The Fiscal Cost of Unlawful Immigrants and Amnesty to the U.S. Taxpayer

[Chen019]

A sobering assessment on the total costs and impact. Nonetheless, I don’t think it would really matter what the costs are. The issue is framed as a moral issue not an economic one.

In 2010, the average unlawful immigrant household received around $24,721 in government benefits and services while paying some $10,334 in taxes. This generated an average annual fiscal deficit (benefits received minus taxes paid) of around $14,387 per household. This cost had to be borne by U.S. taxpayers. Amnesty would provide unlawful households with access to over 80 means-tested welfare programs, Obamacare, Social Security, and Medicare. The fiscal deficit for each household would soar.

If enacted, amnesty would be implemented in phases. During the first or interim phase (which is likely to last 13 years), unlawful immigrants would be given lawful status but would be denied access to means-tested welfare and Obamacare. Most analysts assume that roughly half of unlawful immigrants work “off the books” and therefore do not pay income or FICA taxes. During the interim phase, these “off the books” workers would have a strong incentive to move to “on the books” employment. In addition, their wages would likely go up as they sought jobs in a more open environment. As a result, during the interim period, tax payments would rise and the average fiscal deficit among former unlawful immigrant households would fall.

[Chronos]

Would you care to actually say something?

[GIGObuster]

Like if even conservatives have not noticed already how flawed that “study” is.

Critics Doubt Immigration Overhaul Would Cost Trillions

But it has come under fire from some conservatives, including “Gang of 8″ member Sen. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., who panned today’s Heritage release.

“Here we go again. New Heritage study claims huge cost for Immigration Reform. Ignores economic benefits. No dynamic scoring,” Flake wrote on Twitter.

Other conservatives, including Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform and the Cato Institute, last month preemptively discounted the report’s findings.

“Robert Rector’s work does not speak for the conservative movement; in fact, it does not even speak for the Heritage Foundation,” Norquist wrote in a letter to House and Senate immigration staff in April.

Alex Nowrasteh, a fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute, cautioned in a post in April that the 2007 report was riddled with errors that Heritage would be wise to address in its update. Nowrasteh cited several methodological choices that he said overstates the net cost of legalization.

“That 2007 report’s flawed methodology produced a grossly exaggerated cost to federal taxpayers of legalizing unauthorized immigrants while undercounting or discounting their positive tax and economic contributions – greatly affecting the 2007 immigration reform debate,” Nowrasteh wrote.

That should be enough, so lets not check what the center and the left is reporting..
Just kidding.

Media Take Note: Heritage Study Is Not An Analysis Of Immigration Proposal

Media Take Note: Heritage Study Is Not An Analysis Of Immigration Proposal

Salon: Heritage’s Robert Rector Admitted Study “Is Not An Analysis Of The Entire Immigration Reform Bill.” An article in Salon quoted Rector as admitting that “the organization’s current findings are limited.” The article quoted the study’s co-author, Robert Rector, saying the study “is not an analysis of the entire immigration reform bill, which is something I hope to do in the future.” [Salon, 5/6/13]

Reuters: Heritage Study Does Not Score Senate Bill. In an article on the study, Reuters noted that Heritage only looked at the provision granting legal status to undocumented immigrants:

Granting legal status to 11 million undocumented foreigners living in the United States would significantly add to government budget deficits, according to a study released on Monday by the conservative Heritage Foundation.

Heritage, a think tank headed by former Senator Jim DeMint, has assumed a leading role in opposition to a bipartisan, comprehensive immigration bill being considered by the U.S. Senate.

[…]

The legislation couples the legalization proposal with a new program to admit high-skilled and low-skilled workers to fill jobs that industry and agriculture say are going begging because of a shortage of available U.S. workers. The Heritage study did not look at the impact on the economy of those provisions. [Reuters, 5/6/13]

Huffington Post: Heritage Report Ignores Facts Of Proposed Immigration Legislation. In an article outlining criticism of the Heritage study, the Huffington Post reported that “Rector acknowledged that the Heritage report leaves out some aspects of immigration reform that many expect to help the economy.” It further noted that the Heritage report cannot be an accurate scoring of the immigration bill as it ignores several provisions of the bill:

Far from an amnesty, the “gang of eight” legislation would require even tighter border restrictions before legalization processes could move forward and would make it far more difficult for current unauthorized immigrants to become citizens.

The difficulty and scope of a new path to citizenship under the bill is one of the many issues cited by critics of the Heritage report. Not all unauthorized immigrants will even be eligible for legal status under the “gang of eight” bill – those who entered the country after Dec. 31, 2011, would be excluded, along with people who committed certain crimes – and others might choose not to pursue it, either based on its high cost or other factors. [Huffington Post, 5/6/13]

[Chen019]

@ GIGOBuster,

It’s hardly surprising that a member of the Gang of 8 is reflexively dismissive of a report suggesting the costs make amnesty a bad policy on economic grounds. They don’t address the points the report makes about the impact on existing unemployed people in the US. That point has previously been made by two members of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights in relation to blue collar African American workers:

The briefing witnesses, well-regarded scholars from leading universities and independent groups, were ideologically diverse. All the witnesses acknowledged that illegal immigration has a negative impact on black employment, both in terms of employment opportunities and wages,” the commissioners said.

They said legalizing those workers doesn’t remove the competition, but does erase one competitive advantage legal residents have, which is that they can clear E-Verify, the voluntary system that allows employers to check to make sure their employees are authorized to work.

“This levels the playing field a bit for African-Americans. If illegal immigrants are granted legal status, this small advantage disappears,” the commissioners said.

[GIGObuster]

The Washington Moonie times?

Like I said before, when one goes to reach for that straw it has been grasped in desperation.

Meet the conservative U.S. Commission on Civil Rights

[Smapti]

Even the Heritage Foundation disagrees with the Heritage Foundation on this one.

It would appear that the economic impact of immigration reform is directly linked to who the current president is.

[GIGObuster]

@Smapti

Even the Heritage Foundation disagrees with the Heritage Foundation on this one.

It would appear that the economic impact of immigration reform is directly linked to who the current president is.

And the money quote is:

The author of the 2006 Heritage report disputes the 2013 analysis:** “Unless they expect readers to believe all this household income (a) generates no productive work (e.g., makes product, mows lawns, nurses the sick, and starts businesses that hire other Americans) and (b) is 100% remitted abroad, consuming nothing in the U.S. macro economy, then the report is misleading.”** Like the other fiscal conservatives today, he argues, “The net effect of this Special Report does real damage to the cause of dynamic analysis. For more than a decade, Heritage has called on CBO to add dynamic analysis to its tax reform studies.”

[septimus]

@Smapti

Even the Heritage Foundation disagrees with the Heritage Foundation on this one.

It would appear that the economic impact of immigration reform is directly linked to who the current president is.

It would appear that [del]the economic impact of immigration reform[/del] “analysis” by right-wing “think” tanks is directly linked to who the current president is.

Heritage doubtless has high-IQ employees, and they may even have a token rationalist or two. But time is short and sources are plentiful so discerning critics ignore what Heritage publishes just as they ignore what FauxNews presents. Moreover, it saves time to just ignore anyone who uses such propagandists as a source. (Am I the only one that burst out laughing reading OP with its “sobering” URL pointer to the babble tank?)

(Since “right-wing think tank” is an oxymoron, what’s a better word? Babble-tank?)

[adaher]

For what it’s worth, the CBO is pretty optimistic about immigration reform:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/2/cbo-issue-estimates-more-favorable-immigration-ref/?page=all

While the cost is important, it’s also impossible to know for sure what the effects will be. My main concern is rule of law. Whatever immigration reform passes must actually fix the system, not just be an excuse for amnesty. If we decide that group A is allowed to be here and group B isn’t, then we have to deport 100% of group B, or at least make a good faith attempt to. If we’re instead going to say that it’s inhumane to deport group B, or inhumane to even expect them to self-deport(another term for obeying the law, something you’d think wouldn’t be controversial), then we haven’t reformed anything.

In other words, whoever is outside of this amnesty needs to be deported with all due speed, and all future border crossers or visa overstayers must be deported as well. This must be the last amnesty.

[Fear_Itself]

@septimus

Heritage doubtless has high-IQ employees, and they may even have a token rationalist or two.

Did you miss this part?:

Heritage, a think tank headed by former Senator Jim DeMint

[adaher]

Heritage is a solid think tank. After all, Obamacare is modeled after one of their ideas, as liberals love to point out. While that is intended to be snarky, obviously the think tank has some worth if liberals modeled a signature achievement after it.

[septimus]

@adaher

Heritage is a solid think tank. After all, Obamacare is modeled after one of their ideas, as liberals love to point out. While that is intended to be snarky, obviously the think tank has some worth if liberals modeled a signature achievement after it.

I don’t know what you think the word “liberal” means. Obamacare is an abomination foisted on the American people by a coalition of right-wing Republicans(*) and weak-willed right-of-center Democrats. Liberals who went along are rosy-eyed optimists.

(* - Yes I know the right-wingers voted against Obamacare, but only after defecating on and destroying its liberal character. Win-win for them: They get healthcare designed to enrich their health-business patrons, while being able to point fingers of blame when the problems they designed into it become more apparent.)

[yanceylebeef]

I have to admit, I love it when these people start eating thier own, none other than Jennifer Rubin reports that

"Americans for Tax Reform, the Cato Institute, the Kemp Foundation and the American Action Network took what had once been the premier conservative think tank, the Heritage Foundation, to the woodshed for its immigration report that sees trillions in cost and no benefits from immigration reform. […]

These are longtime allies of Heritage and promoters of free market capitalism who are witnessing the intellectual bastardization of a once great institution to adopt a cause that is inherently unconservative, namely opposition to immigration…"

I wonder how many of these groups will be deemed RINOs by the far right?

[adaher]

None. The right is genuinely divided on immigration. Both sides are consistent with conservatism, which is why both sides think they are right.

For me, it’s all about law and order. I don’t care what the law is so much as I care that it’s enforced and not the mockery we have today.

[CJJ]

@adaher

None. The right is genuinely divided on immigration. Both sides are consistent with conservatism, which is why both sides think they are right.

Any theories on why they’re divided? Here’s a hint: It has nothing to do with the supposed economic impact of granting “amnesty” to new immigrants.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

There appear to be a series of remarkable assumptions used to determine what benefits are received by undocumented immigrants.

[adaher]

@CJJ

Any theories on why they’re divided? Here’s a hint: It has nothing to do with the supposed economic impact of granting “amnesty” to new immigrants.

Well, conservatives who are nativists have one view, conservatives who believe in free trade have another. You don’t really have free trade unless you have a free flow of labor and people.

I am a little in both camps. I want a liberal immigration policy that admits virtually anyone who wants to come here provided they:

1. Have a clean record
2. Have no infectious diseases
3. Will work and not be a burden on the system

In other words, current law, actually enforced this time, with no quota limits on immigration.

As for my foot in the other camp, I’d require a lot more for citizenship. Real proficiency in English, renunciation of foreign citizenships for real(that is actually part of the oath, but unenforced), and adjust the citizenship test to focus on the ideas behind America’s founding. Immigrants must assimilate.

[GIGObuster]

What **septimus **said, and “solid” adaher? The Heritage has the consistency of baby poop. An already compromised health plan based on what the Heritage and other conservatives proposed in the past is being disowned now by them.

The Heritage is a joke.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/ten-miles-square/2013/03/how_the_heritage_foundation_ma043852.php

And even more so now as the demented Demint is their president now.

[BrainGlutton]

Why is this thread in Elections?

[mbetter]

@adaher

Real proficiency in English …

Wait, why English?