# The Fiscal Cost of Unlawful Immigrants and Amnesty to the U.S. Taxpayer **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 7, 2013, 3:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fiscal-cost-of-unlawful-immigrants-and-amnesty-to-the-u-s-taxpayer/657680 "2013-05-07T03:29:42Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 17\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2013, 1:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fiscal-cost-of-unlawful-immigrants-and-amnesty-to-the-u-s-taxpayer/657680/41 "2013-05-09T01:01:28Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > You don’t get to set the criteria for what people can and can’t do to fit your ideology, I thought you learned your less during the last election? > > People will come for work, they won’t and can’t be stopped. Then we should have unlimited immigration, with the limitations that we have no criminals or people with infectious diseases. > [@](#): > > You know, you really need to clean up your sources of information, that 20,000 bit was misleading in the extreme; as the NPR article showed, labor is not opposed to help the mess of immigrants working that are already here, that 20,000 number is for new low skilled laborers and it is a number that will increase in the future. The 20,000 was what labor initially wanted, which would have effectively shut down immigration in a way even Tom Tancredo or Pat Buchanan couldn’t imagine in their most gleeful dreams. The fact that they want to legalize those already here has no bearing on that. And even the 200,000 cap is unrealistic. Since 1986, we imported 11 million people, or 400,000 per year. So under labor’s “concession” we cut immigration in half. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2013, 1:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fiscal-cost-of-unlawful-immigrants-and-amnesty-to-the-u-s-taxpayer/657680/42 "2013-05-09T01:21:32Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Then we should have unlimited immigration, with the limitations that we have no criminals or people with infectious diseases. > > The 20,000 was what labor initially wanted, which would have effectively shut down immigration in a way even Tom Tancredo or Pat Buchanan couldn’t imagine in their most gleeful dreams. The fact that they want to legalize those already here has no bearing on that. > > And even the 200,000 cap is unrealistic. Since 1986, we imported 11 million people, or 400,000 per year. So under labor’s “concession” we cut immigration in half. Still far away from the original misleading implication, actually even farther away as labor is in favor of legalizing the workers that are already here. And IIRC on the latest years, thanks to the recession, there has been less immigration. So once again, clean your sources of information, you will have less headaches when posting. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2013, 1:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fiscal-cost-of-unlawful-immigrants-and-amnesty-to-the-u-s-taxpayer/657680/43 "2013-05-09T01:29:42Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Still far away from the original misleading implication, actually even farther away as labor is in favor of legalizing the workers that are already here. That’s a concession to the fact that they are part of a larger political coalition. The fact is, they want to reduce immigration from historical levels, and they want to do so substantially. > [@](#): > > And IIRC on the latest years, thanks to the recession, there has been less immigration. So once again, clean your sources of information, you will have less headaches when posting. We’re going to be in recession forever? I just want to be clear on what’s going to happen here. Let’s say the economy is booming and we return to historical levels of immigration: 400,000 workers want to come here. Only 200,000 are allowed. So this means we deport 200,000 people per year? I just want to be clear on that. Is this what labor is favoring? I don’t think even Operation Wetback involved that much deportation. As a previous poster said, you can’t stop people from coming here and looking for work. So why not just drop the pretense of limiting the supply of labor and open the borders? ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2013, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fiscal-cost-of-unlawful-immigrants-and-amnesty-to-the-u-s-taxpayer/657680/44 "2013-05-09T01:35:38Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > That’s a concession to the fact that they are part of a larger political coalition. The fact is, they want to reduce immigration from historical levels, and they want to do so substantially. > > We’re going to be in recession forever? I just want to be clear on what’s going to happen here. > > Let’s say the economy is booming and we return to historical levels of immigration: 400,000 workers want to come here. Only 200,000 are allowed. So this means we deport 200,000 people per year? I just want to be clear on that. Is this what labor is favoring? I don’t think even Operation Wetback involved that much deportation. > > As a previous poster said, you can’t stop people from coming here and looking for work. So why not just drop the pretense of limiting the supply of labor and open the borders? Tap dancing, the point was that the 20,000 number was misleading. So time to drop that wedge issue, labor is in favor of immigration reform and stop with the starwmen too, I’m not demanding that the borders be open. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2013, 3:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fiscal-cost-of-unlawful-immigrants-and-amnesty-to-the-u-s-taxpayer/657680/45 "2013-05-09T03:58:42Z")
Labor is in favor of immigration reform, I never denied that. And the 20,000 figure wasn’t misleading, it is actually what they demanded. If business interests hadn’t negotiated them to a higher number, that’s what it would have been. I was just pointing out why liberals in power can’t back open borders: labor would never allow unlimited immigration. Do you disagree that this is the case? ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2013, 4:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fiscal-cost-of-unlawful-immigrants-and-amnesty-to-the-u-s-taxpayer/657680/46 "2013-05-09T04:33:44Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Labor is in favor of immigration reform, I never denied that. And the 20,000 figure wasn’t misleading, it is actually what they demanded. If business interests hadn’t negotiated them to a higher number, that’s what it would have been. It is still omitting the millions that will benefit from the reform that labor is supporting. That is why I’m just saying it is misleading, the fact that it was not mentioned that it was per year and the number will increase was also leaving out a lot. > [@adaher](#): > > I was just pointing out why liberals in power can’t back open borders: labor would never allow unlimited immigration. Do you disagree that this is the case? If you can not figure out that I already said that, I really wonder what is your point here. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2013, 4:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fiscal-cost-of-unlawful-immigrants-and-amnesty-to-the-u-s-taxpayer/657680/47 "2013-05-09T04:45:33Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > It is still omitting the millions that will benefit from the reform that labor is supporting. That is why I’m just saying it is misleading, the fact that it was not mentioned that it was per year and the number will increase was also leaving out a lot. > > . It’s also leaving out a lot to miss the fact that a worker cap necessitates a LOT of deportations in the future, more than we’ve ever had before. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2013, 4:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fiscal-cost-of-unlawful-immigrants-and-amnesty-to-the-u-s-taxpayer/657680/48 "2013-05-09T04:55:43Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > It’s also leaving out a lot to miss the fact that a worker cap necessitates a LOT of deportations in the future, more than we’ve ever had before. Cite? I’m afraid that you are \*\*still \*\*attempting to ignore that the reform will help the millions already here, many of those will then become workers that will, most likely than not, join a union. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2013, 5:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fiscal-cost-of-unlawful-immigrants-and-amnesty-to-the-u-s-taxpayer/657680/49 "2013-05-09T05:05:05Z")
Future workers would join a union too. So why have a cap? And why would you need a cite to know that a cap would necessitate a lot of deportations? I already made the case: average illegal immigration since 1986 has been 400,000 per year. The cap is only 200,000 in the best case(lower otherwise). what happens to the 200,000+ per year who aren’t allowed? ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2013, 5:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fiscal-cost-of-unlawful-immigrants-and-amnesty-to-the-u-s-taxpayer/657680/50 "2013-05-09T05:13:32Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Future workers would join a union too. So why have a cap? And why would you need a cite to know that a cap would necessitate a lot of deportations? I already made the case: average illegal immigration since 1986 has been 400,000 per year. The cap is only 200,000 in the best case(lower otherwise). what happens to the 200,000+ per year who aren’t allowed? No cite then, and again, the point stands, ignoring the millions that labor is supporting in this reform makes a mockery of the wedge that is being push here. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2013, 5:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fiscal-cost-of-unlawful-immigrants-and-amnesty-to-the-u-s-taxpayer/657680/51 "2013-05-09T05:18:19Z")
One does not need a cite to point out the obvious. A cap means everyone over the cap gets deported. True or false? ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2013, 5:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fiscal-cost-of-unlawful-immigrants-and-amnesty-to-the-u-s-taxpayer/657680/52 "2013-05-09T05:21:08Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > One does not need a cite to point out the obvious. A cap means everyone over the cap gets deported. True or false? Actually you \*\*do \*\*need a cite. It was not my imagination that you are ignoring current information regarding the levels of immigration that are being seen now. [http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/2013/03/the-decline-in-illegal-immigration-from-mexico-becker.html](http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/2013/03/the-decline-in-illegal-immigration-from-mexico-becker.html) > [@](#): > > Net illegal immigration from Mexico to the United States has been essentially zero and perhaps even negative, during the past few years. Is this entirely due to depressed labor markets in the US and tougher border policing, or have longer run forces also been at work? The answer is that fundamental changes in Mexico have contributed to the immigration slowdown, and these changes will continue into the future. As a result, the highly controversial American political issue of what to do about illegal immigration should become much less important in the future. Most likely, the ones that made the deal do not ignore the millions already here and do take into account what is happening now and in the near future, also the reported reduction in the number of children per family that is seen in places like Mexico point to less dire numbers going forward as the ones you are pointing to. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2013, 5:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fiscal-cost-of-unlawful-immigrants-and-amnesty-to-the-u-s-taxpayer/657680/53 "2013-05-09T05:40:53Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Actually you \*\*do \*\*need a cite. It was not my imagination that you are ignoring current information regarding the levels of immigration that are being seen now. My cite was historical immigration levels. Current immigration levels are due to lack of jobs. When jobs become more abundant, we’ll return to normal levels of immigration demand. > [@](#): > > Most likely, the ones that made the deal do not ignore the millions already here and do take into account what is happening now and in the near future, also the reported reduction in the number of children per family that is seen in places like Mexico point to less dire numbers going forward as the ones you are pointing to. Which still leaves the fact that there’s a cap on future immigration that is much, much lower than the immigration we’ve seen in the past. We’re supposed to be fixing our immigration system. It sounds to me that if labor is thinking the same way you are, that we’re making the mother of assumptions here about future immigration, to the point where our immigration system will go right back to being broken. If labor(and you) are confident that future immigration will be lower, then let’s not have a cap. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2013, 5:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fiscal-cost-of-unlawful-immigrants-and-amnesty-to-the-u-s-taxpayer/657680/54 "2013-05-09T05:56:23Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > My cite was historical immigration levels. Current immigration levels are due to lack of jobs. When jobs become more abundant, we’ll return to normal levels of immigration demand. The reform include the uses of tools like E-verify that even though controversial, it has been reported that in the places that is used employers do get discouraged on employing illegals, there is then less incentive to try to hire illegals as they did before. In any case the point stands, there is a lot that is changing, and not only in the USA but in places like Mexico that point to your say so’s to be the less impressive. > [@adaher](#): > > Which still leaves the fact that there’s a cap on future immigration that is much, much lower than the immigration we’ve seen in the past. And that just leaves an opinion with little support. > [@adaher](#): > > We’re supposed to be fixing our immigration system. It sounds to me that if labor is thinking the same way you are, that we’re making the mother of assumptions here about future immigration, to the point where our immigration system will go right back to being broken. It is not an assumption when the incentives for immigration are changing in the USA and in the developing world. > [@adaher](#): > > If labor(and you) are confident that future immigration will be lower, then let’s not have a cap. And once again, your cap is made of straw, I do agree in having some controls. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2013, 11:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fiscal-cost-of-unlawful-immigrants-and-amnesty-to-the-u-s-taxpayer/657680/55 "2013-05-09T11:24:10Z")
> [@waterj2](#): > > I know everyone is going to be shocked, shocked to find that the study cited in the OP was coauthored by someone who’s PhD dissertation [was the same sort of racist argument](http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/05/08/heritage-study-co-author-opposed-letting-in-immigrants-with-low-iqs/) **Chen019** makes in every other thread he posts in: I assume that **Chen019** ’s PhD from Harvard got lost in the mail or something, given that the intellectual achievements he demonstrateshere show him to be just as deserving as Dr. Richwine. ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2013, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fiscal-cost-of-unlawful-immigrants-and-amnesty-to-the-u-s-taxpayer/657680/56 "2013-05-09T17:10:46Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Then we should have unlimited immigration, with the limitations that we have no criminals or people with infectious diseases. Ok, I reluctantly accept your proposal… ---
**Author:** ![Chen019](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f19dbf/32.png) [@Chen019](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chen019)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2013, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fiscal-cost-of-unlawful-immigrants-and-amnesty-to-the-u-s-taxpayer/657680/57 "2013-05-12T21:38:08Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > They still eat food, and pay rent, and buy clothes; what do you think happens when the economy loses 20 million people who spend everything they earn as soon as they are paid? Note that the National Research Council found that the cost of each low skill entrant is **$130,000** in todays dollars. So from a fiscal perspective amnesty for low skill workers is illogical. In terms of labor or unions, it obviously goes against their existing workers to have greater competition to drive down wages. Basically encouraging a race to the bottom to the lowest wages possible, which is what big business wants. It’s an interesting issue as it also affects blue collar african-americans in an [adverse manner](http://washingtonexaminer.com/civil-rights-commission-members-to-cbc-amnesty-hurts-black-americans/article/2526917?custom_click=rss). But their interests get trumped by political expediency. > [@](#): > > The members recalled a 2008 USCCR hearing that concluded that amnesty would harm black Americans. > > “The briefing witnesses, well-regarded scholars from leading universities and independent groups, were ideologically diverse,” they wrote. **“All the witnesses acknowledged that illegal immigration has a negative impact on black employment, both in terms of employment opportunities and wages.”** > > Kirsanow and Thernstrom are Republican appointees to the commission. Heriot is a registered independent who was appointed by Congress. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fiscal-cost-of-unlawful-immigrants-and-amnesty-to-the-u-s-taxpayer/657680.md?page=2)