How Illegal Immigration Hurts Black America

[tuckahoeskin]

"With national unemployment hovering around 10 percent and black male unemployment at a staggering 17.6 percent, it's just not true that undocumented workers are doing the jobs that we won't do."

Link: http://www.theroot.com/views/how-illegal-immigration-hurts-black-america?gt1=38002

This should lead to an interesting discusion.

[Fathead]

Not trying to pick a fight:


Could you state your position on the issue to start the discussion please?

[akhhorus]

In order to see a correlation, you'd need to following data:
What was the impact of the recession on undocumented workers percentage wise?
What was the percentage of African-American workers in jobs that undocumented workers also did before the recession and now?

After you had that data, you could see what the impact of the recession was on AA employment in those jobs. Saying undocumented workers are taking jobs in a recession from any cohort is just too simplistic since they would take jobs even if the economy was growing at 10% a month.

[Keino]

I don't see one issue as having any thing to do with the other. In normal economic times, the Black unemployment rate is double that of whites.

I don't see undocumented labor effecting this either way.

Reminds me of a South Park episode.......(Dirtdedeeeer)

[Ibleedburgundy]

Assuming the premise was correct, how many hundreds of billions are you willing to spend to keep the latinos out? Whose taxes would you raise to pay for it? We aren't going to accomplish a damn thing for less than a few hundred billion.

[BurgundyNGold]

I don't see one issue as having any thing to do with the other. In normal economic times, the Black unemployment rate is double that of whites.

I don't see undocumented labor effecting this either way.

Reminds me of a South Park episode.......(Dirtdedeeeer)
I think that also depends on which part of the country you're in. Naturally, when you're talking about Arizona or New Mexico, where the illegal count is high but where AA represent a small percentage of the overall local population, you'll get lower conflict. However, when you talk about places in the south, such as South Carolina, Gerorgia, Mississippi, Alabama where there are a large percentage of AA -- many of whom are disproprtionately undereducated -- there is going to be a conflict for those lower paying, unskilled positions. 10-20 years ago, this wasn't much of an issue because if you lived in these places, demographically speaking, it was a virtual certainty that you were either black or white. However, this is especially the case since immigrants, both legal and illegal, are moving into those states at a much higher rate than they ever have been.

[BurgundyNGold]

Assuming the premise was correct, how many hundreds of billions are you willing to spend to keep the latinos out? Whose taxes would you raise to pay for it? We aren't going to accomplish a damn thing for less than a few hundred billion.
Again with your inflated numbers... and you're still missing the point. The fact is that we're currently spending $10s of billions annually to support them. So, you can spend a lot now to reduce the flow to a trickle or you can continue to watch that $10s of billions figure grow parabolically as the number of illegals continues to swell while we have no concerted strategy for solving the problem.

It's not just one thing that's required to solve this problem and Obama has the right idea: Build the fence/stem the flow, support economic development in Latin America and provide a path to citizenship somewhere down the road.

[CNYSkinFan]

Not trying to pick a fight:


Could you state your position on the issue to start the discussion please?
No....he can not

[Ibleedburgundy]

Again with your inflated numbers... and you're still missing the point. The fact is that we're currently spending $10s of billions annually to support them.

We've been over this.

IIRC, nobody really has any hard numbers on the net gain or loss associated with illegal immigration. If we look at their medical/education/law enforcement costs vs. their contributions to social security that they can never recoup and the benefits of cheap labor, I'm not sure where that leaves us. It's kind of a big equation. Obviously there are a lot of one-sided estimates out there.

And securing a 2000 mile border is a gargantuan undertaking, if done properly.

So, you can spend a lot now to reduce the flow to a trickle or you can continue to watch that $10s of billions figure grow parabolically as the number of illegals continues to swell while we have no concerted strategy for solving the problem.

It's not just one thing that's required to solve this problem and Obama has the right idea: Build the fence/stem the flow, support economic development in Latin America and provide a path to citizenship somewhere down the road


I'm not against a concerted strategy, I just don't think the wall is the best way to attack the issue. And if I was for a wall, it would be strictly for terrorism, thugs, and criminals, not guys coming here to try and make a better life for their families.

I'm more in favor of going after companies that hire illegal aliens but also allowing for a guest worker program and path to citizenship.

[Ibleedburgundy]

And to the OP: call me a dirty capitalist, but I'm not afraid of a little competition.

[shally]

I think that also depends on which part of the country you're in. Naturally, when you're talking about Arizona or New Mexico, where the illegal count is high but where AA represent a small percentage of the overall local population, you'll get lower conflict. However, when you talk about places in the south, such as South Carolina, Gerorgia, Mississippi, Alabama where there are a large percentage of AA -- many of whom are disproprtionately undereducated -- there is going to be a conflict for those lower paying, unskilled positions. 10-20 years ago, this wasn't much of an issue because if you lived in these places, demographically speaking, it was a virtual certainty that you were either black or white. However, this is especially the case since immigrants, both legal and illegal, are moving into those states at a much higher rate than they ever have been.


in washington state, it is difficult to get ANYONE, regardless of color, to take a lot of the jobs the illegals take in the agricultural sector

[BurgundyNGold]

We've been over this.

IIRC, nobody really has any hard numbers on the net gain or loss associated with illegal immigration. If we look at their medical/education/law enforcement costs vs. their contributions to social security that they can never recoup and the benefits of cheap labor, I'm not sure where that leaves us. It's kind of a big equation. Obviously there are a lot of one-sided estimates out there.
No, IIRC, I worked my ass off collecting solid numbers from a variety of reliable sources to give you a clear mosaic that purpose tried to be balaced. And rather that digest any of it, you're still talking the same ish.

And securing a 2000 mile border is a gargantuan undertaking, if done properly.
It absolutely is, but I showed that we could recoup those dollars in less than 10 years in savings in other areas.

And for chrissake, aren't we in the middle of a huge spending spree (including a $15B jobs bill to go along with a $787 stimulus package) to try and create jobs? I mean, we have a job that has to be done that will cost 1/8 of that amount and that will -- wait for it -- create effing jobs.

I guess they only want to create jobs for maglev trains to nowhere.

I'm not against a concerted strategy, I just don't think the wall is the best way to attack the issue. And if I was for a wall, it would be strictly for terrorism, thugs, and criminals, not guys coming here to try and make a better life for their families.
I don't see a difference when it's estimated 1/3 of illegal immigrants have criminal pasts and when the majority haven't even finished high school. Sure, I feel for them, but they should make their futures in their own country or apply for entry legally. BTW, I am for hiking work and residence visas to Latin America by at least a factor of 4 if we have a wall that has started to stem the tide. At least then, they'd be documented.

I'm more in favor of going after companies that hire illegal aliens but also allowing for a guest worker program and path to citizenship.
I'm for that too. That has to be part (a centerpiece, actually) of any anti-illegal immigration strategy. Reducing or eliminating the opportunities for illegals here is the other side of the coin of support for economic development in Latin America so they don't have/want to leave.

[BurgundyNGold]

And to the OP: call me a dirty capitalist, but I'm not afraid of a little competition.
Coming from a young, uneducated AA male living in the deep south, I think that means a lot lmao. ;)

[Ibleedburgundy]

Coming from a young, uneducated AA male living in the deep south, I think that means a lot lmao. ;)

I figured since this thread was an appeal to people's liberal side, I would appeal to his free market side. I realize this was destined to fly like a lead balloon.

[BurgundyNGold]

I figured since this thread was an appeal to people's liberal side, I would appeal to his free market side. I realize this was destined to fly like a lead balloon.
LMAO. I thought it was hilarious.

[Ibleedburgundy]

No, IIRC, I worked my ass off collecting solid numbers from a variety of reliable sources to give you a clear mosaic that purpose tried to be balaced. And rather that digest any of it, you're still talking the same ish.


Not sure exactly what thread you are referring to. There was a recent one where the bulk of the debate was between you and Swheeler.

http://www.hailredskins.com/vbforum/showthread.php?t=46718&page=5

No doubt you provided some good data and cited all your sources. But I think you still underestimated the total costs. One of your articles shows the costs of maintaining the fence only for the 700 mile stretch thought to be where most illegal norder crossings take place. This did not include labor associated with protecting the border or any of the other costs (in the long run, labor is likely to outpace the cost of the fence, and not by a little). You then extrapolated those numbers to the 2000 mile border and came up with a $140.6 billion estimate-just for the fence itself, which BTW, is completely worthless without people stationed all over the place.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/01/08/BAG6RNEJJG1.DTL

Anyway, I think I am being perfectly realistic in saying that the cost of securing our Southern border is easily in the hundreds of billions of dollars range.

And for chrissake, aren't we in the middle of a huge spending spree (including a $15B jobs bill to go along with a $787 stimulus package) to try and create jobs? I mean, we have a job that has to be done that will cost 1/8 of that amount and that will -- wait for it -- create effing jobs.


I don't disagree that funding border protection probably would have been a better expenditure than a lot of what was in the stimulus bill-particularly the 1/3 of the stimulus bill that was a tax expenditure.

[BurgundyNGold]

Hey, IBB, I just checked that old Illegal Immigration thread and saw that most of my back and forth was with the WTC hero, so I apologize if I came off as incredulous above.

For anyone who is interested, here is a link to the post that discusses a conservative estimate of costs illegals for Federal costs (social security), education costs and hospitalization costs at $27.6B annually:

http://www.hailredskins.com/vbforum/showpost.php?p=1130688&postcount=79

Recouping the cost of a $140B (highest estimates I could find) wall:

http://www.hailredskins.com/vbforum/showpost.php?p=1131024&postcount=83

Why you cannot entertain to possibility of amnesty without a wall:

http://www.hailredskins.com/vbforum/showpost.php?p=1131027&postcount=84

Here is why we cannot simply post a gajillion border guards every N feet:

http://www.hailredskins.com/vbforum/showpost.php?p=1141672&postcount=147

Arguments against electronic surveillance only:

http://www.hailredskins.com/vbforum/showpost.php?p=1142823&postcount=157

[BurgundyNGold]

Not sure exactly what thread you are referring to. There was a recent one where the bulk of the debate was between you and Swheeler.

http://www.hailredskins.com/vbforum/showthread.php?t=46718&page=5
Yeah, I made a mistake. I apologized for the mixup above.

No doubt you provided some good data and cited all your sources. But I think you still underestimated the total costs. One of your articles shows the costs of maintaining the fence only for the 700 mile stretch thought to be where most illegal norder crossings take place. This did not include labor associated with protecting the border or any of the other costs (in the long run, labor is likely to outpace the cost of the fence, and not by a little). You then extrapolated those numbers to the 2000 mile border and came up with a $140.6 billion estimate-just for the fence itself, which BTW, is completely worthless without people stationed all over the place.
I believe that the costs for maintaining the fence includes the costs of the labor assiciated with maintaining it, if not manning it. The article says that the $49B figure for the 700 mile stretch included the maintenance and operation of the fence for 25 years. That's a sticker-shock, alarmist presentation of an article if I've ever seen one but, whatever. I don't expect much out of some news sources, the SF Gate being one.

The entire Border Patrol for FY 2010 is $10.1B -- up from just $6.3B in 2007. This funds 56,000 employess, including 20,000 border agents -- more than double the agents from 2001. The point to that is that they are hiring the people anyway, without the wall. Even if you hired another 20,000 agents, the the costs would be another $3B (($50K/year * 20,000 agents = $1B) * 3 [commercial load factor for worskpace, tax and benefits)). Throw on another $2B for administrative support and you're still taking about a mere $5B to double the border patrol again, bringing the budget to $15.1B. That's 40,000 agents to cover 2,000 miles. That's 20 agents to cover each mile of walled border. Given that they would realistically work in shifts, thats between 6 and 7 people to cover each mile of a walled border for each shift. I'm sure that would be plenty.

So, you have $15B... plus the annual maintenance costs starting in 2035, assuming the wall was built and the ribbon cut today. For that, let's be completely unrealistic and add another $5B (which is absurd given that the article said that the $49B icluded 25 years of maintenance and ludicrous given tha the entire budget for the GSA Federal Buildings fund is only $375M, but let's roll with a 25% fudge factor). Now we're at $20B, which is less than the numbers at I had from 2003-2007 which put only a partial inventory of illegal immigrant costs at $27.6B. So, once the wall is built and the costs are recovered by lesser burden on the tax, education and health care systems, we're still looking at cost savings in both operations AND maintenance, starting at $7.6B annually (conservatively speaking, since the $27.6B cost for illegal immigrants was an admittedly incomplete figure and since I just threw on another $5B to the Border Patrolbudget for no good reason). So long as costs for the Border Patrol budget + wall maintenance (costs included in the $140B initial figure) remains at a rate less than or equal to the rate of cost increase for illegal immigrants, we're actually saving money.

Anyway, I think I am being perfectly realistic in saying that the cost of securing our Southern border is easily in the hundreds of billions of dollars range.
Except that you're not being accurate. I'm using DHS, GSA, SSA and other budget numbers, as well as reports from states. Whenever posible, I'm using HUGE fudge factors to cover my arse and to ensure that I don't go over budget. Conversely, you're just kind of throwing your thumb up at it and eyeballing what you'd like to believe the costs would be. I don't see how anyone can make any kind of educated decision around that and it certainly shouldn't prevent you from amending your position in light of actual evidence.

I don't disagree that funding border protection probably would have been a better expenditure than a lot of what was in the stimulus bill-particularly the 1/3 of the stimulus bill that was a tax expenditure.
We're in agreement on that.

What a lot of people aren't getting about the costs of border security and illegal immigration is that these costs are not an option. We are going to either suffer the costs of a rising expenditure that conservatively starts at $27.6B in the costs of having uneducated, undocumented and illegal immigrants weighing on the public, health and education sectors or we can start that curve at $20B, maintain some semblence of order in our immigration and population influxes while creating 50K or so permanent jobs and 100s of Ks of temporary construction jobs to build the wall.

Even assuming that same rate of growth between Border Patrol and the costs of illegal immigrants on the public, health and education sectors, after 25 years, the cost difference would be $190B -- $50B more than the cost of the wall alone. Plus, we've employed a lot of good people for 25 years and, of course, those DHS workers are paying taxes too.

To me, that's a no brainer.

[Keino]

I think that also depends on which part of the country you're in. Naturally, when you're talking about Arizona or New Mexico, where the illegal count is high but where AA represent a small percentage of the overall local population, you'll get lower conflict. However, when you talk about places in the south, such as South Carolina, Gerorgia, Mississippi, Alabama where there are a large percentage of AA -- many of whom are disproprtionately undereducated -- there is going to be a conflict for those lower paying, unskilled positions. 10-20 years ago, this wasn't much of an issue because if you lived in these places, demographically speaking, it was a virtual certainty that you were either black or white. However, this is especially the case since immigrants, both legal and illegal, are moving into those states at a much higher rate than they ever have been.

I don't think it much matters. If someone is willing to hire an undocumented worker, then chances are, they aren't looking to pay a livable wage I think a very small percentage of the Black unemployment in this country is attributable to undocumented workers Taking our jobs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLni3wbndls).

[BurgundyNGold]

I don't think it much matters. If someone is willing to hire an undocumented worker, then chances are, they aren't looking to pay a livable wage I think a very small percentage of the Black unemployment in this country is attributable to undocumented workers Taking our jobs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLni3wbndls).
You'd be surprised. If they have to pay $10/hr to a documented employee, the real cost is more like $14 or $15. With an undocumented worker, they just pay them $10. To the worker, it's the same. To the employer, they not only reduce the cost of employment by 33% but they're paying reduced payroll taxes, as well.

That's the loophole that IBB and others have talked about. You have to make it impossible for businesses to be able to get away with this as part of a larger enforcement strategy.

[akhhorus]

You'd be surprised. If they have to pay $10/hr to a documented employee, the real cost is more like $14 or $15. With an undocumented worker, they just pay them $10. To the worker, it's the same. To the employer, they not only reduce the cost of employment by 33% but they're paying reduced payroll taxes, as well.

That's the loophole that IBB and others have talked about. You have to make it impossible for businesses to be able to get away with this as part of a larger enforcement strategy.

Thats all you need to do imo. If its unprofitable for a business to hire undocumented workers through fines and fees, then they'll stop doing it.

[Keino]

You'd be surprised. If they have to pay $10/hr to a documented employee, the real cost is more like $14 or $15. With an undocumented worker, they just pay them $10. To the worker, it's the same. To the employer, they not only reduce the cost of employment by 33% but they're paying reduced payroll taxes, as well.

That's the loophole that IBB and others have talked about. You have to make it impossible for businesses to be able to get away with this as part of a larger enforcement strategy.

Agreed. This is exactly what I mean.

[Fathead]

That's the loophole that IBB and others have talked about. You have to make it impossible for businesses to be able to get away with this as part of a larger enforcement strategy.

I think this is one thing that almost everyone can agree with. Of course that just means that rather quickly someone in this thread will disagree.

[RedskinsDave]

Thats all you need to do imo. If its unprofitable for a business to hire undocumented workers through fines and fees, then they'll stop doing it.

Well that certainly won't happen under the current administration.

[Keino]

I think this is one thing that almost everyone can agree with. Of course that just means that rather quickly someone in this thread will disagree.

I think so. The only thing I disagree with is the original premise of the thread.

I don't buy the notion that AA are disproportionately affected by undocumented workers. I would argue that the current rate of unemployment is at or around the normal disparity when compared to whites. I am certainly open to looking at any evidence, because I could most certainly be wrong.

[CNYSkinFan]

I think this is one thing that almost everyone can agree with. Of course that just means that rather quickly someone in this thread will disagree.
i agree with all my fellow leftists

[Fathead]

i agree with all my fellow leftists

Please don't call me that. I feel like I have to take a shower now.

[CNYSkinFan]

Please don't call me that. I feel like I have to take a shower now.
one of us....one of us...one of us...

[Fathead]

one of us....one of us...one of us...

Who do I have to insult to not be a dirty lib?

[skin4ever]

You'd be surprised. If they have to pay $10/hr to a documented employee, the real cost is more like $14 or $15. With an undocumented worker, they just pay them $10. To the worker, it's the same. To the employer, they not only reduce the cost of employment by 33% but they're paying reduced payroll taxes, as well.

That's the loophole that IBB and others have talked about. You have to make it impossible for businesses to be able to get away with this as part of a larger enforcement strategy.


I agree, but the increased costs would only be passed on to the consumer. America has shown we love cheap prices, just look for a toy made in the USA at Walmart. I will bet you will find 50 from China at a better price.

If US citizens were willing to pay more for made by Americans, companies werent so greedy and willing to put their profits toward lowering the prices, coupled with increased enforcement, that would be the best way. Its not realistic, but its really the only way.

As for the topic of the thread, I agree with Keino assessment.

[akhhorus]

Well that certainly won't happen under the current administration.

Dunno, Napolitano actually had a good program along those lines in Arizona(one of the few good ideas she had as governor). I'll wait to see what the immigration reform bill looks like.

Who do I have to insult to not be a dirty lib?

Tell Keino he reminds you of Al Sharpton lol.

[Fathead]

Tell Keino he reminds you of Al Sharpton lol.



Yeah, I'm sure that would work.

[BurgundyNGold]

I agree, but the increased costs would only be passed on to the consumer. America has shown we love cheap prices, just look for a toy made in the USA at Walmart. I will bet you will find 50 from China at a better price.

If US citizens were willing to pay more for made by Americans, companies werent so greedy and willing to put their profits toward lowering the prices, coupled with increased enforcement, that would be the best way. Its not realistic, but its really the only way.

As for the topic of the thread, I agree with Keino assessment.
I've made the argument agains the higher product costs at some other point, as well lol. It's an illusion There is ample evidence to suggest that the average American ends up paying more in public service, health care and education adjustments under the current "low cost illegal immigrant" policy than if there were no such illegal immigrants.

[skin4ever]

I've made the argument agains the higher product costs at some other point, as well lol. It's an illusion There is ample evidence to suggest that the average American ends up paying more in public service, health care and education adjustments under the current "low cost illegal immigrant" policy than if there were no such illegal immigrants.

I agree but the average american(most probably) doesnt know of what actual percentage from their taxes go toward that and would not put the two together. They are, however, very aware of the cost of products and goods everytime they open their wallet.

However, that said, i think the cost across any poor population in this country will show an increased use of Government services/funds versus what they put into the system.

[Ibleedburgundy]

I believe that the costs for maintaining the fence includes the costs of the labor assiciated with maintaining it, if not manning it. The article says that the $49B figure for the 700 mile stretch included the maintenance and operation of the fence for 25 years. That's a sticker-shock, alarmist presentation of an article if I've ever seen one but, whatever. I don't expect much out of some news sources, the SF Gate being one.


Ugh. Fences are sooooo 14th century.

Anyway, the article is hazy on some of the points, and they state:

A little-noticed study the research service released in December notes that even the $49 billion does not include the expense of acquiring private land along hundreds of miles of border or the cost of labor if the job is done by private contractors -- both of which could drive the price billions of dollars higher.


I don't know what border land costs, but I know for damn sure the labor associated with building a 2000 mile fence would be substantial.

The $140 billion figure is certainly not all inclusive. You can google the report itself. I didn't find the 2006 version referred to in the article, I found the 2009 version, which has some updates based on real world data from a 14 mile fence built near San Diego.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/RL33659.pdf

Doesn't sound to me like operations are included in the cost. We're talking two fences with an access road down the middle, the second fence is up to ten feet tall in places and slanted towards the climber. IMO, it would take a lot more than that to effectively keep people out.

[BurgundyNGold]

Ugh. Fences are sooooo 14th century.
So is the fire in my furnace, but I'm glad that my house is warm.

I don't know what border land costs, but I know for damn sure the labor associated with building a 2000 mile fence would be substantial.
Labor [for building and maintaining the wall] is included in the $49B estimate.

The $140 billion figure is certainly not all inclusive. You can google the report itself. I didn't find the 2006 version referred to in the article, I found the 2009 version, which has some updates based on real world data from a 14 mile fence built near San Diego.
That PDF isn't coming up for me, so I'll have to check it out later.

As for the 14 mile fence, let's address that independently of the 700 mile, $49B fence. It's in a urban environment, isn't the type of fence that they're proposing for the $49B, 700 mile stretch and, for chrissake, is only 14 miles long. What the shorter the stretch you use, the more damned near impossible it becomes to scale those cost and maintenance estimates up to larger projects.

As for the 700 mile stretch in the article, please note that I'm not taking issue with the SUPER inflated $49B shock tag that the article put out. I'm taking it at fact value for the sake of presentation and convenience. They've extrapolated the costs over 25 years, which is fine. But for the sake of argument, given that the 700 mile wall is of the type and design that I am proposing, that it is going to be a better estimate for a proposed 2,000 mile stretch that a 14 mile stretch in San Diego.

Doesn't sound to me like operations are included in the cost. We're talking two fences with an access road down the middle, the second fence is up to ten feet tall in places and slanted towards the climber. IMO, it would take a lot more than that to effectively keep people out.
Reading that article, it says that the building of the 700 mile stretch of wall and the expected maintenance for 25 years is included in the $49B price tag. If operations aren't included -- and I have to suspect that this is the border patrol doing their job around the wall -- then use the border patrol figures that I used in my previous post. Even by doubling the size of the border patrol once again to 40,000 agents, you're still saving money building the wall and manning it than to continue to allow unskilled, illegal immigrants to sap $10s of Bs every year.

And the fence shouldn't be looked at as the only means of keeping people out. It is a primary deterrent. It will keep many people out, but it will slow down many others enough for the Border Patrol to respond. Currently, all we have is harsh elements and scrub brush to slow them down.

[edit]

[BurgundyNGold]

I agree but the average american(most probably) doesnt know of what actual percentage from their taxes go toward that and would not put the two together. They are, however, very aware of the cost of products and goods everytime they open their wallet.
The scare tactic that the costs of goods and services will skyrocket a fallacy. The vast majority of business overhead, especially for service sector and agricultural products which is what we're taking about with illegals, is not in the picking of a head of lettuce or the washing of the restaurant's dishes. If you had to pay someone $10 instead of $6 to pick a head of lettuce, maybe the cost goes up $0.10. Even if it went up $0.25, the vast majority shoppers wouldn't notice. And unlike fuel hikes in the costs of consumer goods, not all sectors would be affected, which means that only some industries can even use that scare tactic in the first place.

However, that said, i think the cost across any poor population in this country will show an increased use of Government services versus what they put into the system.
We're paying money now, all of us are, in federal, state and local taxes and increased medical insurance premiums, to name a few things. Those annual costs are greater than the costs of building and maintain the wall, which will all but eliminate the larger expenditure. And this is before any additional tax revenue for "jobs created or saved" in this process takes effect. Those tax dollars are simply icing on the cake.

You should go back and read my post a few back where I talk about the fact that we are going to pour money into this sieve one way or the other. I use figures that show that it is likely cheaper to build the wall then to continue to the way we're going.

Really, this is a cost/benefit economic issue, not of anything else. I haven't gotten into the pressure that illegal immigrants put on Black America too much or that local governments and school systems, which is unfair on it's very surface. The government should be doing these types of cost/benefit analyses across the board, not just on the border issue.

[skin4ever]

The scare tactic that the costs of goods and services will skyrocket a fallacy. The vast majority of business overhead, especially for service sector and agricultural products which is what we're taking about with illegals, is not in the picking of a head of lettuce or the washing of the restaurant's dishes. If you had to pay someone $10 instead of $6 to pick a head of lettuce, maybe the cost goes up $0.10. Even if it went up $0.25, the vast majority shoppers wouldn't notice. And unlike fuel hikes in the costs of consumer goods, not all sectors would be affected, which means that only some industries can even use that scare tactic in the first place.

Well with regard to hikes, I think they are very real. I lived in San Diego for 6 years, and worked next to a Strawberry field. I will state unequivocally no one will pick strawberries for minimum wage. With unemployment where it is, I see signs all the time of help wanted, but no one wants to take a pay cut.

I, also, think that cost passed on to the consumer will be compounded. IE- Restaurants: the increased cost of food and workers will compound upon themselves and the cost will be that much higher. Also, the costs of new construction would destroy our(avg. American) ability to buy housing in many areas. I dont know many Carpenters who would work for $10- 15 dollars an hour. Unfortunately, that has knocked many carpenters and the like out of work already.

Also, the cost isnt just toward retail consumers. IE- while much of our agriculture is still bought from foreign countries(which sickens me and i try to buy US ag products as much as possible) the price increase would knock us out of the global market, where much of our ag products are sold. As you stated( I believe it was you in an earlier post) a 30% or so increase in employee cost would be passed along to the buyer and thus, more Mexican, Peruvian, Central American, Chinese ag products would be bought by other countries who formerly bought from us. Thus, killing our ag economy. If that happened, I hope some sort of isolationism would be created and American farmers and ag companies would again sell to the US market.


We're paying money now, all of us are, in federal, state and local taxes and increased medical insurance premiums, to name a few things. Those annual costs are greater than the costs of building and maintain the wall, which will all but eliminate the larger expenditure. And this is before any additional tax revenue for "jobs created or saved" in this process takes effect. Those tax dollars are simply icing on the cake.

You should go back and read my post a few back where I talk about the fact that we are going to pour money into this sieve one way or the other. I use figures that show that it is likely cheaper to build the wall then to continue to the way we're going.

Really, this is a cost/benefit economic issue, not of anything else. I haven't gotten into the pressure that illegal immigrants put on Black America too much or that local governments and school systems, which is unfair on it's very surface. The government should be doing these types of cost/benefit analyses across the board, not just on the border issue.

I will look back to your post, but a wall is not the answer, IMO. It will not stop the flood of immigrants, they will find another way in. The fence along the San Diego border is not that great, as is, and is replete with holes and the like. They find tunnels all the time, and people have begun to use the ocean to cross into the US from Mexico.

A more realistic option would be to create benefits for companies that hire either legal immigrants or those with special licenses/documented to do what they do, and hammer both the illegal immigrant and the company who hired them if they went that route. This would help to keep the cost passed along to the consumer down.

[BurgundyNGold]

Well with regard to hikes, I think they are very real. I lived in San Diego for 6 years, and worked next to a Strawberry field. I will state unequivocally no one will pick strawberries for minimum wage. With unemployment where it is, I see signs all the time of help wanted, but no one wants to take a pay cut.
The wall is not the only strategy, it's part of a larger strategy that involves a path to citizenship for the folks who are here and, hopefully, many more work guest worker permits for Latin American foreign nationals -- specifically Mexican agricultural workers.

Also, since you haven't seen those passed along in price hikes because of the hiring of legal workers, this isn't really relevant to the point.

I, also, think that cost passed on to the consumer will be compounded. IE- Restaurants: the increased cost of food and workers will compound upon themselves and the cost will be that much higher. Also, the costs of new construction would destroy our(avg. American) ability to buy housing in many areas. I dont know many Carpenters who would work for $10- 15 dollars an hour. Unfortunately, that has knocked many carpenters and the like out of work already.
There is no evidence to show that stemming the tide of illegal immigrants will place housing out of range of the average -- or even many American home buyers. Coming from a former career in the construction industry, I can also tell you that decreasingly few companies are hiring illegals and that few jobs are done by illegals, specifically day laboring. Anything more than that requires certification and bonding for most contracted work.

As for the passed along costs, again, we're talking a pittance. Is it worth the damage to this county's foundation to keep prices artificially, marginally low? One might make the argument that such an action also stifles competition and innovation, two overwhelming factors in determining consumer prices.

Also, the cost isnt just toward retail consumers. IE- while much of our agriculture is still bought from foreign countries(which sickens me and i try to buy US ag products as much as possible) the price increase would knock us out of the global market, where much of our ag products are sold.
On some products, yes, but not on most of out overseas staples (corn, wheat, soybeans, etc.). And if you cannot compete in a market legally, should you be allowed to compete artificially? I mean, we forbid steroids that provide an unnatural competitive advantage in sport, why shouldn't the same hold true for the ethics of illegal labor?

As you stated( I believe it was you in an earlier post) a 30% or so increase in employee cost would be passed along to the buyer and thus, more Mexican, Peruvian, Central American, Chinese ag products would be bought by other countries who formerly bought from us. Thus, killing our ag economy. If that happened, I hope some sort of isolationism would be created and American farmers and ag companies would again sell to the US market.
That's not exactly what I said. I said that a 30% increase in labor costs may be passed along to the consumer, true. However, that could be mitigated by the increased skill and productivity that increased wages usually correlate. But even if we got the same productivity for 30% more at the some of the lowest paying jobs of a company's product manufacture chain, that does not equate to a 30% pass-along price jump to the consumer. Case in point, if you have to pay $12/hour to a laborer in home construction instead of $8, that does not equate to a 50% increase in the cost of the home.

I will look back to your post, but a wall is not the answer, IMO. It will not stop the flood of immigrants, they will find another way in. The fence along the San Diego border is not that great, as is, and is replete with holes and the like. They find tunnels all the time, and people have begun to use the ocean to cross into the US from Mexico.
The goal is not to stop the tide with a wall, nor should a wall be the only deterrent. Cracking down on employers is also a strategy that needs to be incorporated in full force, although that would have the same effect that you have stated misapprehension about.

The goal is to stem the tide. If you can drop the numbers from 800,000 to 80,000, then it is more than cost effective. It also allows us to begin talks about a path to citizenship, among other things. The current torrent makes that impossible.

A more realistic option would be to create benefits for companies that hire either legal immigrants or those with special licenses/documented to do what they do, and hammer both the illegal immigrant and the company who hired them if they went that route. This would help to keep the cost passed along to the consumer down.
I think that's a very good idea as well. Tax credits for companies that can show that that are 100% legal wouldn't be a bad idea at all, as part of the larger plan.

[skin4ever]

Also, since you haven't seen those passed along in price hikes because of the hiring of legal workers, this isn't really relevant to the point.

I dont have the figures of migrant workers with license vs. illegals hired. So i dont know how much of the cost goes where. My point was that if these guys are being paid $8/hr. No one would do the work they do for less than $20. It is back breaking labor intensive with no real efficeint tools except for their hands and a sack.

There is no evidence to show that stemming the tide of illegal immigrants will place housing out of range of the average -- or even many American home buyers. Coming from a former career in the construction industry, I can also tell you that decreasingly few companies are hiring illegals and that few jobs are done by illegals, specifically day laboring. Anything more than that requires certification and bonding for most contracted work.
If you add up the hours of workers and the difference we are talking about real money that increases each contracts price and the price of the home.

As for the passed along costs, again, we're talking a pittance. Is it worth the damage to this county's foundation to keep prices artificially, marginally low? One might make the argument that such an action also stifles competition and innovation, two overwhelming factors in determining consumer prices.

Have you shopped at Walmart? Unfortunately it is to us the consumers. I would love for people to shop and buy only locally grown food, made in US toys, cars, etc. but the reality is we dont. Sure we all may do one or two, but its really us the consumers fault, well that along with corporate insatiable greed.


[QUOTE]On some products, yes, but not on most of out overseas staples (corn, wheat, soybeans, etc.). And if you cannot compete in a market legally, should you be allowed to compete artificially? I mean, we forbid steroids that provide an unnatural competitive advantage in sport, why shouldn't the same hold true for the ethics of illegal labor?
Well soy could be taken over by Brazil, if our prices were to increase. I dont know about the others, but if a country began producing on a large scale or saw that they could compete, we would lose out. I know its a woulda coulda argument, but i think its valid. As for legally competing, we are competing against countries that pay way less. If we did what these countries were doing, we would not have an illegal immigrant population as it is today. Found this by the USDA and we have had to lower our prices because of global competition in many areas. Sickens me when they mention lowered because of increased imports.
http://www.usda.gov/oce/commodity/wasde/latest.pdf

That's not exactly what I said. I said that a 30% increase in labor costs may be passed along to the consumer, true. However, that could be mitigated by the increased skill and productivity that increased wages usually correlate. But even if we got the same productivity for 30% more at the some of the lowest paying jobs of a company's product manufacture chain, that does not equate to a 30% pass-along price jump to the consumer. Case in point, if you have to pay $12/hour to a laborer in home construction instead of $8, that does not equate to a 50% increase in the cost of the home.

I have to disagree in part. It would increase the cost of anything touched by that 30% increase by 30%. In the case of home construction, you have not only the increase in labor but the increase in the guys who cut the wood, manufacture whatever. All of that would be passed down.

The goal is not to stop the tide with a wall, nor should a wall be the only deterrent. Cracking down on employers is also a strategy that needs to be incorporated in full force, although that would have the same effect that you have stated misapprehension about.

Thats the issue. How do we(US) maintain competitively in the US and global market all while fighting the benefits of extremely cheap labor? Whatever the answer, truthfully and realistically, we need the cheaper labor we just need to find a way to harness it without excessive strain on the Govt and taxes?

[Ibleedburgundy]

So is the fire in my furnace, but I'm glad that my house is warm.


Yes, but fire is not obsolete. When you do get a chance to read the pdf, there is some interesting stuff in there. They talk about one tunnel under the border that was a mile long and made from reinforced concrete. Point is, these people are pretty savvy, determined, sophisticated. Plugging holes one by one (like the stretch south of SD) is the easy part. Making the border secure and comprehensive is the difficult part. Also keep in mind many millions of illegal aliens came here legally and overstayed.

Labor [for building and maintaining the wall] is included in the $49B estimate.


They used Government labor. Another interesting portion of the report claims using contractors for the construction labor would substantially increase costs (40% or so). That doesn't surprise me in the least because I look at cost data for a living. But I'm sure it would come as a bit of a shock to the "private industry is always cheaper than Government" crowd.

I would think the FED would use a contractor for this if done in a large scale effort.

That PDF isn't coming up for me, so I'll have to check it out later.

As for the 14 mile fence, let's address that independently of the 700 mile, $49B fence. It's in a urban environment, isn't the type of fence that they're proposing for the $49B, 700 mile stretch and, for chrissake, is only 14 miles long. What the shorter the stretch you use, the more damned near impossible it becomes to scale those cost and maintenance estimates up to larger projects.

As for the 700 mile stretch in the article, please note that I'm not taking issue with the SUPER inflated $49B shock tag that the article put out. I'm taking it at fact value for the sake of presentation and convenience. They've extrapolated the costs over 25 years, which is fine. But for the sake of argument, given that the 700 mile wall is of the type and design that I am proposing, that it is going to be a better estimate for a proposed 2,000 mile stretch that a 14 mile stretch in San Diego.


I haven't seen the old report, but I spent some time reading the new one, and they reference some of the data from the old one.

The people who wrote your article did not do any extrapolating. That 25 year stuff is straight out of the report.

Agree that a 14 mile stretch would likely cost more per mile because of start up costs, administrative costs, etc., don't all have to be duplicated, efficiencies willl be developed, a learning curve will be achieved.

But I also think it's easy to build a short wall and claim local success even though the illegals are just walking around it. The real challenge arises when we try to make it air tight.

Reading that article, it says that the building of the 700 mile stretch of wall and the expected maintenance for 25 years is included in the $49B price tag. If operations aren't included -- and I have to suspect that this is the border patrol doing their job around the wall -- then use the border patrol figures that I used in my previous post. Even by doubling the size of the border patrol once again to 40,000 agents, you're still saving money building the wall and manning it than to continue to allow unskilled, illegal immigrants to sap $10s of Bs every year.


IMO it would take more like 100,000 agents.

And the fence shouldn't be looked at as the only means of keeping people out. It is a primary deterrent. It will keep many people out, but it will slow down many others enough for the Border Patrol to respond. Currently, all we have is harsh elements and scrub brush to slow them down.

That's what I'm saying. The wall is just the tip of the iceberg. And there's no guarantee that it would work.

[BurgundyNGold]

I dont have the figures of migrant workers with license vs. illegals hired. So i dont know how much of the cost goes where. My point was that if these guys are being paid $8/hr. No one would do the work they do for less than $20. It is back breaking labor intensive with no real efficeint tools except for their hands and a sack.
That's your perspective from your economic stratus. There are 10s of Ms of American workers who work for less than $10/hr every day. You shouldn't impose your view on the debate from your perspective, rather you should try to look at it from theirs. Just like the chicken factory in the article points out, there are people who will take those jobs. If not a sufficient number, then you raise the hourly rate from $8 to 10. If still not enough, you raise it from $10 to $12. If that affects your bottom line to the point where you cannot compete, you look to cut costs or you innovate. If you still cannot compete, then you're doomed to failure. That's market capitalism and that's what every other private sector industry has to do.

If you add up the hours of workers and the difference we are talking about real money that increases each contracts price and the price of the home.
Not really. If you're talking about 4 laborers (usually there are 2) for 1 house for 30 days (the average for most cookie cutter houses during the labor phase), an increase of $4/hr that's less than $3,000. I sincerely doubt that $3,000 puts any house out of range for a person or family qualified to buy the house in the first place.

If you're concerned about the possibility of people not being able to buy houses, you should be 100 times more upset at the banks who are denying them financing (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/23/AR2010022302120.html) despite being given $100s of Bs to jump start lending.

Have you shopped at Walmart? Unfortunately it is to us the consumers. I would love for people to shop and buy only locally grown food, made in US toys, cars, etc. but the reality is we dont. Sure we all may do one or two, but its really us the consumers fault, well that along with corporate insatiable greed.
I don't shop at Walmart, but that's my choice. I can't fault those who do, but I can say that if Walmart didn't exist, consumers would shop at places like Target instead. Walmart also gets the vast majority of good from China who has 10 times the unskilled labor that they need internally. In this one instance, at least, China is doing it right. Now, when it comes to manipulating their currency to keep prices low and exports up, well, that's another issue, which is why I don't shop at Walmart.

Well soy will soon be taken over by Brazil, if our prices were to increase. I dont know about the others, but if a country began producing on a large scale or saw that they could compete, we would lose out. I know its a woulda coulda argument, but i think its valid. As for legally competing, we are competing against countries that pay way less. If we did what these countries were doing, we would not have an illegal immigrant population as it is today.
I don't see why that's a bad thing. If you cannot produce goods at a sufficient quality/price point to compete in many international markets, then that's just how the cookie crumbles. Such is the down side of living in a first world nation. It is our responsibility to lead the way into new markets to continue growing our standard of living, not to cheat with illegal labor to maintain the status quo. The former condition is the American Dream, which made out country great; the latter is just laziness and the lack of leadership and political will.

I have to disagree in part. It would increase the cost of anything touched by that 30% increase by 30%. In the case of home construction, you have not only the increase in labor but the increase in the guys who cut the wood, manufacture whatever. All of that would be passed down.
In new home construction, only a handful of unskilled positions exists and they are at the bottom of the pay scale. There aren't a mass of illegal immigrant carpenters, plumbers, electricians and other tradesmen working on the house. The cost of materials -- the bulk of the costs -- will be relatively unchanged because most are produced in union shops. The cost of architecture, engineering and civil planning will remain unchanged. The only labor elements that will be adversely affected are the unskilled laborers at the bottom of the chain. That is an extremely low percentage of a home's cost -- on the order of 2% or so.

Thats the issue. How do we(US) maintain competitively in the US and global market all while fighting the benefits of extremely cheap labor? Whatever the answer, truthfully and realistically, we need the cheaper labor we just need to find a way to harness it without excessive strain on the Govt and taxes?
I think that once you step the flow of 800,000 undocumented, illegal immigrants annually to a mere pittance, you have a lot of flexibility. Currently, legal visas are curtailed at the expense of illegal entries.

I'm not against immigration, quite the contrary. I'm against the costs of illegal immigration, both measurable and unmeasurable, on American society. If you got the illegal flow down to, say, 80,000, then you could issue 200,000 or 400,000 or more documented guest worker visas per year to many of the same people. Now, these folks are on the tax roles with an inherent path to citizenship. They're part of America, not some underclass. They can go to school and college. They can get a driver's license and a bank account. They'll contribute the the hospitals, schools and roads they use.

That's the goal.

[BurgundyNGold]

Yes, but fire is not obsolete. When you do get a chance to read the pdf, there is some interesting stuff in there. They talk about one tunnel under the border that was a mile long and made from reinforced concrete. Point is, these people are pretty savvy, determined, sophisticated. Plugging holes one by one (like the stretch south of SD) is the easy part. Making the border secure and comprehensive is the difficult part. Also keep in mind many millions of illegal aliens came here legally and overstayed.
I will check that PDF out when I get home tonight.

As I said in another post a few back in this thread, the goal of the wall is not to stop illegal immigration all by itself. It has to be part of a larger, more comprehensive program that includes increased border patrol, crackdowns on employers, and a focus on economic development in Latin America.

And, yes, many visa holders overstay their welcome but a) it's a much smaller percent than the 80% who come illegally from Latin America, and b) the expired visa holders are known by immigration and have had a chance to be vetted before the initial visa was granted. This is not to excuse their overstaying their welcome, but it does reduce the likelihood of unwanted criminal and increases the likelihood that they brought a skill and some education with them initially.

They used Government labor. Another interesting portion of the report claims using contractors for the construction labor would substantially increase costs (40% or so). That doesn't surprise me in the least because I look at cost data for a living. But I'm sure it would come as a bit of a shock to the "private industry is always cheaper than Government" crowd.

I would think the FED would use a contractor for this if done in a large scale effort.
I think that the private sector does some things cheaper and other things more expensive. Anything Lockheed Martin and Halliburton does, for example, isn't cheaper than the government or any number of other contractors could probably do. But now we're talking about the comfort levels of familiarity and the politics of cronyism lol.

I haven't seen the old report, but I spent some time reading the new one, and they reference some of the data from the old one.

The people who wrote your article did not do any extrapolating. That 25 year stuff is straight out of the report.
You can present the cost in the report one of two ways. The first is the initial cost, which was far less than $49B. The second is to project that the wall will be in service, as the report does, for the entire 25 years and to put that higher $49B figure a headline stating that the cost is many more times what lawmakers are selling it as. Both are technically accurate, but the latter, as presented by the article, is clearly looking to influence readers against the wall without discussing the other side of the cost equation.

Agree that a 14 mile stretch would likely cost more per mile because of start up costs, administrative costs, etc., don't all have to be duplicated, efficiencies willl be developed, a learning curve will be achieved.
Yep, good points.

But I also think it's easy to build a short wall and claim local success even though the illegals are just walking around it. The real challenge arises when we try to make it air tight.
Also agreed. Short walls are useless. You can't get a little bit pregnant on a 1,944 mile issue.

IMO it would take more like 100,000 agents.

Why would you think that? Assuming that only 80,000 of those agents are posted along the Mexican border and that they worked 3 shifts a day, that would be more than 13 agents per shifts per linear mile. That's one agent for every 100 yards or so. When you have a wall, do you really need that many agents every liner mile? 4 should be plenty, given they'll have transportation and will likely be set up in response teams as opposed to just sitting in guard towers a la the Korean DMZ.

That's what I'm saying. The wall is just the tip of the iceberg. And there's no guarantee that it would work.
The wall will stem the tide by 60, 80 or, at best, 90%. People will still get in because of tunnels and smuggling, but those numbers will be far lower than the current levels.

The wall will not work alone, but no strategy to stem the tide of illegal immigrants will work without a wall, IMO. It takes time to implement the employer crackdowns and that will have to be rigorously enforced nationwide -- not just along the border. It will take 20 or 30 years to raise the economic tide in Latin America enough to reduce the need to come. You cannot talk about guest worker visas or increasing legal immigration to other areas of the world while illegals immigrants are taxing public resources that could (and by all rights should) be reserved for those who play by the rules to get here. Furthermore, without an abrupt downward shock to the flow of illegals, you cannot even discuss the possibility of a path to citizenship for the illegals who are here now.

The wall gives you the ability to accelerate many of those timelines while giving time for the economic development policies in Latin America time to take hold.

[firehawk157]

I'm sorry, but the correct answer is:

Drumroll please...

ANNEX MEXICO!

Of course, then we'll have a border problem with Guatemula. So to solve the next border problem, ANNEX Guatemula! Of course...

[Fathead]

Not trying to pick a fight:


Could you state your position on the issue to start the discussion please?

http://www.ag.auburn.edu/fish/image_gallery/data/media/100/crickets.jpg

[Fathead]

http://www.diversetraveller.com/images/articles/47/emma_Fried_crickets.jpg

[BIGREDSKINSFAN1963]

i have never eaten deep fried crickets,but i got a buddy who grew up in spain and mexico who loves the little devils!he says you throw some spices,eggs,and a few habaneros into a pan with them and it all goes down tasty!

[Ibleedburgundy]

Dude you can pretty much deep fry anything and it will taste OK. Put some salt on it.

[BIGREDSKINSFAN1963]

Dude you can pretty much deep fry anything and it will taste OK. Put some salt on it.

well let me just say,i ain't eating any deep fried crickets!then again,i never said i'd eat chitlins either.:sun:

[fpickering]

Assuming the premise was correct, how many hundreds of billions are you willing to spend to keep the latinos out? Whose taxes would you raise to pay for it? We aren't going to accomplish a damn thing for less than a few hundred billion.


Illegal aliens cost the US an estimated $338.3 Billion dollars a year.


The cost to deport illegal aliens was estimated to be between $41 and $46 billion annually over a five year period.


Obviously, this represents a pretty significant net savings.

[BurgundyNGold]

Illegal aliens cost the US an estimated $338.3 Billion dollars a year.

The cost to deport illegal aliens was estimated to be between $41 and $46 billion annually over a five year period.

Obviously, this represents a pretty significant net savings.
Nothing personal, because we hold a similar views on this topic, but could you substantiate that figure with a link or a source?

[Biggie]

Nothing personal, because we hold a similar views on this topic, but could you substantiate that figure with a link or a source?
Same here.

[fpickering]

in washington state, it is difficult to get ANYONE, regardless of color, to take a lot of the jobs the illegals take in the agricultural sector

I am sure that is true but the principle reason that these jobs are not being done by Americans is because of the artificially depressed wages being offered which are a direct effect of illegal immigrants.

If there were no illegal immigrants here, strawberries would still have to be picked. The agricultural sector would have to raise wages to attract workers in order to get their product out.

It is not that Americans are not willing to do these jobs. Americans are not willing to do these jobs at the artificially depressed wages for which they are being offered.

[fpickering]

Nothing personal, because we hold a similar views on this topic, but could you substantiate that figure with a link or a source?


There are numerous sources for the data that goes into these figures. I will try to put them together.

[fpickering]

Same here.

My apologies, I did some more in depth research and the source of the information that I quoted (a Frosty Wooldridge article) and it has since been challenged for accuracy.

[akhhorus]

My apologies, I did some more in depth research and the source of the information that I quoted (a Frosty Wooldridge article) and it has since been challenged for accuracy.

Kudos for this post.

[fpickering]

Kudos for this post.


Some of the numbers were disputed but regardless, illegal aliens still represent a significant net cost to our society.

First of all, someone needs to do a comprehensive analysis of the costs. That would help us craft an effective solution to the issue.

I do like the idea posted earlier that we should punish those who hire illegal aliens.

[akhhorus]

I do like the idea posted earlier that we should punish those who hire illegal aliens.

Thats been done with good results in Arizona(the governor who did it is now DHS sec). Its the only cost effective way to really do anything. A wall won't stop the flow, nor will just arresting everyone who is thought to be an illegal(thats been tried also, and hispanic natural born citizens always get caught up in it and "deported" to Mexico).

[BurgundyNGold]

My apologies, I did some more in depth research and the source of the information that I quoted (a Frosty Wooldridge article) and it has since been challenged for accuracy.
Thanks for doing the leg work. Even thought the figure was probably wrong, you did a lot for your credibility by verifying and withdrawing figures once they didn't show to be reliable.

Kudos for this post.
Definitely.

[BurgundyNGold]

Some of the numbers were disputed but regardless, illegal aliens still represent a significant net cost to our society.

First of all, someone needs to do a comprehensive analysis of the costs. That would help us craft an effective solution to the issue.

I do like the idea posted earlier that we should punish those who hire illegal aliens.
We have done some of that on this board. Conservatively, we figured that the costs were $30B/year just on the things we could get data on. I'm sure the numbers are much higher but, for some reason, nobody anywhere wants to do an independent, nationwide analysis of these costs.

Thats been done with good results in Arizona(the governor who did it is now DHS sec). Its the only cost effective way to really do anything. A wall won't stop the flow, nor will just arresting everyone who is thought to be an illegal(thats been tried also, and hispanic natural born citizens always get caught up in it and "deported" to Mexico).
That initiative came up through the AZ legislature, if I remember correctly. Janet Napolitano is an idiot who would rather tote the ideological gym bag than solve problems. Every Arizonan I've ever spoken to (and that's more than a few since my brother lives out there) was happy to see her leave. So far, she's been decidedly underwhelming at DHS, as well.

[Fathead]

It takes some balls to say that, especially on a message board. I concur with the kudos.

[CNYSkinFan]

I concur on the Kudos....though really most regular posters in the Poromac on both sides have done this in the past. That is what makes the Potomac great.

[akhhorus]

That initiative came up through the AZ legislature, if I remember correctly. Janet Napolitano is an idiot who would rather tote the ideological gym bag than solve problems. Every Arizonan I've ever spoken to (and that's more than a few since my brother lives out there) was happy to see her leave. So far, she's been decidedly underwhelming at DHS, as well.

I haven't been that impressed with her either, but she really hasn't had a major event to deal with yet(the "when there's nothing let to burn, you have to set your undies on fire" incident didn't qualify as anything major imo). As for the issue at hand, the Arizona law(and enforcement on the law) for fining the companies for using illegal labor has made an impact I believe.