I read this claim without citation: ‘Obama’s executive amnesty will cost taxpayers $1.3 trillion.’ Searching on that phrase turns up right-wing sites using ‘illegals’ as a descriptor, so I don’t trust their objectivity. I didn’t see any fact-checking sites in the search results. (Note: I only searched for that phrase, rather than searching within fact-checking sites.)
How factual is the statement? ISTR that undocumented aliens pay more into our economy than they take out, for the obvious reason that they can’t avail themselves of the benefits they’re paying into because they’re here illegally.
This seems absurd on the face of it. The annual budget for Immigration and Naturalization is about 3 million. It would take over 400 years to amount to 1.3 trillion. If we use the entire budget of Homeland Security of 60.9 billion dollars, it would take more than 21 years to reach $1.3 trillion.
And as you point out this doesn’t look at any tax revenue from the illegals.
The claim didn’t say it will cost $1.3 trillion in taxes. Just that it will cost taxpayers this amount, which, somewhat deceptively, leads you to assume it will be taxes.
It’s no secret that a lot of illegal – er, um, “undocumented” – immigrants work for below market rates and below minimum wage. They also work under substandard conditions and don’t get such luxuries as workmen’s compensation, health insurance, or overtime pay. Now that these workers will no longer need to fear being arrested and deported if they complain about their working conditions and now that Obamacare is the law of the land, the fine upstanding taxpayers who had been exploiting these workers may have to shell out some extra bucks.
So yes, there will be costs to “taxpayers” although I have no idea if these costs will be $1.3 trillion.
Even if this is the meaning, it’s hard to believe. There are, at an upper estimate, 20 million undocumented aliens in the U.S. That means each one would have to cost taxpayers $65,000. It’s really hard to imagine they’ll earn that much more. That’s each of them including the preschoolers.
Robert Rector is with the Heritage Foundation. As such, any claims he makes are suspect. The webpage says ‘For lower immigrant numbers’, so I also suspect its objectivity.
I thought the current Republican claim was that most young workers now would get out less than they pay into Social Security hence their plan to privatize. Why should this be different for undocumented aliens?
How can it cost that much, when those “illegals” are afterwards legal and have to pay their taxes and functions like any other legal taxpaying citizen?
It will cut out many tax evading employees and employers, since illegals don’t pay taxes.
Yeah, it’s like implying Walmart has a horrible business model since hiring workers costs them x billion dollars while ignoring that those workers let them bring in x + a lot billions in revenue.
The article that Alley Dweller linked to claims to take that into account. Not that I’m not extremely skeptical of this. Everything is described as estimates without giving any information as to how those estimates were made, so it’s nothing but a bunch of unproven assertions.
Most employers automatically deduct taxes from all their employees. This has amounted to billions of dollars flowing into social security and medicare.
While an employee may be present in the country illegally or may not be legally authorized to work, the employer is still obliged to pay them (not paying or not paying at least minimum wage is a federal crime). The work itself isn’t illegal, excluding any criminal syndicates which can only represent a small fraction of the US workforce.
Employees have to provide a SSN. Employers don’t have to do any elaborate verification the numbers are real or matches anybody. There is E-Verify, but not everybody has to use that. And automatic payroll deduction for taxes are common, if not expected, these days.
That’s not to mention that when people buy stuff in stores, sales taxes are also automatic, and that’s a large chunk of most states’ budgets.
Here is the actual report.
It is plausible sounding to me. What the gist of the report says is that illegal immigrants currently do not pay many taxes or get many benefits but they do use public schools and government agencies such as police and fire departments have to be expanded to cover the increased population. Because of this the average illegal immigrant household consumes more in government services than it pays in consumption taxes. The amnesty discussed in the report would allows illegal immigrants currently in the US not to be deported for thirteen years after which they would be eligible for legal status. During the thirteen years the average cost to government will go down since they are now paying payroll taxes. However this would not be net revenue generating because the average salary is so low. After the thirteen years households would be eligible for means tested benefits and then the cost per household would increase significantly. After this is the retirement phase where the previously illegal immigrants would start receiving Medicare and Social Security. Given the low wages for most of these immigrants over their working lives they would start costing the government more than they payed out in payroll taxes relatively quickly.
The report is very speculative obviously because it is discussing what will happen for the next fifty years and contains many variables but it did not contain anything that jumped out to me as obviously implausible. It is just an estimate and likely to be wrong but the numbers are not pulled out of thin air, but extrapolated from current numbers and trends.
