Talk:Economic impact of illegal immigrants in the United States

This write up on so called economics includes a lot of crap

Lets see now we rip out the economic talk from the main page and put it in a obscure corner so most people will miss it and then just to be sure we delete most of the referenced material that shows illegal immigrants cost big bucks and put in as a main reference to Christine Lipman, a Hispanic lawyer, who just baldly asserts that illegals [mostly Hispanic] pay for their own way in taxes etc. No chance for bias here though--no siree. Her reference is to a obscure 1991 New Mexico Law Review footnote of unknown quality and basically unobtainable [how convenient] and how out of date. The National Science Foundation's report requested by Congress in 1995 is a little better authority on the subject than Ms. Lipman since 15 well known economists etc. (actually listed in the report) actually spent two years studying this subject and concluded that immigrants cost the U.S. taxpayer tens of billions of dollars each year. And then we include a laughable RAND study on medical costs for illegal immigrants that concludes they only cost about $100/year. Massachusetts is screaming becasue their mandated, cut down coverage, is coming in at $386/month or $4632/year. $100/year what a bargain or what a fantasy???

Then to round off the farce we quote a thoroughly questionable Ms. Lipman as the main source on taxation--wow no bias here.D'lin

Professor of Law Francine Lipman is a recognized expert on taxation. Her 58 pages scholarly paper[1] was published in the peer-reviewed tax law journal of the American Bar Association Section of Taxation. We already refer to the National Science Foundation's report.Terjen 22:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

---

Beg to differ with you, her confused and one sided so called report (peer review means only that a "peer" read it and is NOT a high standard in many professions) is an unbalanced apology in favor of allowing illegal immigrants to vote, get EITC and child care benefits [after all they are poor]. Her references are plentiful but largely useless and when tracked down are often old, unobtainable outside an old law library, or don't prove what she claims. He broad and generalized statements have been refuted by nearly all scholars who have studied this subject. She sounds like a lot of lawyers who believe they have a license to lie or bend the truth when they are defending a client. Her title tells a lot "Undocumented Immigrants: Separate, Unequal and Without Representation". They do have documents they are just for the wrong country, stolen or forged. The fact that they are here illegally and cost the U.S. tons of money for nearly everyone who comes here illegally is considered immaterial and never mentioned.

An example of her "scholarly" work: "Many Americans believe that undocumented immigrants are exploiting the United States economy. The widespread belief is that “illegal aliens” cost more in government services than they contribute to the economy. This belief is demonstrably false. “[E]very empirical study of illegals’ economic impact demonstrates the opposite . . . : undocumenteds actually contribute more to public coffers in taxes than they cost in social services.”[4]

And all the supporting evidence in reference [4]?

[1]...Peter L. Reich, Public Benefits for Undocumented Aliens: State Law Into the Breach Once More, 21 N.M. L. Rev. 219, 241–42 (1991) (stating that the “net drain” argument is commonly used to support restrictions of public assistance for undocumented immigrants); A Symposium on Proposition 187, 23 W. St. U.L. Rev. 1, 2–4 (1995) (quoting Richard Halvorson, who cited a Rice University finding that the cost of illegal immigration to the United States has been $51 billion);

[4] Peter L. Reich, supra note 1, at 243, 244–46 [goes back to the 2 page 1991 report in the New Mexico Law Review footnote on page 243-- really up to date and verifiable--NOT.

Note the use of "“[E]very empirical study of illegals’ economic impact..." and the reference right under Reich refering to a Rice University report that says the cost is $51 billion. Not to mention that you can find literaly dozens of reports who disprove her bald statement. Its just so hard to keep all your stories straight when you are "spinning them" as Terjen loves to say. ---

next we have from Lipman's report

"Eighty-five percent of eminent economists surveyed have concluded that undocumented immigrants have had a positive (seventy-four percent) or neutral (eleven percent) impact on the U.S. economy.[8]"

{note the reference to 85% not to 85 economists] and the reference quoted definitely proves this--NOT

[8] Simon, Immigration, supra note 1, at 47–48 [1] Julian L. Simon, The Cato Institute, Immigration: The Demographic & Economic Facts 47 (1995) Cato is a well known proponent of virtually unlimited immigration and its not surprising that he worked for them.

[Simon's bio is on Wiki but basically he was the primary proponent of the cornucopian belief in endless resources and unlimited population growth empowered by technological progress and free immigration. His works are often cited by libertarians in support of their arguments--strictly unbiased though I'm sure.] The question these economists were asked and refered to here [in the mid 1980s incidentally] referred to legal immigrants [a much different animal than illegal immigrants] and the question they were asked was worded very carefully and different than quoted by Lipman i.e.

"On balance, what effect has twentieth-century immigration had on the nation's economic growth?"

Now everyone will agree that more workers will increase the GDP. But at what cost?--is GDP per capita increased or just gross GDP?--was it good for low wage workers that were displaced by the illegals? and what effect do the illegal immigrants have on jobs, taxes, the environment, schooling, emergency rooms? Questions neither asked nor answered. Overall the reference is too old, too limited and refers to a different population than illegal immigrants and another example of Lipman's poor references that prove virtually nothing. ---its really up to date and a good reference though--NOT

Incidently the the "eminent" economists that were referred to in Simon were from a previous Simon work and you would have to go back even farther to see if any of them existed or were worth believing. But given the studied bias of the questions asked, why bother.

Enough already, Lipman is NOT a good, believable, reference--IMHO

D'lin 08:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Sample of deleted material

Here's part of what what was deleted and "Edited/censured/obscured" etc. so readers can form their own opinion.

Previous studies (and many subsequent) of the fiscal impacts of immigration were found to have serious deficiencies. In 1995, only a handful of existing empirical studies were available. According to an article in The National Academies Press, these studies "[...]" represented not science but advocacy from both sides of the immigration debate, often offered an incomplete accounting of either the full list of taxpayer costs and benefits by ignoring some programs and taxes while including others", and that the "foundation of this research was rarely explicitly stated, offering opportunities to tilt the research toward the desired result"

• In an article that appeared in the World Policy Journal (1994), Peter Andreas asserts that constraining the flow of illegal immigration in states such as California, may result in economic stagnation.

• A study by the Rand Corporation, conducted by Kevin McCarthy and Georges Vernez, came to the conclusion that immigrants do not have a negative effect on the earnings and the employment opportunities of native-born Americans.

• Another RAND study concluded that the total federal cost of providing medical expenses for the 78% illegal immigrants without health insurance coverage was $1.1 billion, with immigrants paying $321 million of health care costs out-of-pocket. The study found that undocumented immigrants tend to visit physicians less frequently than U.S. citizens because they are younger and because people with chronic health problems are less likely to immigrate.[2]

• Professor of Law Francine Lipman writes that the belief that undocumented migrants are exploiting the US economy and that they cost more in services than they contribute to the economy, is "undeniable false". Lipman asserts that illegal aliens provide a net positive benefit to federal coffers, because of the tax law's treatment of those in the country illegally and those who are married to illegal aliens: they are ineligible for the Earned Income Credit and the Child Tax Credit, and that 85% of eminent (un-named) economists surveyed have concluded that undocumented immigrants have had a positive impact on the U.S. economy

• The CIS claims that many illegal aliens use the U.S. welfare program with false identification. [3]

• The Identity Theft Resource Center states that one of the two most frequent purchasers of the identify information of minors (for identity theft) is illegal aliens

• Another study put the cost to the federal government at $2,700/household [4] On average, the costs that illegal households impose on federal government are less than half that of other households, but their tax payments are only one-fourth that of other households.

• Still another study put the net costs to California residents at $433/household for European/Canadian immigrants, $1,240/household for Asian immigrants and $8,182/household for Latin American workers TABLE 4-7a Net Fiscal Impacts by Nativity of Householder pg 160-1. These are the costs calculated for all immigrants legal and illegal.

• Madeleine Cosman contends that the requirement of hospitals to offer service to illegal aliens regardless of the alien's ability to pay has led to many hospitals running a deficit and being forced to close.[5] Also, free public education is extended to all children in the U.S. regardless of their citizen status. The matricula consular and passports are usually considered legal identification by many police agencies and governments.

D'lin

Most of the alleged deleted material listed above is still in the entry, but has been organized into different sections. I deleted the claims about identity theft and false identification as it is of little relevance for the topic of the entry. Terjen 21:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

---

Indeed some of the material above is still there if you can find it. Its been seriously dispersed, diluted and censored by someone instead of staying together in a coherent statement. How convient to remove references to identity theft and false identification which are a core component of getting a job if you are an illegal immigrant. Were they too negative or embarassing though or were they original research? Getting a job illegally can't have anything to do with economics though. Say that's original research--jobs don't have anything to do with economics; a Terjen original research discovery unknown to the rest of the world.

D'lin 09:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

madleine cosman is a total whacko and has no medical experience whatsoever. she is a medieval historian. watch the 60minutes report on Lou Dobbs.Isprawl (talk) 01:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Illegal immigrants social security and IRS tax payments

Since 1986, when the Immigration Reform and Control Act set penalties for employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants, most illegal immigrant workers have been using fake or stolen ID's and social security numbers to get a job. Many employers who hire illegals (less than 10% do and over 90% do not), even when they know these cards are possibly fake, to avoid possible prosecution, go thorough the drill of with holding social security and income taxes and sending the required numbers and tax payments on to the IRS and Social Security administration (SSA). Amazingly there is no mandatory verification of Social Security numbers for employers though there are several voluntary ways [Basic Pilot, Employee Verification System (EVS), etc] to get social security number verification. Employers may be almost forced to use cheaper illegal labor if all or a significant fraction of their competitors are using it—so the almost total lack of interior enforcement and document verification seriously increases the hiring of illegal labor.

When Social Security numbers are already in use (possible stolen ID); names do not match the numbers or the numbers are fake, or the person of record is too old young, dead etc., the earnings reported to the Social Security Agency are put in a Earnings Suspense file [ESF]. Through diligent work, the Social Security spends about $100 million a year and corrects all but about 2% of these mismatches. From Tax Years (TY) 1937 through 2003 the ESF had accumulated about 255 million mismatched wage reports, representing $520 billion in wages and about $75 billion in employment taxes paid into the over $1500 billion in the Social Security Trust funds. As of October 2005, approximately 8.8 million wage reports, representing $57.8 billion in wages remained unresolved in the suspense file for TY 2003. [6] This money represents income reporting mistakes, honest and otherwise of U.S. citizens and income paid by illegal immigrant workers and underground U.S. workers using counterfeit or stolen cards. The largest single source of this mismatched income is illegal immigrant workers. Assuming about $50 billion of this misreported income is due to illegal immigrant workers says they are paying about $4.0 billion/year of the total Social Security income (their illegal employers pay the same). To put this in persepective it should be noted that in 2005 SSA brought in $1045.2 billion dollars total of taxes and interest. [7]

Despite some reports of a giant fiscal windfall for the federal government, all illegal immigrant worker’s Social Security contributions would pay for a little more than a few days of current Social Security payments and don’t even come close to paying for all the medicaid and other financial costs paid for by the federal government. For example, if the 4% of the population thought to be in the United States illegally received only 4% of the medicaid $200 billion budget [2007] this would be $8.0 billion dollars (a more exact calculation would increase this to $12 billion) in federally paid medical costs alone. A $50 billion in reported income represents roughly 40-50% of the 4 million illegal households income averaging about $30,000/year or about $100-120 billion/year total.

Its safe to assume that if Social Security was withheld so was Federal income taxes and conversely if it wasn’t withheld the vast majority of illegal immigrants don’t voluntarily pay income taxes on unreported income either (just as in Mexico). Assuming $50 billion in reported income and a average tax rate in the first quintile as calculated by the CBO of 4.8% [8] the federal income taxes paid by illegal immigrants would be about $2.5 billion total or about $1,500 for the 50% of the households paying any income taxes. The rest of the housholds are in the under ground economy and pay no federal income tax.

Enough all ready,

D'lin

I would agree that the content above "includes a lot of crap", or as I would say, mostly original research and spin.Terjen 22:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

---

Where is the original research? Its all well documented from reputable sources and summarized correctly. Oh, you don't like the conclusions, that must make it original research that's been spun. Or then again you don't like people who know how to do basic math--maybe that's what you mean about original reserach. Watch out for that spinning calculator. Most believe that basic literacy includes some mathematical ability. Its illegal to copy directly, which would I guess make it NOT original research by your "standards" or lack thereof. Oh by the way, wholesale deletions to support your POV are supposed to be against the rules in Wiki; but I suppose anybody or any fact which doesn't share or support your view of the world is just spinning. You couldn't possibly be wrong.

Cheers, D'lin 08:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Christ man, calm down, it's a fucking web site. 24.127.51.40 17:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

---

" For example, if the 4% of the population thought to be in the United States illegally received only 4% of the medicaid $200 billion budget [2007] this would be $8.0 billion dollars (a more exact calculation would increase this to $12 billion) in federally paid medical costs alone."

According to the Center for Immigration Studies, Medicaid use among illegal immigrants is less than for other households, so it does not seem reasonable to assume that the 4% of the population that is illegal would use 4% of the medicaid budget, much less wherever your "more exact calculation"comes from.

I'm more concerned about why there are not quotes or information from the Cheif Actuary of the Social Security Administration about the effects on Social Security.

And would not the open letter that The Independent Institute sent to President Bush be relevant?

"“Economists disagree about a lot of things but there is a consensus on many of the important issues surrounding immigration,” said Alexander Tabarrok, Research Director at the Independent Institute and the primary author of the letter. “The consensus is that most Americans benefit from immigration and that the negative effects on low-skilled workers are somewhere between an 8% wage reduction to no loss in wages at all.” Reflecting this consensus the signatories to the Open Letter include prominent economists involved in both Democratic and Republican administrations such as N. Gregory Mankiw (Harvard University), former Chairman of President Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers, and J. Bradford DeLong (University of California, Berkeley), Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Treasury under President Bill Clinton, as well as Alfred Kahn (Cornell University), Chairman of the Civil Aeronautics Board under President Jimmy Carter, and Paul McCracken (University of Michigan), Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors under President Richard Nixon."

19:51, 15 December 2008 (UTC)97.116.137.33 (talk) 19:51, 15 December 2008 (UTC) I believe some of the sections in this article have to be nixed or heavily revised. Those sections only provide one source for their figures, which I believe to be bias and inaccurate. Basically, it is misinformation and representing studies from one organization as fact, to the reader.

I am deleting the education section because it is doing a disservice to the ready. I will paste it here for reference, or if it is returned to the article, but modified and accurate, later.

Using the U.S. INS statistics on how many illegal immigrants are residing in each state and the U.S. Dept of Education's current expenditure per pupil by state, the Federation for American Immigration Reform, known for its anti-immigrant stance, has estimated cost of educating illegal alien students and U.S.-Born Children of Illegal Aliens in 2004 for the top five states was as follows[31] State Illegal Alien Students U.S. Born Children of Illegal Aliens Total California $3,220,200,000 $4,508,300,000 $7,728,500,000 Texas $1,645,400,000 $2,303,600,000 $3,949,000,000 New York $1,306,300,000 $1,828,900,000 $3,135,200,000 Illinois $834,000,000 $1,167,600,000 $2,001,700,000 New Jersey $620,200,000 $868,200,000 $1,488,400,000 For all 50 states $11,919,900,000 $16,687,900,000 $28,607,800,000

Spending for public education of undocumented children and U.S.-born children of undocumented parents in K-12 public education in Minnesota for 2003-2004 was a total of $118.14 million to $157.53 million [32]

For the same time period, total spending in New Mexico at the state and local levels for illegal immigrant schoolchildren was about $67 million [33]

I strongly disagree, I believe that FAIR, as well as two American states constitute a decent representation of the facts. At the same time if you are aware of data that disputes those claims please let us know about it. - Schrandit (talk) 19:59, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, typically, one does not delete sourced material while submitting revisions to it. - Schrandit (talk) 20:02, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

i have a question about the numbers in the middle sentences of the social security section of this article, where do those numbers come from? it seems to me that they should be cited or otherwise they should be removed. however, the first and last sentences are correct. 70.131.136.137 (talk) 05:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

NSF Study

I have removed the paragraph below as it is blatantly false:

The 1997 study The New Americans: Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration by the National Science Foundation concluded that illegal immigrants do not pay enough taxes to pay for the government services State, Local and federal they receive by living in the united states. .

-- Terjen 19:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

March 2008 changes

An anonymous editor has re-written the article with no explanation. Would he please explain his edits? One editor has already objected reverted the changes[9], but the anon simply reverted and called that edit vandalism. If the edits aren't explained I'll rrevert them too. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

My appologies for lack of knowledge here -- this is my first edit. I made some edits last night (which appear to have been reverted), but they are not the ones you linked to. I was confused by the table under "Education" section which said that the total cost was around 29 million. Upon going to the source, I realized these numbers are all in thousands here on Wikipedia. But it doesn't state that anywhere (while it does on the source). I find that pretty misleading. And I don't think just adding "numbers are in thousands" is enough either as the numbers have no decimals to suggest such a truncation. So, I stated that the numbers are in millions (as the source did) and chopped off the last two zeros of each number. So, instead of "$28,607,800", it reads "$28,607.8 million". —Mhleggett 06:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

My comment wasn't about your edit, which seemed reasonable. It was concerning the edits of 198.97.67.58, et al. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Its a great deal of material. I think you are obligated to point out what exactly you are objecting to in these edits. However, as an act of good faith, I will attempt to answer any questions you have.

A great deal of the content that was removed was marked with fact tags and left alone for several days before being removed. Content removed under that reason include, "The economic impact of illegal immigrants in the United States depends on whether taxes paid by illegal immigrants and their contributions to the economy make up for the government services which they use, as well as the economic input of the immigrants themselves and the cost of externalities such as added strain on public health that they may add." "Many studies of the fiscal impacts of immigration have serious deficiencies. In 1995, only a handful of existing empirical studies were available." "An increasing number of banks contend that providing undocumented residents with mortgages helps revitalize local communities, as they buy and rebuild run-down properties." Other content was removed because the sources provided don't actually state what they are claimed to state. Content removed under that reason include, "Those who find that immigrants, including illegal immigrants, produce a negative effect on the US economy often focus on the difference between taxes paid and government services received, such as education, medical care, and incarceration of illegal immigrants.]" The rest of the edits was the addition of properly sourced content and, so, shouldn't be an issue. Do you have any specific questions about the edits which I haven't answered above and, if so, what are they?-75.179.153.110 (talk) 05:06, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

JPANDS

Under the Health Care section there is currently a paragraph describing an article from the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons. This journal is not considered a reliable source for anything other than the opinions of its authors and editors. Currently it is cited as though to a fact. It could well be that their opinion on this matter is notable or exemplifies a notable position, in which case it should be described in those terms. - Eldereft (cont.) 04:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that JPANDS is not a reliable source. Only the views of contributors who are otherwise notable should be used, and then they should be clearly attributed. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't know too much on the topic but Madeleine Cosman does have her own page and seems to be a legit policy analyst. - Schrandit (talk) 17:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, but we should at the very least qualify the paragraph - AAPS is pretty radically out of step with mainstream medicine, and the journal exists to forward an agenda not apparent from its name. As a model, the Abortion-breast cancer hypothesis article cites socially but not medically notable opinions published there twice, here and here, as does MMR vaccine controversy.

All in all, though, I would prefer a source that is less of a racist screed. Even better would be one published by a news organization, or at least one that is more politically or economically than medically focused. If the point is really notable there should be multiple published sources making it. - Eldereft (cont.) 20:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

If the author is legit why worry about the source? I say we put it back in. - Schrandit (talk) 04:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm putting it back - Schrandit (talk) 02:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

JAPS is not a reliable source. I have removed it. --Ramsey2006 (talk) 18:12, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Re-addition of the health section

As much of the health sector, particularly for illegal immigrants, is funded by tax money and has a large impact on the economy I say we put it back in. - Schrandit (talk) 02:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Just make sure there's a reliable source, which wouldn't' include Madeleine Cosman. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

There a good "Health care" section there now. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

FAIR...are you kidding me?

What kind of source is FAIR for immigration numbers...they are openly anti immigrant and totally bias in their study. This 2002 Southern Poverty Law Center article argues some grassroots movements against immigrants are really the calculated creation of one man. Included in these groups are the Federation for American Immigration Reform, the Center for Immigration Studies, the California Coalition for Immigration Reform and the American Immigration Control Foundation. If these numbers go up, it's only fair they be prefaced with this information... The Puppeteer

FAIR has been declared a Hate Group by the SPLC, and most certainly does not constitute a reliable source, by any stratch of the imagination. (Nor does any other group associated with Tanton.) --Ramsey2006 (talk) 18:15, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Use a scalpel, not a shotgun

Reciently, I made a number of edits, rather carefully spelling out the reasons for each edit in the edit summary. If somebody takes issue with any of the individual edits, they should explain their reversions in the edit summaries, rather than reverting in a single mass edit that precludes even the possibility of giving reasons for the insertions. There is a reason why wikipedia has edit summaries. Did the editor who did the mass unexplained reversion even bother to check the reasons and the individual edits? It appears not.

Editing with a shotgun makes it impossible for anybody to know the reasons for the individual edits. It just fills the article with random buckshot. Use a scalpel, and make sure that every edit is justified. --Ramsey2006 (talk) 15:23, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for the mass revision. This was sourced content and though I don't hold it against you there were active discussions on these topics, I also thought edit summaries like "remove citizen data" were lacking. But on to the content.

• I think the paragraph about wage competition between high school drop outs and immigrants is relevant and should stay. It is only because of poor data that we do not know how much illegal immigration depresses the native wage and must group all immigrants together but the fact that it does depress the native wage is undeniable and worthy of note.
• Per the statement by Paul Samuelson, for the same reasons as above I feel strongly that is should be included. Cites 1 and 2 both believe Samuelson's argument plays against illegal immigration and Samuelson in no uncertain terms speculates that illegal immigration is terrible for the nation's poor in his editorial in the Washington Post here
• Per the assertion that George Penis said that illegal immigration depressed the wages of "the poor" by 4.8%, I couldn't find that but I did found Bojas saying illegal immigration depressed wages for all manner of folk here. Unless I can find something that backs the original claim I will reintroduce the statement with the terms modified to fit the newer source.
• Per TB, the US has a problem with immigrants (the gov. won't say legal or illegal) and TB and MUDG TB 1, 2, 3, 3 and while the CDC article here does regard Somali immigrants in Denmark the American CDC has it posted on their website because of its implications for American health.
• Per Leprosy. It appears that Crossman is, in fact, a quack. I contend that it is this quckery, and not the website it was posted on that merits this removal. Though in the absence of Crossman I think it should be noted that the UN does have a problem with illegal immigration and Leprosy 1, 2, 3, 4.
• Per the costs of educating the children of illegal immigrants - why remove that? I think that's a factor that should be worked into estimating the costs of illegal immigration.

I'll re-add the Bojas statement with the verifiable numbers and work on better statements with the contagious diseases. I'll await your comment on the high school drop-out wages, the Samuelson sentence and the children of illegal immigrants. - Schrandit (talk) 16:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)