 |
| |
|
|
Caligastia
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Master Zen
What I find most misleading about the arguments of the anti-immigrationists is how they present their data solely as an immediate cost-benefit scenario and never as an inter-generational issue. This would be akin to refusing an investment on the grounds that it will not pay itself off immediately. Precisely because of this, I think the big mistake these people make (deliberately of course) is that they choose to view the issue as a cost, not as an investment.
Let's put it this way. From a purely immediate cost-benefit analysis, the cost of illiegal immigration regarding public services like education and health might very well be higher (though not significantly so) than the immediate benefit of consumer cost reduction and producer benefits.
The deficit in this equation is minimal. Most studies I've read show it at about 1% of the total federal budget deficit, in other words, hardly the main culprit of the deficit (blame defense for having the biggest budget burden... oh wait, Righties never blame defense).
Now we look upon this form another perspective: an intergenerational point of view. By law, any children born in the US are legal citizens. Thus, the ensuing offspring of an immigrant family will be legal citizens. They produce a net gain to the economy since they are legally obtaining public services and are contributing to the economy with higher wages than their illegal parents, and consuming a much higher proportion of that wage, both relatively and absolutely in the US economy. Morseo most studies show that 2nd generation immigrants are far less likely to send back money to their country of origin or if they do, in far lesser amounts. The economy has therefore gained a new productive citizen which was not tabulated into the cost-benefit analysis because it was limited to a single-generational model. Even children who obtained education illegaly benefit the country since the positive marginal effect of each extra year of education reflects itself in their expected wages and these children have much better opportunites at eventually becoming legal citizens.
Last but not least you have the opportunity cost which NO anti-immigrationist will ever dare mention. What is this? Take adult immigrants, and even most underage ones. Practically all of them have obtained some degree of education, very likely a primary one and perhaps a few years of secondary. Let's just leave it at primary here. These people are working in the US, benefiting the US economy as consumers, yet the US didn't pay a cent for their education, Mexico did. Why isn't therefore, the opportunity cost of getting people in the country with free education ever tabulated in immigration cost-benefit analysis? Because it suddenly swings the balance into a benefit.
How you like them apples? 
-MZ |
You think the growth of the recipient class will somehow lead to economic solvency in the long run? Pure fantasy.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Caligastia
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by LTEC!
Illegal immigrants as a norm, wil not use any type of social service nor approach any authority that will get them deported...since it is not in their best interest.
They however spend their money in products and services and pay taxes. Either way, the US wins. |
Actually, illegals cost the US taxpayers at least 10 Billion a year. I don't call that "winning".
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Whoha
|
 |
The TOC is supposed to be classified guys...
Dec 2001
time: 23:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Master Zen
You have a brilliant idea on how to achieve that Sherlock? |
The SSA administration letters informing employers that their prospective employee had no valid SS number were good before those got axed. The sweeps were similarly effective. Actually enforcing all these laws we have would be a start.
quote:
Originally posted by Ted Striker
Whoha often mentions the Braceros program as an example of Mexican workers coming in on temporary passes to do agricultural work in the US. What he never mentions is how much money the Braceros would spend when they came to work in Texas. This is well documented. The Braceros did hard field work all day so of course needed alot of food to sustain themselves. They spent this money in the immediately surrounding areas of the communities that they worked in. |
I often mention it because after the glut of labor left economic growth picked up because businesses were forced to think. Now we have people building machine tools,electronics, and vehicles spending money rather then people who pick food by hand for a living.
Last edited by Whoha on 21-05-2005 at 00:02
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:20.
Apolyton Time is 00:20. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
19-05-2005 09:23
|