actual welfare-use rate for illegals is much higher.
====
So 10% of $670B is another $67B annually. These numbers are based on 10% even though it says the numbers are low..

so now $130 Billion annually.

https://itep.org/immigration/

A newly updated report released today provides data that helps dispute the erroneous idea espoused during President Trump’s address to Congress that undocumented immigrants are a drain to taxpayers. In fact,  like all others living and working in the United States, undocumented immigrants are taxpayers too and collectively contribute an estimated $11.74 billion to state and local coffers each year via a combination of sales and excise, personal income, and property taxes, according to Undocumented Immigrants’ State and Local Tax Contributions by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy.

-----

So $130B-$11.74B = $118.26B

Is it me or did I just do all of the work that the original report stated that you all claim is debunked using various resources???

I didn't even make it yet to how much it costs us annually to imprison the illegals yet.. of which 30% of federal prisoners are illegals.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/federal-prison-illegal-immigrants-taxpayers-pay-about-billion/

The U.S. Department of Justice released statistics today regarding aliens incarcerated in the Federal Bureau of Prisons. It found that as of March 25, there were 41,528 illegal immigrants in its prison system. The cost of this to the American taxpayer runs into the billions.

Which is to say that U.S. taxpayers are spending in the ballpark of $1.2 billion per year on the incarceration of illegal immigrants. The Federal Bureau of Prisons spends on average $29,226 per year on each inmate (this average takes into account all inmates, including those who need high security, medium security, and low security). Moreover, U.S. taxpayers are footing a bill of roughly $660 million per year — or $1.8 million per day — for inmates who have already received deportation orders.

---

So add back $1.2B+$118.26B=$119.46B

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/dec/15/legalizing-dreamers-would-cost-26-billion-cbo/
Then there is DACA Kids. CBO Estimates costs to the US Tax Payer at $26B/Annually for the next decade

$26B + $119.46B = $145.46B

Then Court costs for fighting the Sanctuary Cities to release convicts.

NOW, with all of that said. I think it's safe to say it's really a problem.

You did a lot of work to show a flawed number. Your estimates make a lot of assumptions, such as the children (US citizens, mind you, not undocumented immigrants) being here and in school all thirteen years, that they actually receive benefits (children, even USC children of undocumented parents often don't receive benefits because the parents fear any interaction with the government), you are grossly underestimating the taxes that are paid in (income and payroll taxes can be avoided, but property taxes and sales taxes are unavoidable), and on, and on, and on with the flaws in your analysis.

Your attempt to do this is admirable, but it is based on nothing more than a surface level understanding of policy. Really digging into these numbers requires a more in depth understanding of the analysis behind them and how to figure into that the analysis the high number of complicating factors. This is why I said there is no real way to tell. Seriously, I read journals on this sort of thing, I study policy analysis, I eat, sleep, and breathe statistical tests. I have yet to see an assessment of this issue that lays out in any certain terms the net economic impacts of illegal immigration.

What this all tells me, that some of the best economists in the world have been unable to give a definitive answer to this, is that stopping the flow of undocumented immigrants with something as costly as a wall on the southern border (especially when a large proportion of those illegal immigrants never crossed the southern border but came in by other means) should not be a policy priority when so many other things are negatively impacting the citizenry on a daily basis.

[fredtoast]

(12-17-2018, 09:03 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/us-taxpayers-bear-weight-of-anchor-babies/
Welfare programs make up a significant share of federal and state spending — $670 billion at the federal level alone — and illegals who receive it pay little or no income tax to help defray those costs. So birth tourism is creating a net fiscal burden for the country.

CIS notes that the Department of Homeland Security undercounts the illegal immigrant population by at least 10% and that Census undercounts the number of people on welfare. That means that the actual welfare-use rate for illegals is much higher.
====
So 10% of $670B is another $67B annually. These numbers are based on 10% even though it says the numbers are low..

You lost me here.  How do you figure that illegal immigrants which make up less than 3% of the population consume 10% of federal benefits when they are not even eligible to receive 90% of these benefits.  Only federal benefits that undocumented immigrants are eligible for is emergency medical care and FEMA related benefits. 

Also most of these medicaid costs would be for the births that you have already calculated.

[hollodero]

(12-17-2018, 09:03 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Would love to partner up with the Mexican politicians, and tackle the Cartels, but we both know, that'd be a dead politician in less than a week. So no one is going to do that. If we send our troops in to deal with the Cartels, then it's just another War we have to pay for. How much have the other 2 wars cost us (Iraq and Afghanistan) $5 going on $6 Trillion?

I didn't mean to go to war Iraq style. Cartels can be faught without the troops marching in.

- For starters though, the US could try not to strangle Mexico's economy. Crime comes with poverty and desperation, as does emigration.

[fredtoast]

(12-17-2018, 09:03 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: I didn't even make it yet to how much it costs us annually to imprison the illegals yet.. of which 30% of federal prisoners are illegals.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/federal-prison-illegal-immigrants-taxpayers-pay-about-billion/

The U.S. Department of Justice released statistics today regarding aliens incarcerated in the Federal Bureau of Prisons. It found that as of March 25, there were 41,528 illegal immigrants in its prison system. The cost of this to the American taxpayer runs into the billions.

Which is to say that U.S. taxpayers are spending in the ballpark of $1.2 billion per year on the incarceration of illegal immigrants. The Federal Bureau of Prisons spends on average $29,226 per year on each inmate (this average takes into account all inmates, including those who need high security, medium security, and low security). Moreover, U.S. taxpayers are footing a bill of roughly $660 million per year — or $1.8 million per day — for inmates who have already received deportation orders.

Simple answer to this problem.  Stop making illegal re-entry to the United States a federal felony offense.  30% of these prisoners are in custody for immigration violations.  Just deport them instead of keeping them in federal prisons.

[*Nately120*]

(12-17-2018, 04:39 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Double fence with barbed wire on top of both. I'm very well aware of what it is, but some people here like to use the Wall/Fence term interchangeably.

And why wouldn't it be as effective as they claim? The problem is that the are unsure the number that was actually crossing daily before the fence was erected, but now they definitely know how many aren't coming thru.

I won't even argue a wall wouldn't help, but it is a question of cost vs benefit in my eyes. A decade ago we were being told that illegal immigrants from Mexico were coming here to take jobs Americans don't want to do. Fast forward to now and we are being told that they're coming here to rape and murder us and go on the government dole while they are raping and murdering us and we're going to build a free* wall to keep 'em out.

I'm pretty intrigued to see what the next president tells me Mexican immigrants are coming here to do. I can't help but be skeptical when republican #1 says they are "guest workers" who are helping us out by providing an alternative to spoiled and lazy union democrats who refuse to do their jobs. Republican #2 says they are dangerous and we have to build a physical wall to keep them out. What comes next?

[GMDino]

(12-17-2018, 09:24 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: You did a lot of work to show a flawed number. Your estimates make a lot of assumptions, such as the children (US citizens, mind you, not undocumented immigrants) being here and in school all thirteen years, that they actually receive benefits (children, even USC children of undocumented parents often don't receive benefits because the parents fear any interaction with the government), you are grossly underestimating the taxes that are paid in (income and payroll taxes can be avoided, but property taxes and sales taxes are unavoidable), and on, and on, and on with the flaws in your analysis.

Your attempt to do this is admirable, but it is based on nothing more than a surface level understanding of policy. Really digging into these numbers requires a more in depth understanding of the analysis behind them and how to figure into that the analysis the high number of complicating factors. This is why I said there is no real way to tell. Seriously, I read journals on this sort of thing, I study policy analysis, I eat, sleep, and breathe statistical tests. I have yet to see an assessment of this issue that lays out in any certain terms the net economic impacts of illegal immigration.

What this all tells me, that some of the best economists in the world have been unable to give a definitive answer to this, is that stopping the flow of undocumented immigrants with something as costly as a wall on the southern border (especially when a large proportion of those illegal immigrants never crossed the southern border but came in by other means) should not be a policy priority when so many other things are negatively impacting the citizenry on a daily basis.

The debate is over Matt.  30% of the US population no longer will need to look up numbers or understand studies or policies.

Illegal immigration costs the United States more than 200 Billion Dollars a year. How was this allowed to happen?

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 18, 2018

[*Nately120*]

(12-18-2018, 10:36 AM)GMDino Wrote: The debate is over Matt.  30% of the US population no longer will need to look up numbers or understand studies or policies.

Illegal immigration costs the United States more than 200 Billion Dollars a year. How was this allowed to happen?

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 18, 2018

Man oh man, Trump is the "infomercial president" if I've ever seen one.  Take an issue and present it in the most over-the-top manner possible and then offer an easily solution that is practically free!

Instead of telling us that making pancakes is an impossible problem and that he's got a practically free gadget to save us from that giant problem we didn't know we had until he told us, we get this.  Talk about upping the game.

Sick of illegals raping you? Of course you are! There is probably one lurking outside your house right now! You need this wall. It's the best wall. Available for only a handful of totally worth it flexipays! Order within the next 2 minutes and we will make a token statement about how awesome the flag is!!!

[Mike M (the other one)]

(12-17-2018, 07:20 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Video surveillance with drone technology.  You have admitted that even if you build the wall you will still have to watch it constantly, so why waste the money on the wall.  Just do the surveillance.

But, by far the biggest point I need to keep making is that 2/3rds of the illegal immigrants enter the country legally.  No wall or surveillance is going to help with that problem.

In 2014 it was reported that Drones were already monitoring half the Border.
The only problems I see with Drones, is
A) they can be hacked if they fly to low.
B) the pics from high altitudes are not easy to spot people on the ground level.
C) Drug users use drones as well to transport drugs, so we really need this border zone to have some way of ko'ing those drones which would also interfere with our own.

The FAA has not allowed the usage of attacking those drones with radio waves. They don't want interference in the radio waves already being used.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/jan/2/drones-fly-drugs-us-no-border-patrol-detection-tec/

Border Patrol agents are increasingly worried about the threat from drug-cartel-flown drones, after agents spotted 13 drones suspected of carrying drugs across one section of the U.S.-Mexico border in just one four-day period in November.

Cartels are aware that the U.S. lacks the ability to detect the drones, much less to interdict them, making them a choice method for smuggling high-dollar hard drugs into the country, agents said.


https://www.cbsnews.com/news/dhs-official-says-its-unprepared-to-counter-threat-of-drones/
DHS wants Congress to give it the power to "redirect, disable, disrupt control of, seize, or confiscate, without prior consent" a drone that "poses a threat." DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen warned in a speech in early September that drones are now "a major national security concern in our homeland."

"Outdated laws prevent us from setting up the sophisticated defenses we need to protect big events, federal facilities, and other potential targets from an airborne menace," Nielsen said. "DHS does not have the clear legal authority to identify, track, or take down dangerous drones. We can't even test our defensive measures in civilian environments."



I'm fine with more Fencing as a wall (I'd prefer a solid wall) but with the fencing we can add thermal cameras and monitor the ground level much better than with Drones. The wall/fencing has already proven to be effective. Like it or not, Immigrants flowing into Tuscon have drastically dropped since a fence was installed nearby.

Now to answer the 2nd part of your question. You have it backwards, it's 1/3 rd that overstay their visas and arrive via legal methods. We need to seriously overhaul the Entry/Exit monitoring of people that come here legally and leave. Airlines are terrible at letting the US know when someone has left the country. If you come in one way, and leave a different way, it's a pain for the US system. How bad it is? I have a few friends that have flown into Canada to visit relatives, drove into the US to visit more relatives and flew out of the US to go back home. They have been flagged as Overstays, when they were not. Then the people that come here and file for an AOS (Adjustment of Status) so they can stay here legally, are also not removed from the overstay report. So I would like this addressed as well so we can get a much better picture of how many really overstay their visa's and narrow it down to which countries have the most violators and make it harder for those countries to get visa's.

(12-17-2018, 09:48 PM)fredtoast Wrote: You lost me here.  How do you figure that illegal immigrants which make up less than 3% of the population consume 10% of federal benefits when they are not even eligible to receive 90% of these benefits.  Only federal benefits that undocumented immigrants are eligible for is emergency medical care and FEMA related benefits. 

Also most of these medicaid costs would be for the births that you have already calculated.

Anchor babies are considered USC's. Any benefits Anchor babies get is counted since they should not have been here in the first place.
Trump has gone after Birth-Right Citizen ship. We seriously need to switch Citizenship from Jus Soli (Soil) to Jus Sanguinis (Blood). But it will never happen because of how many votes would be needed in Congress. Which is sad, because this would be one of the safest and cheapest way to deter crossings.

(12-17-2018, 10:30 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Simple answer to this problem.  Stop making illegal re-entry to the United States a federal felony offense.  30% of these prisoners are in custody for immigration violations.  Just deport them instead of keeping them in federal prisons.

Uhm the point of Illegal Re-Entry is to stop that. If there is no harsh penalty then they just keep trying til they make it. Many do get deported. We don't keep them all indefinitely, but for every deport, another takes his place. So it's a never ending cycle. Also on the big picture, the 1.2 Billion isn't a lot compared to the other parts we have to deal with.

[Belsnickel]

(12-18-2018, 02:43 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Anchor babies are considered USC's. Any benefits Anchor babies get is counted since they should not have been here in the first place.
Trump has gone after Birth-Right Citizen ship. We seriously need to switch Citizenship from Jus Soli (Soil) to Jus Sanguinis (Blood). But it will never happen because of how many votes would be needed in Congress. Which is sad, because this would be one of the safest and cheapest way to deter crossings.

Whenever this discussion occurs, why is it in relation to undocumented immigrants that are coming here to make a better life for themselves? Why don't the people pushing for the switch to Jus Soli ever invoke the wealthy people from other countries that have children here to try to protect assets? Why not discuss how so many wealthy Saudis have had their children here so they can keep assets in the country and for the members of the royal family to be able to flee in the case of the people realizing how shitty the regime has been to them?

I'd rather have people having anchor babies here that are trying to improve their lives rather than run from their mistakes.

[GMDino]

(12-18-2018, 03:04 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Whenever this discussion occurs, why is it in relation to undocumented immigrants that are coming here to make a better life for themselves? Why don't the people pushing for the switch to Jus Soli ever invoke the wealthy people from other countries that have children here to try to protect assets? Why not discuss how so many wealthy Saudis have had their children here so they can keep assets in the country and for the members of the royal family to be able to flee in the case of the people realizing how shitty the regime has been to them?

I'd rather have people having anchor babies here that are trying to improve their lives rather than run from their mistakes.

It's my personal belief that they have bought the fear they have been sold.

I mean how many rich Saudis are in the news for being gang members?  But as long as there are Mexican gangs we can make white people afraid.

I wasn't around then but maybe I missed reading about the big push to keep Italians from entering the US when the Mafia was at its height?  

The US love to pick a minority and claim it is the (latest) reason for all the troubles (crime, unemployment, etc).  Rather than work to solve problems we just make people afraid of the problem.  It's sad.

[GMDino]

(12-18-2018, 03:04 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Whenever this discussion occurs, why is it in relation to undocumented immigrants that are coming here to make a better life for themselves? Why don't the people pushing for the switch to Jus Soli ever invoke the wealthy people from other countries that have children here to try to protect assets? Why not discuss how so many wealthy Saudis have had their children here so they can keep assets in the country and for the members of the royal family to be able to flee in the case of the people realizing how shitty the regime has been to them?

I'd rather have people having anchor babies here that are trying to improve their lives rather than run from their mistakes.

Quoted again because I wanted to add to my response:

Think about how often someone on these boards said "if you don't like something just move to another place" and then also attacks foreigners that do the same thing.

A man can move from PA to FL to try and find a better job, a woman can move to another state to get out of an abusive relationship and it doesn't matter if they have money or a job waiting or a plan...but if someone wants to come to this country for the same reasons we have a large swath of people saying they must be stopped because they might be criminals or the situation they are coming from might not be "bad enough" to warrant our amnesty.

Yes, I know they are not citizens.  They just want to be...and most want to contribute not steal and murder.  We should make it possible when we can.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(12-17-2018, 09:24 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: You did a lot of work to show a flawed number. Your estimates make a lot of assumptions, such as the children (US citizens, mind you, not undocumented immigrants) being here and in school all thirteen years, that they actually receive benefits (children, even USC children of undocumented parents often don't receive benefits because the parents fear any interaction with the government), you are grossly underestimating the taxes that are paid in (income and payroll taxes can be avoided, but property taxes and sales taxes are unavoidable), and on, and on, and on with the flaws in your analysis.

Your attempt to do this is admirable, but it is based on nothing more than a surface level understanding of policy. Really digging into these numbers requires a more in depth understanding of the analysis behind them and how to figure into that the analysis the high number of complicating factors. This is why I said there is no real way to tell. Seriously, I read journals on this sort of thing, I study policy analysis, I eat, sleep, and breathe statistical tests. I have yet to see an assessment of this issue that lays out in any certain terms the net economic impacts of illegal immigration.

What this all tells me, that some of the best economists in the world have been unable to give a definitive answer to this, is that stopping the flow of undocumented immigrants with something as costly as a wall on the southern border (especially when a large proportion of those illegal immigrants never crossed the southern border but came in by other means) should not be a policy priority when so many other things are negatively impacting the citizenry on a daily basis.

Flawed Number, there is no real number because many are hidden in the system because they call them USC's. The Welfare program refuses to publicly to identify them. I wonder why? you would think if there was so few in the system that they'd be happy to report that.

Yes, the Anchor babies are USC's, but they should not be here in the first place if their parents are both Illegally here. I don't get why that is such a hard concept for people to understand, it's a by product of the illegals being here that should not be.

Seriously Matt, you knocking on me cause I make a lot of assumptions, but then you do it as well with out any links??? It's rather obvious that the majority of the illegal immigrants live in poverty and their anchor babies can collect US Aid.

There is no FEAR to interact with the US Gov, the US Gov is not allowed to confirm/verify anyone's status if they are not applying for benefits for themselves. Just list the USC (anchor baby) and verify them. DONE. This is how they avoid it. Why also is there about 4.5 million ITIN Numbers? If you are here legally, you can get a SSN (with or with out restrictions) for tax purposes. So there is not many reasons why someone needs an ITIN unless... you are unable to have a visa.... 

https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/facts-about-individual-tax-identification-number-itin
The ITIN is not an immigration-enforcement tool. The application process is designed to facilitate tax payment, and the fact the IRS does not share applicants’ private information with immigration enforcement agencies is key to tax compliance.   



Do some drop out? Yes they do, but it's going to be a rather small % compared to the total enrolled that year.

The sales tax, irs taxes, property taxes, it's all listed in link I provided already.  Somewhere around 12B right?


Say even if I'm off on my final number by +/- 50% that's still a big number and bigger than the 12B that's coming in??

And you're right, there's still way more than I have listed economically speaking. There's also wage suppression, which is going to be a very hard number to even calculate, or do you deny it exists?

I wonder how Trump got $200 mil? I know that a lot of the numbers I'm using are out dated by a few years.

And Matt, those economic reports you keep trying to talk about? If you eat, sleep and live for this stuff, you should be able to give me a few links. I am willing to bet that the majority of your economic reports you have read are what happens if we deport all of them. That's not what this discussion is about. I have also already made it clear my intent to not to deport anyone. Only to stop more from coming and deal with the ones already here by legalizing them in some way shape or form and the deportees will be ones with records.
If you have any that talk about their economic impact as illegal vs legal, that's what I'd like to see most,

[Mike M (the other one)]

(12-18-2018, 10:36 AM)GMDino Wrote: The debate is over Matt.  30% of the US population no longer will need to look up numbers or understand studies or policies.

Illegal immigration costs the United States more than 200 Billion Dollars a year. How was this allowed to happen?

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) December 18, 2018

Did he list where he got the numbers from?
if so, please provide, I'm don't follow him.

[Belsnickel]

(12-18-2018, 04:30 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: And Matt, those economic reports you keep trying to talk about? If you eat, sleep and live for this stuff, you should be able to give me a few links. I am willing to bet that the majority of your economic reports you have read are what happens if we deport all of them. That's not what this discussion is about. I have also already made it clear my intent to not to deport anyone. Only to stop more from coming and deal with the ones already here by legalizing them in some way shape or form and the deportees will be ones with records.
If you have any that talk about their economic impact as illegal vs legal, that's what I'd like to see most, if you have any like that.

I'll just bother addressing this: no, I can't give you links. Most of the things I read are behind a university subscription paywall that prevents me from sharing them.

[GMDino]

(12-18-2018, 04:36 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Did he list where he got the numbers from?
if so, please provide, I'm don't follow him.

Of course he didn't.

He pulled them out of thin air (or "heard" something "many people" are saying).

That's kinda the point.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(12-18-2018, 03:04 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Whenever this discussion occurs, why is it in relation to undocumented immigrants that are coming here to make a better life for themselves? Why don't the people pushing for the switch to Jus Soli ever invoke the wealthy people from other countries that have children here to try to protect assets? Why not discuss how so many wealthy Saudis have had their children here so they can keep assets in the country and for the members of the royal family to be able to flee in the case of the people realizing how shitty the regime has been to them?

I'd rather have people having anchor babies here that are trying to improve their lives rather than run from their mistakes.

What does that have to do with stopping illegal immigrants? What's been done has been done. I have never once said let no one in or strip current/past anchor babies of their status. And I'm not pushing for the switch to Jus Soli, I'm pushing for the switch to Jos Sanguinis. We are already Jus Soli so you're confusing me and trying to deflect the conversation?

I'd rather have people here legally trying to improve their lives. You understand that when they come here legally they are checked for diseases and brought up to date on immunization shots correct? Those that come illegally by pass that and can put other people lives in danger, specifically other children when they go to school with USC's that don't believe it allowing their children to have those immunizations. Is that fair?


TB, while it has been trending down world wide, is still considered a disease of poor countries.
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.TBS.INCD

(12-18-2018, 03:34 PM)GMDino Wrote: It's my personal belief that they have bought the fear they have been sold.

I mean how many rich Saudis are in the news for being gang members?  But as long as there are Mexican gangs we can make white people afraid.

I wasn't around then but maybe I missed reading about the big push to keep Italians from entering the US when the Mafia was at its height?  

The US love to pick a minority and claim it is the (latest) reason for all the troubles (crime, unemployment, etc).  Rather than work to solve problems we just make people afraid of the problem.  It's sad.

You mean the Emergency Quota Act of 1921 and the Immigration Act of 1924 where they significantly reduced the number of Italians allowed into the US?

(12-18-2018, 03:51 PM)GMDino Wrote: Quoted again because I wanted to add to my response:

Think about how often someone on these boards said "if you don't like something just move to another place" and then also attacks foreigners that do the same thing.

A man can move from PA to FL to try and find a better job, a woman can move to another state to get out of an abusive relationship and it doesn't matter if they have money or a job waiting or a plan...but if someone wants to come to this country for the same reasons we have a large swath of people saying they must be stopped because they might be criminals or the situation they are coming from might not be "bad enough" to warrant our amnesty.

Yes, I know they are not citizens.  They just want to be...and most want to contribute not steal and murder.  We should make it possible when we can.

Where has anyone in here ever said they don't want anyone coming to the US legally?
When you come here legally, you are vetted and checked for diseases. When you don't, well we don't know what we are getting and you're crazy if you think no bad people ever come here illegally.

[Belsnickel]

(12-18-2018, 05:46 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: What does that have to do with stopping illegal immigrants? What's been done has been done. I have never once said let no one in or strip current/past anchor babies of their status. And I'm not pushing for the switch to Jus Soli, I'm pushing for the switch to Jos Sanguinis. We are already Jus Soli so you're confusing me and trying to deflect the conversation?

Yeah, that was my bad. I'm only halfway paying attention to this thread. If I thought this would be a well reasoned discussion on the topic I might invest more effort into it, but when your initial source was what it was I kind of wrote off any chance of that and just kind of pop in here and there.