Saturday, April 29, 2006

Cost/Benefit ratio

Taking A Closer Look At Illegal Immigration
Immigration is a hot button issue right now and one of the burning issues is just how much illegal immigrants cost our society and how much they contribute.

Sheriff John Trumbo has sent a bill to the President of Mexico, outlining 5,061 beds used by the country's citizens in 2005 at a cost of $63 per day.

While that may sound extreme, you have to understand Trumbo's frustration because Umatilla County spends more than $300,000 a year keeping illegal immigrants behind bars.

Children of illegal immigrants often do not speak English as their first language. It costs an additional $2,600 a year per child to educate someone who speaks English as a second language.

Then there are the hospitals. They do not track how many illegal immigrants they serve, but the vast majority of those who seek care do not have health insurance. In the state of Oregon, illegal immigrants account for a staggering $165 million in unpaid medical bills.

As for taxes, some undocumented immigrants do pay them and you might be surprised where the money goes.
"Some" undocumented immgrants [criminal aliens] do pay them? Ooooh, we should be so grateful.

Roughly 55 percent pay payroll taxes, but they cannot collect social security, Medicare or unemployment benefits. Many illegal immigrants use fake social security numbers to get jobs.
So half are working "on the books" and those ones are commiting ID theft and fraud to do so!!! This is really win-win for us, their work for cash and pay no taxes or they steal your SSN and pay a tiny amount of taxes on their low paying jobs.

However, according to the Center for Immigration Studies, if you compare illegal immigrant households to those of U.S. citizens, undocumented immigrants create a net loss on the tax system of $2,736 per household.

And that's the bottom line.

18 comments:

Anonymous said...

"Some" pay taxes, and well as "some" americans do. But if we do legalize these people. Then they will have to pay taxes. While those americans who don't pay taxes, well.........theyll continue not to pay them.

Anonymous said...

That's Bushonomics - lose $2736/ per household. He says he wants to be a compassionate conservative - thanks for nothing (actually the additional debt) !

Every conceivable way of slicing and dicing the cost and benefits show that illegal aliens at present cost us more than they will ever contribute. Unless they give out fewer benefits that they are not entitled to in the first place and their is fewer of them, the greatness of this country will not again be realized.

Daniel said...

I wonder how fast the cost of health insurance would drop if every illegal alien were deported tomorrow?

Sue K. said...

anon#1--so, you're assuming that if the illegals are made legal that miraculously they will ALL pay taxes? Sorry, but I don't agree.

Rick Hickey said...

We LEGALISED 3 Million in 1986.
They ALL qualified for Government assistance.
In 1996 it was reported that the NET LOSS, after Taxes was $74 BILLION.
NOW multiply that times at least 12 Million NEW Illegals. HELLO?
You have make money to PAY taxes.
And with a large family and Gov't programs for low income "minorities" you actually get a refund of money you didn't even pay.
Meanwhile the Government of Mexico & Latin America live like KINGS!
If you support these Corrupt Kingdoms who avoid responsibility for their citizens. YOU ARE A FOOL.
Move there and HELP them then.

Anonymous said...

Don't forget the cost of straightening out the SS records even when they do pay payroll taxes. It takes thousands and thousands of man-hours (excuse me, worker hours) at the state and federal levels to get records straightened out when false use of an SSN is discovered. Probably costs more than they pay in tax.

Mike Mayhem said...

Cost of immigrants: $52 billion over five years.

Cost of removal (not to mention the inevitable return because really illegals are just scapegoats and they're needed in the US economy): $205 billion over five years.

Now also take into consideration the costs of re-enforcing/securing the border. I do not have numbers but it will also cost too much for what you're getting considering a significant number of illegals obtain visas prior to entry. Which means a wall/national guard would be pointless. Which means your argument is still weak.

I recommend staying away from the economics argument Daniel and chill with the whole "they're illegal.... like all of our ancestors" argument.

Your pal,
-Mike.

p.s. if you want the real solution to the immigration problem see my blog. I've mapped it all out, using OFIR stats.

BEAR said...

Hey, mike m., I was busy with the Boy Scouts this weekend, so I hope you will forgive me for answering your nonsense in an untimely manner. The "cost of removal" you write about is only your moronic fantasy. The cost of enforcement is far less than the cost of the continued sponging by those encouraged to break our laws, and the cost of the additional millions to follow. Can you, once you finish rehab, calculate the cost of a single dirty-bomb? Whoa, I thought not! As for your idiotic contention that "illegals.....are scapegoats;" they are criminals....look it up. Calling a goat a fish doesn't change its diet. In addition, if you believe that all ancestral immigrants were illegal, then you lack the basic intelligence to put forth any opinion at all! And finally, here's some simple math for you and the other foolish socialists who waste our time; 12 million invaders daring us to stop them....times $1 per bullet. That seems to put your $205 Billion right in the dumper as an alternative.....sheesh. Commies can't extort Americans. We aren't afraid of your threats.

R Huse said...

$205 billion to deport 12 million illegals? Well, if we do the math that comes out to $17,000 per deportation. Hmm, seems a little high, but maybe. Anyway, it is a false dichotomy. The choice is not between deport 12 million or let them stay. Deport a whole bunch of them sure, but tighten up SS number checking and stiff fines against employers and many will leave when the work starts drying up real quick. Don’t have the money to pay for that enforcement? Bullshit, find it, its what we pay you for.

In the end, the economic argument is, of course, entirely valid and quite effective. Why? Because no one is buying the pure unadulterated bullshit that somehow illegal aliens are paying more in taxes than they receive in services. Why? Simple, the country is not populated by idiots. Everyone knows that no matter what percentage does pay payroll taxes, they probably get it all back in Earned Income Tax credits and the like. The argument is also fairly easy to disprove on an empirical basis. When was the last time a school district breathed a sigh of relief “ thank God, our funding crises is over, more illegals are moving into town” or this old chestnut heard at most hospitals “Doctor, look, the emergency room is full of illegals, at last we will be able to put the new neurosurgery wing on the hospital”. Basically the “net plus to the economy” argument is something I don’t think even its proponents can say with a totally straight face. It simply doesn’t hold up with the observed reality.

Gus said...

Funny how you guys are so passionate about voicing your opinions on the billions of dollars that illegal aliens cost us in this country yet don't mind the billions of dollars we waste on a bullshit war in Iraq. Or the billions we spend on the military industrial complex in general.

Yes, we need to something about the illegal alien problem. But we also need to do something about the irresponsible actions of our government--especially the Bush administration (who incidently is loving the huge media attention surrounding the immigration issue rather than the deficit, Iraq, Afganistan, and the outing of CIA officials' identities).

Let's get our priorities in line here. Boot Bush's ass out, then we can work on the other stuff.

Mike Mayhem said...

Nice attempt bear, but once you played the 9/11 card your credibility went out the window. Plus, the name calling didn't help... your ignorant generalizations will be the death of America, oh and if you're leading boy scouts I'm afraid for the future.

R huse, you're still wrong; I just decided to post the cost of deportation... if I really wanted to do the math I'd work up an equation to see what a cost to the GDP and economic state of america would be when you eliminate 12 million workers.

You guys are boring, it's amazing how fast common sense flys out the window when your agenda controls your mind. I recommend going back to high school, for all of you... and that's sad.

lynda said...

My mother has spent the last 3 days in OHSU,she and I were both legal immigrants to this country as was the nurses on her wing. We were all talking about Pinkco Demayo(May 1) and the nurses told us that 90% of the hispanic births are funded by the Oregon Health Care Plan!! We are all discussed with the illegal march!!

Anonymous said...

Pointless. Too Hard. Too expensive. What a bunch of whiners!

I think my country is worth it and I'm willing to address the difficulty. Besides, think of all the jobs that would be created for border guards and internal enforcement officers.

Illegal entry is punnishable by a $5,000 fine. $5,000 X 20,000,000 illegals = $100,000,000,000. The effort would pay for itself. Let's start collecting!

Only liberal, America-hating pussys are against enforcement, because they want to destroy our country.

Not on my watch, assholes!

R Huse said...

Amazing – It pretty much looks like a win with Mike Mayhem in agreement., or at least admitting he cant really support his position

“R huse, you’re still wrong; I just decided to post the cost of deportation”

Um – yeah…. Ok? That’s not exactly an argument, that’s a statement followed by an explanation of motivation. It doesn’t refute my argument to your initial point: $17,000 per deportation seems a little high, plus who says we have to deport them all when plenty will leave when laws are enforced and work dries up. “You’re still wrong” does not an argument make.

And then we come in for the win.

“I recommend going back to high school, for all of you... and that's sad.”

Well I would say that ends the argument for your position. Uncoordinated statements, as explained above, followed by invective. It is especially sweet considering that you opened your statement criticizing someone for name calling then go on to do it yourself. At this point it's Game – Set – Match.

Anonymous said...

By the time you factor in what we save on social services, It's probably a wash anyhow.

Even better, we don't need to deport any of them. Stop giving them free social services, and they will just go away on their own.

No more food stamps, no more welfare, no more free health care, until you can prove that you are legal.

Problem solved, and it will actually save us money....

Scottiebill said...

Sue, Maybe Anon #1 should change his blog name to Pollyanna.

Mike Mayhem said...

R Huse, if you understood the concept of a debate, you'd know that you said nothing new to counter my claim you agreed that the deportation costs were high, hence me feeling no need to present a counter-claim. By saying "you're still wrong" I was not formulating an argument just stating the obvious.

Also, the fact that you're more focused on the use of the english language shows that you're unable to formulate an argument on the topic at hand, sometimes it's an effective smokescreen but not now.

Again, my high school comment was not calling anyone a name. I didn't call anyone a moron who's intelligence is below the high school level, I again just made a recommendation that is based on my observations.

Again nice attempt, try to debate the actual topic next time einstein (yes, I was calling you a name).

R Huse said...

Zounds Mike! OK – Lets take it step by step.

1) I understand the concept of debate – that’s why I debated your point. Read again – I said that there was a false dichotomy that you set up. The choice is not between deport all or none. I said deport some, enforce the laws and most will leave when the jobs dry up. Your claim of the costs being high is pretty much refuted by that statement unless you have some sort of rebuttal. You obviously don’t.
2) News Flash - use of the English language is necessary in debate. Obviously it was used quite effectively against you since you seem unable to counter the argument presented in my post and reiterated in 1 above. I don’t really understand the smoke screen statement though. If pointing out why your position is ludicrous through the use of simple terms constitutes a smoke screen I would suggest that it is a mis-applied metaphor. You simply cannot support your position.
3) Name-calling with the Einstein comment combined with the erroneous statement that I didn’t debate the topic – I would say your brilliance really shines through on this one.

So what have we learned here? Well, first of all, don’t go off half-cocked and say someone hasn’t refuted your point before reading what they wrote. Second – understand that use of the language is crucial to communicating ideas and formulating argument or rebuttal. I used no complicated words in taking apart your “high cost of deportation” argument. I used simple terms, backed up by a logical progression. Since you seem unable to refute that argument in two attempts and can do little but name call you pretty much have proven your ability to defend what is really a rather weak position ie deportation will cost so much so that means we have to let them stay. Ill take a win any way its given but frankly at this point its shooting fish in a barrel.