[Arizona] Immigration

He's going to get sued, because it's illegal under the law for law enforcement agencies to set their own policies regarding enforcement of its provisions.

Which is a) sad b) ridiculous and c) hilarious.
 
Gandalf said:
Tucson is filled with:

College kids who don't vote
Military people who don't vote in the county
Snowbirds (old fucks that winter vacation there) who don't vote in AZ.
Mexicans.

Guess the guy knows where his bread is buttered.
Click to expand...

Haha, I love how anyone who might know more about a situation than yourself is automatically wrong simply for the fact that they disagree with you. Your logic is impenetrable and infallible.
 
This whole situations just illustrates why the fed needs to enforce the laws it puts in place

They create blanket laws and ignore them forcing states and cities to create their own legislation
 
The Cost of Immigration

Most immigrants are poor; indeed, that is why they come here. Through present immigration policy, we are admitting over one million mostly poor people into our society every year —a society that is already challenged to deal with the poverty of its natives.
Costs Table from the October 1996 Huddle Study
Program (amounts in billion $s) Legal Illegal Total
Public Education K-12 $14.38 $5.85 $20.23
Public Higher Education $5.55 $0.71 $6.26
ESL and Bilingual Education $2.82 $1.22 $4.04
Food Stamps $2.81 $0.85 $3.66
AFDC $2.71 $0.50 $3.21
Supplemental Security Income (SSI) $2.76 n/a $2.76
Housing $2.37 $0.61 $2.98
Social Security $21.92 $3.61 $25.53
Earned Income Tax Credit $3.69 $0.68 $4.37
Medicaid $11.43 $3.12 $14.55
Medicare A and B $5.49 $0.58 $6.07
Criminal Justice and Corrections $2.32 $0.76 $3.08
Local Government $15.32 $5.00 $20.32
Other Programs $18.41 $9.25 $27.66
Total Costs $111.98 $32.74 $144.70
Less Taxes Paid $82.38 $12.59 $94.97
Net Costs of Direct Services $29.60 $20.16 $49.76
Displacement Costs $10.96 $4.28 $15.24
All Net Costs $40.56 $24.44 $65.00
Percent of Net Costs 62.4% 37.6% 100%

The cost of immigration to our society is enormous. The most recent estimate places the net cost of post-1969 immigrants at $61 billion in 2000 alone ($35 billion from legal immigrants and $26 billion from illegal immigrants).1 This is after immigrants’ contribution in taxes has been subtracted. As high as the cost is now, the rising tide of immigration will lift it even higher in years to come. By the end of 2002, the annual net cost of immigration will have risen $66 billion.2

A study from the National Bureau of Economic Research, based on the Census Bureau’s Survey of Income and Program Participation, analyzed the cost of immigrants based on their specific use of means-tested welfare (both direct and indirect), and found that the total immigrant receipt of benefits in 1996 came to $180 billion.3 That annual amount is sure to grow as the population of legal and illegal immigrants receives over one million new people a year.

The real costs are probably even higher than these estimates, which do not take into account the effects of immigration in displacing American workers from their jobs and depressing wages. Whatever the annual cost, it is sure to grow as the population of legal and illegal immigrants—now at 31 million—receives over a million new people every year. With immigration policy skewed toward admitting relatives from underdeveloped countries and away from skilled admissions, the flow of immigrants is increasingly composed of the unskilled and undereducated. As a result, “immigrants arriving in the past decade or so are earning less compared to native-born Americans than immigrants who arrived in earlier decades.”4 In other words, the overall earning power of the immigrant population will continue to deteriorate, making them an even bigger drain on taxpayers.

Occasionally, there have been studies that have claimed to find that immigrants create less of a deficit (or even a surplus). But these studies are marred by common flaws, such as using old data on the immigrants of 20 or 30 years ago and the omission of whole categories of less skilled immigrants.5

Unreimbursed Medical Expenditures

Many public hospitals in the United States, especially in the Southwest, are facing major financial difficulties because of the services that they are rendering to indigent alien patients (many of whom are in the country illegally). As a response, Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL) introduced legislation in July 2002 to require the federal government to compensate the hospitals for these expenses so that the burden would not be borne only by local taxpayers.

State Costs of Incarceration

The Department of Justice’s State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP), begun in 1994, compensates states and local jurisdictions only for incarceration of illegal aliens who are serving time for a felony conviction or at least two misdemeanors. However, the level of compensation appears to be falling, leaving more and more of the costs to be borne by state and local taxpayers.

In 1999, the latest year for which full data is available, states claimed expenses of $1.484 billion for 69,502 illegal alien detention-years through SCAAP. (An illegal alien detention-year may mean the detention of one or several illegal aliens, the latter case occuring when an alien is incarcerated for less than a full year.) The SCAAP program compensationed states and local jurisdiction for only 39 percent of that amount, leaving nearly $911 million to be paid by the state and local taxpayers.

The partial data available for 2002 indicates that the level of compensation to the states has fallen still more, to less than 20 percent of expenses in 2002.6 Adding to the problem, there has been an increase in criminal aliens in detention. Between FY'99 and FY'02, alien detention increased by 45 percent (from about 69,300 inmate years to over 100,300 inmate years). For 2003, the support to the states was still further reduced, as the funds for SCAAP were cut from $550 million in 2002 to $250 million.

(These expenses do not include the costs of public safety expenditures, detention pending trial, expenses of trial procedings, interpretation, public defenders, or the incarceration expenses of immigrants for minor offenses that do not meet the standards of the SCAPP reimbursement program.)

While the cost of taking care of poor immigrants may be shifted by legislation among the levels of government and the private sector, the fact remains that immigration creates an enormous fiscal burden on America and its citizens—a burden that Congress has levied upon us through short-sighted and haphazard immigration policy.

Americans should demand that Congress reduce the immigrant flow and alter the criteria for admission to ameliorate the cost of immigration to our society.



[1] The Net National Costs of Immigration: Fiscal Effects of Welfare Restorations to Legal Immigrants, Donald Huddle, Rice University, 1997.

[2] Huddle, ibid.

[3] Immigration and the Welfare State, George Borjas and Lynette Hilton, Working Paper Series #5372, National Bureau of Economic Research, December 1995.

[4] Borjas, ibid.

[5] For example, a 1994 Urban Institute study, Migration and Immigrants: Setting the Record Straight, found that immigration created a surplus of $29 billion annually, but only after it excluded from its calculations all immigrants from Mexico, Cambodia, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland, the former USSR, and Vietnam (which constitute over 40 percent of the immigrant population).

[6] Arizona Star, June 26, 2003.
 
Mute said:
Haha, I love how anyone who might know more about a situation than yourself is automatically wrong simply for the fact that they disagree with you. Your logic is impenetrable and infallible.
Click to expand...

I lived there (Tucson) for four years. I'm sure it's changed a BUNCH since I left 12 years ago.

Only ethnic group I neglected is that Tucson has a pretty sizable Korean population, which was surprising, considering Tucson has no redeeming qualities whatsoever. But they also don't vote.
 
The Economic Logic of Illegal Immigration (link is a PDF)
For the nation as a whole, the NRC estimated that in 1996 immigration imposed a short-run fiscal burden on the average U.S. native household of $200, or 0.2 percent of U.S. GDP.42 In that year, the immigration surplus was about 0.1 percent of GDP.43 A back of the envelope calculation then suggests that in the short run immigration in the mid-1990s reduced the annual income of U.S. residents by about 0.1 percent of GDP. Given the uncertainties involved in making this calculation, one should not put great stock in the fact that the resulting estimate is negative. The prediction error around the estimate, though unknown, is likely to be large, in which case the -0.1 percent estimate would be statistically indistinguishable from zero. Using this sort of analysis, we cannot say with much conviction whether the aggregate impact of immigration on the U.S. economy is positive or negative. What available evidence does suggest is that the total impact is small.

When considering reforms to U.S. immigration policy, it is not the total effect of immigration on the U.S. economy that matters but the impact of the immigrants who would be affected by the changes currently being considered in U.S. admission and enforcement policies. The immigrants that account for the negative fiscal impact of immigration in California and the United States as a whole are primarily individuals with low skill levels. This group includes legal immigrants (most of whom presumably entered the country on family-based immigration visas) and illegal immigrants. The Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), a think tank that advocates reducing immigration, has recently applied the NRC methodology to estimate the fiscal impact of illegal immigration. The CIS finds that in 2002 illegal immigrants on net received $10 billion more in government benefits than they paid in taxes, a value equal to 0.1 percent of U.S. GDP in that year.44 With unauthorized immigrants accounting for 5 percent of the U.S. labor force, U.S. residents would receive a surplus from illegal immigration of about 0.03 percent of GDP. Combining these two numbers, it appears that as of 2002 illegal immigration caused an annual income loss of 0.07 percent of U.S. GDP. Again, given the uncertainties surrounding this sort of calculation, one could not say with much confidence that this impact is statistically distinguishable from zero.
Click to expand...

For the sake of argument, take literally the estimate that illegal immigration was costing the economy the equivalent of 0.07 percent of GDP annually as of 2002. In that year, the Immigration and Naturalization Service spent $4.2 billion (or 0.04 percent of GDP) on border and interior enforcement, including the detention and removal of illegal aliens, in a year in which half a million net new illegal immigrants entered the country.46 The $13 billion in proposed border security spending for next year is already two-and-a- half times that figure at 0.10 percent of GDP. With the already huge increases in spending, the flow of illegal immigrants across the southern border (as measured by apprehensions) is estimated to have fallen by about 27 percent last year. How much money would be required to reduce illegal immigration to zero? Even far short of sealing the borders, the funds spent on extra enforcement would vastly exceed the income gained from eliminating the net fiscal transfer to households headed by illegal immigrants. One should keep in mind, however, that this cost-benefit calculation is based purely on the economic consequences of illegal immigration. There may be gains to increased border enforcement associated with enhanced national security that would justify the expense, but they are not economic gains.
Click to expand...

Illegal immigration is a persistent phenomenon in part because it has a strong economic rationale. Low-skilled workers are increasingly scarce in the United States, while still abundant in Mexico, Central America, and elsewhere. Impeding illegal immigration, without creating other avenues for legal entry, would conflict with market forces that push for moving labor from low-productivity, low-wage countries to the high- productivity, high-wage U.S. labor market. The acceptance of these market pressures is behind proposals for a large-scale expansion of temporary legal immigration. For many elected officials, temporary legal immigration is still immigration, so they have sought to regulate guest workers in a manner that insulates U.S. labor markets from economic repercussions. But highly regulated inflows of temporary low-skilled foreign labor would be unlikely to attract much interest from U.S. employers. If foreign labor wants to come to the United States and U.S. business wants to hire these workers, then creating cumbersome legal channels through which labor could flow would give employers an incentive to eschew the new guest workers and continue to hire unauthorized workers instead. Were new legislation to combine stronger border and interior enforcement with an unattractive guest worker program, it would be pitting policy reform against itself, with only one of these components likely to survive in the long run.
Click to expand...
 
So we could save money by not enforcing our borders at all and just paying out what we need to for illegals?

Thats a great idea

We dont enforce our borders because its a great value, you moron
 
We could save a lot of money by allowing these people to come here legally. That's for sure!

Then we could save on the enforcement costs and still have secure borders. What a whacky idea!!!!
 
I think the root of this is not just low skilled work but the fact the US automatically makes people born within our borders US citizens vs some countries like France who do not grant this and require application regardless.
 
ptavv said:
or you grant amnesty and implement immigration reform that lets more than 5,000 unskilled workers in per year

just because ya'll don't seem to get it and keep crowing about "THEYRE HERE ILLEGALLY"

this is why:
07cf533ddb1d06350cf1ddb5942ef5ad.jpg
Click to expand...

I agree that immigration needs to be fixed. HOWEVER, no legislation will be meaningful until we can lock down our borders. If you make it easier to come in by allowing 5x's as many, there will still be a certain number that are NOT allowed in...and they will just come in anyway. :ftard:

You cannot make any meaningful legislation regarding immigration as long as we have a border that's basically porous. The people that aren't allowed in legally will still enter illegally.

[bad example]It's like charging $5 instead of $10 for a sandwich so that you can serve more people, but all of the people that still can't afford $5 just steal a sandwich anyway. What the hell is the point?[/bad example]

The only reasonable logical progession for meaningful immigration reform:
--Lockdown the borders. Until we can control what comes in and out, we shouldn't be making bullshit laws about what can come in and out...
--Deal with the illegals already inside. Figure out a way to set them up with the appropriate visas, documents, etc to be here legally. This may involve amnesty, but it WILL involve background checks for illegals--and it will involve requiring them to pay taxes and become full fledged members of society.
--Deal with the immigration policies regarding entry from other countries but namely Mexico. Lets face it, we use illegals for all sorts of shit in this country and they are a vital part of the economy. They are also a very large strain on that same economy. We need to figure out a way to let them come work and go back (like they already do) without putting a major strain on our systems. I personally loathe paying a fuckton more a month in insurance because some mexicans without insurance like drinking and driving into USC's cars.
 
Last edited:
ScooBySnaCk said:
I think the root of this is not just low skilled work but the fact the US automatically makes people born within our borders US citizens vs some countries like France who do not grant this and require application regardless.
Click to expand...

Birthright citizenship is part of what makes America so great. Changing that would be asinine.
 
ptavv said:
We could save a lot of money by allowing these people to come here legally. That's for sure!

Then we could save on the enforcement costs and still have secure borders. What a whacky idea!!!!
Click to expand...

We could save by getting rid of police and fire services as well!!!
 
link_ said:
I agree that immigration needs to be fixed. HOWEVER, no legislation will be meaningful until we can lock down our borders. If you make it easier to come in by allowing 5x's as many, there will still be a certain number that are NOT allowed in...and they will just come in anyway. :ftard:

You cannot make any meaningful legislation regarding immigration as long as we have a border that's basically porous. The people that aren't allowed in legally will still enter illegally.

[bad example]It's like charging $5 instead of $10 for a sandwich so that you can serve more people, but all of the people that still can't afford $5 just steal a sandwich anyway. What the hell is the point?[/bad example]
Click to expand...
Counter with another example: music piracy. CDs were overpriced, so everyone just downloaded everything illegally. Now that there are much cheaper, more reasonable legal ways of downloading music, the illegal methods are a lot less popular. Nothing today has quite the same popularity that napster did. And it wasn't because of hilariously ineffective anti-piracy measures.

There people who make careers out of smuggling people across the border. If more people are let in legally, they won't have to trust their lives to sketchy smugglers, depriving the smugglers of clientelle and driving them out of business.
 
ptavv said:
We could save a lot of money by allowing these people to come here legally. That's for sure!

Then we could save on the enforcement costs and still have secure borders. What a whacky idea!!!!
Click to expand...

haha

I disagree. The price of goods would skyrocket once employers were forced to pay min wage, taxes, disability, etc on their new "legal" workers.

Not to mention that illegal aliens isn't the only thing that crosses the border. Arizona specifically is a MAAAAJOR drug corridor into the United States. Drugs, gangs, and cartels come through regularly. They bring their violent, criminal lifestyles with them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top