Talk:Economic impact of illegal immigrants in the United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

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

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to a obscure 1991 New Mexico Law Review footnote of unknown quality and basically unobtainable [how convenient] and how out of date.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 "Illegal 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 illegal 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 . . . : illegals 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 Illegal 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 illegal 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 illegal 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[edit]

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" [1]

  • 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. [2]
  • 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. [3]
  • 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 illegal 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 illegal 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 illegal immigrants have had a positive impact on the U.S. economy [4]
  • 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 [5]
  • 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.


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[edit]

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,


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. 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) (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 illegal children and U.S.-born children of illegal 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. (talk) 05:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

NSF Study[edit]

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. [6].

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

March 2008 changes[edit]

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, 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[citation needed], as well as the economic input of the immigrants themselves[citation needed] and the cost of externalities such as added strain on public health that they may add[citation needed]." "Many studies of the fiscal impacts of immigration have serious deficiencies[citation needed]. In 1995, only a handful of existing empirical studies were available[citation needed]." "An increasing number of banks contend that providing illegal residents with mortgages helps revitalize local communities, as they buy and rebuild run-down properties[citation needed]." 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[citation needed].]" 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?- (talk) 05:06, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


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)

that article is not reliable and has been debunked. please see: Isprawl (talk) 01:47, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Re-addition of the health section[edit]

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?[edit]

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)

The SPLC itself is not a reliable source, they are a Jewish owned left wing organisation with a political agenda and a history of deceit and reputation smearing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:59, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

you just proved SPLC's point. (talk) 18:10, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Use a scalpel, not a shotgun[edit]

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 Borjas 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)

Undue weight to state benefits[edit]

I think this article has an issue with undue weight because it focuses mainly on state benefits as opposed to total economic output. To understand the total economic impact of illegal immigrants on the United States, what I really want to know is whether the portion of US GDP made by US permanent residents is higher or lower as a result of illegal immigrants. Whether illegal immigrants cost money through social services is important but secondary. If their work results in substantially increased profit for US employers and income for their US permanent resident employees then illegal immigrants could still be a net benefit. This article completely omits consideration of this competing factor. —Othniel Kenaz 21:49, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Are there any sources that have the information you're talking about?   Will Beback  talk  21:54, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm not familiar enough with the subject to name any. But this is mostly covering the public sector. We need to know the impacts on US companies too. —Othniel Kenaz 22:10, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Economic benefits for US companies and consumers[edit]

I see that Farcaster has removed the undue weight sign from above. He also added some information on wages. Thanks for this information. However, that there is no information on the profits and viability of US companies benefiting from illegal immigration is a continuing problem with this article. One would expect illegal immigration to depress wages but it will also depress prices for the US consumer and heighten profits and viability for some US companies owned by citizens. This might or might not outweigh the negative effects but obviously just taking into account negative effects doesn't paint a complete private sector picture. If anyone can add this it would be much appreciated. —Othniel Kenaz 19:20, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Introduction of significant bias into article[edit]

An editor introduced information that shifted this article to a distinctive anti-immigration position. The research (CBO, NPR, S&P) does not support the economic conclusions that were indicated as factual in the introduction. Conclusions from the CBO report were attributed to other sources and the text removed. Conclusions indicated for the NPR article that were not included therein. Please introduce those in an appropriate section in the body with an appropriate description of the activist group(s) that reported it.Farcaster (talk) 17:59, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Equity of Distribution of Costs and Benefits[edit]

Is there content in the pipes to put in this section. The term for me ends in a few weeks and I suspect it ends for you too. cheers --Guerillero | My Talk | Review Me 21:04, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

FYI If this section gets filled the article hag a great shot at being a good article --Guerillero | My Talk | Review Me 17:56, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Campus Ambassador comments[edit]

Good work improving this article so far! Here is some feedback on the article to help improve it further:

  • Section titles should be in sentence case: all lowercase letters except for the first letter and any proper nouns. Also, the section titles should not be complete sentences, they should be phrases
  • Right now the article is set up as sections on benefits, costs, and weighing the two, which I think makes the article a bit choppy. The article might have better flow if it were arranged according to different themes or aspects of illegal immigration's effects, with each discussing the benefits and costs in context.

Also, the professor wants you to solicit feedback from other Wikipedians; the best way to do this is to leave a note on a relevant WikiProject's talk page. I'd suggest Wikipedia:WikiProject United States and Wikipedia:WikiProject Economics. Keep up the good work! Antony–22 (talkcontribs) 00:43, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

To back up what Antony-22 said, here is an example: one of your sections is titled "Illegal Workers Subsidize Social Security". It would be better named something along the lines of "Social Security subsidization". Note both the brief phrasing and the use of sentence case. LadyofShalott 02:37, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

This article seems well written, and has great images to go along with it. Its unbiased as well. I think the way everything is being compared can be written in a more precise manner, having a nice flow going along with it, comparing and contrasting. All references seem to come from reliable sources too. This page should be linked with a few other pages as well. Overall, article is updated and seems correct!(Aymud88 (talk) 23:54, 20 April 2012 (UTC))

Horrible article[edit]

This is a terribly written piece, even by Wikipedia's low standards. Grammar, poor grasp of the English language and no concept of argumentation punctuate this sorry piece. Wikipedia does not need money, it needs a burial... (talk) 04:26, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Nonsense about them helping more than they hurt the economy[edit]

[10] Does that make any sense? It is sourced to an opinion piece on public radio. Is everyone speaking on public radio automatically an expert and should have their opinions used as a reliable source? Or is that just WP:UNDUE WEIGHT? Dream Focus 00:46, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

The source is a Harvard professor doing a Q&A. Reasonably credible. But some additional sources with different views would help the article.Farcaster (talk) 04:57, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Recommend to Remove Racist Language[edit]

People born outside the United States are not automatically categorized as criminals by US law. It is not a misdemeanor or felony to be born outside the US. It is not a misdemeanor or felony to lack documentation.

"Illegal immigrant" and "illegal alien" are being used in this article to describe Mexicans and other latinos that are not criminals. This derogatory and racist language is an attempt to alter voting patterns of people that lack experience regarding immigration and employment. It is a violation of federal tax law for a charitable institution to engage in political activity. The terms "illegal immigrant" and "illegal alien" cannot be used in Wikipedia to describe people that have not engaged in any misdemeanor or felony activity without crossing that line. Taxes could be owed starting on the date when charity status was first compromised with that kind of language.

The correct word used to describe a person that lacks documentation is "illegal ". The correct non-racist terminology is "illegal tourist" for visitors with an expired visa, "illegal foreign born worker" when the employer failed to pay the documentation fee for a foreign born worker, "illegal foreign born student" for exchange students with an expired visa, "illegal foreign born resident" for people living in the US with an expired visa, etc.

The term "illegal immigrant" is only applicable to foreign born citizens found guilty of a crime, but the term is being used in this article to describe people that "look foreign" and lack documentation.

Many people born before 1959 in Hawaii and Alaska are illegal because they cannot obtain a valid US birth certificate. Most people born before 1940 in places like Arizona and Oklahoma are illegal because valid US birth certificate were not issued. Descendants of over 1 million US citizens deported to Mexico in the 1930s are also US citizens. All are illegal . None of those people are "illegal", but the article implies that they are all criminals.

"Illegal immigrant" or "illegal alien" would only be acceptable in a quote:

Arizona’s Conservative White Legislators: Illiterate and Racist on Immigration
SB 1070 is at best an inflammatory law and will surely come to serve as a rationale to justify violent attacks by the misguided against persons who appear to “look illegal.” ... Indeed, it is this ecology of fear that led to the murder of a young legal Ecuadorian immigrant in the Bushwick section of Brooklyn on December 7, 2008. The perpetrators of this crime were white youth who, like those convicted last month on Long Island for a similar crime, were out “Beaner hopping” or hunting for “illegal aliens.”

The difficulty is that the kind of racist language used in this article is being used to encourage genocidal behavior.

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

The text of the Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 9 December 1948.

"illegal foreign born worker", "illegal foreign born students", and "illegal foreign born residents" become documented by obtaining documentation.

Non-academic examples of how the terms "illegal immigrant" and "illegal alien" communicate racism help to illustrate how this article compromises the intellectual integrity and charity status of Wikipedia.


Regards, nanoatzin (talk).

  • It is not racism to call them illegal immigrants. This term does not include those born in any state, since if they were born here they are not "immigrants". Dream Focus 15:41, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Pleased to meet you User:Dream Focus.
Wikipedia cannot be used to influence election outcomes without sacrificing it's charity status.
Do you really wan't to go there?
Keep it up if you do.
This comment section is not about you or what you think. It is about Wikipedia being used to influence the outcome of elections.
You might disagree with me, but all of the links that I cited show that the term "illegals" is actually being used as a racist slur in order to effect how people vote.
It is most definitely racist to call anyone "illegal" when that person has not been found guilty of a misdemeanor or felony in a court of law.
It would be OK to do that on Wikipedia if donations are not tax deductible.
Only a judge or jury can make a determination about guilt involving a crime.
Labeling someone "illegal" without a link to a court proceeding is political activism that compromises Wikipedia's charity status.
If you were a judge you could be impeached for misconduct and sued for malpractice if you used "illegals" outside the scope of a court proceeding.
The term "illegals" IS BEING USED to mean anyone of hispanic heritage that lacks a birth certificate regardless of where they were born.
Donations are not tax deductible for organizations that engage in political activity using articles purporting to be encyclopedic content that may influencing election outcomes.
People are using "illegals" to mean "illegal hispanic" in all of the references.
Copy the list of articles that I posted and provide a specific explanation for why you think that each article isn't discussing racism.
I hope this finds everyone well.
Regards, nanoatzin (talk).

Knowledge Vacuum[edit]

The following facts are missing from the article, which makes it inaccurate and misleading. I was curious where these should be added?

The following facts are also missing:

Intentionally omitting relevant facts in order to pursue a political agenda is a violation of 501 charity status.

The federal tax law is very strict on the issue of political campaigning: A 501(c)(3) organization is absolutely forbidden to directly or indirectly participate in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Violation of this prohibition could lead the IRS to completely revoke your organization's tax-exempt status or impose excise taxes on your organization.


nanoatzin (talk)

  • What total nonsense. "The economy destabilized in September 1929, about 6 months after Mexican Repatriation began." You need to read the article you link to. The Great Depression was caused by the stock market crashing and bank panics. See Causes of the Great Depression for more. Don't make up nonsense to promote your point. Dream Focus 15:46, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Pleased to meet you User:Dream Focus.
The economy most definitely DID destabilize in September 1929 and there was a brief crash. That is clearly shown at Great_Depression#Start_of_the_Great_Depression.
Explain why facts should be omitted from the article.
It is a fact that Hoover reduced the quota of hispanics allowed to live in the US in March 1929.
It is a fact that the stock market peaked in September 1929 and crashed in October.
It is a fact that a California legislator introduced a bill in the US congress that removed 2.5 million people in response to the stock market crash.
It is a fact that US population declined after that legislation was signed by Hoover.
It is a fact that US housing abandonment was a problem after the population declined.
Kindly copy any the facts from any of the articles at any of the links and explain how they didn't happen (example: government reference showing how US population increased).
I hope this finds you well.
Regards, nanoatzin (talk)
  • "The US population declined while Mexico's population grew by 16 million". No it didn't. That article you link to says it grew slower during that time period than normal, it did not decline. Dream Focus 15:49, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
Pleased to meet you again User:Dream Focus.
Explain why facts should be omitted from the article.
It is a fact that Mexico's census was 97 million in 2000.
It is a fact that Mexico's census was 113 million in 2010.
It is a fact that 18 million US homes were abandoned by 2010.
It is a fact that Mexico's birth rate cannot explain the population surge.
It is a fact that US population declined in most cities between 2005 and 2010.
Kindly copy any the facts from any of the articles at any of the links and explain how they didn't happen (example: government reference showing how US population increased).
I hope this finds you well.
Regards, nanoatzin (talk)

Dr. Ramos's comment on this article[edit]

Dr. Ramos has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:

"One immigration research group reported that the number of illegal immigrants in the U.S. was 12.5 million in August 2007 at its peak. This decreased by 1.3 million to 11.2 million by July 2008 (11%) due to either increased law enforcement or fewer job opportunities.[2] " Please refer to the original source "" and check periodically new updates such as 2009 - 2012 - that could also be used to update the section on distribution of illegal immigrants by state. Regarding Economic effects, there are additional sources like the ones cited here ( that could provide an interesting view in terms of pros and cons. Regarding "Impact on wages for native low skilled workers", please consider recent research by Giovanni Peri

We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

We believe Dr. Ramos has expertise on the topic of this article, since he has published relevant scholarly research:

  • Reference : Nicodemo, Catia & Ramos, Raul, 2011. "Wage Differentials between Native and Immigrant Women in Spain: Accounting for Differences in the Supports," IZA Discussion Papers 5571, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 19:57, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Economic impact of illegal immigrants in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:45, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

  1. ^ The Immigration Debate: Studies on the Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration (1998), pp.2, The National Academies Press (1998) Available online
  2. ^ Andreas, Peter, The Making of Amerexico (Mis)Handling Illegal Immigration, World Policy Journal Vol. 11.2 (1994): pp.55. "The sad irony is that the most important constraint on the flow of illegal aliens may be continued economic stagnation in states such as California. In periods of recession, labor markets tighten, reducing em- ployment opportunities--both legal and illegal. Economic recovery, on the other hand--propelled in no small part by the hard work of illegal laborers already here-- would expand opportunities in the labor market, encouraging continued illegal immigration."
  3. ^ McCarthy, Kevin F., Vernez, Georges, Immigration in a Changing Economy, Rand Corporation (1997), ISBN 0-8330-2496-5
  4. ^ J. Lipman, Francine, J.Taxing illegal Immigrants: Separate, Unequal and Without Representation Available online"
  5. ^
  6. ^ James p. Smith, Chair (1997). "The New Americans: Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration". Nacional Academy of Science.