How the migrant crisis drained $150 billion from taxpayers in a single year

nypost.com

25 comments

Services like education, medical expenses, law enforcement, legal costs and welfare were prominent factors FAIR looked at in its study.
Costs for law enforcement and legal expenses would not need to be included if immigration was not illegal, so I don't see why they should be factored in.
FAIR also included the costs of US-born children of illegal immigrants — something many reports don’t factor in.
Including American citizens in the cost of illegal immigrants is dishonest.
- Including American citizens in the cost of illegal immigrants is dishonest.
  It is actually honest. You measure what is paid in versus paid out. Many immigrants come with children. Those people need education services immediately if they are to assimilate into the flow of productivity. They also take healthcare dollars. These are all legitimate costs. Law enforcement costs money and pulled away from normal operation. Immigrants need to be processed. Property owners pay taxes to have law enforcement to protect property. Again, all legitimate costs. But let us examine your logic, if migrants didn't generate net revenues positively in their country of origin, what makes you think they generate a net positive in the new host country? If they didn't generate a net positive for their country of origin, like a failed state like Venezuela, by which evidence do you use to determine they are indeed productive enough? Furthermore, why do municipalities like NYC have to cut services? Why do they have to evict migrants from shelters? The coordination and logistics of feeding them and find them shelter, getting them the proper healthcare, all at no cost to them. Resources are not unlimited and because of that, these new peoples drive up spending that has to be paid for by the native or local populations. If the federal government does not want to fulfill its immigration policy with federal dollars, offload the costs to local governments, what does that say about the scarcity of resources?
  Left-wingers are correct that unfettered immigration boosts GDP, because it boosts total spending, even if it means most of it is by taxpayers paying for these new peoples. Using their logic, we should take in all the people in poverty in the world, and boost the GDP to astronomical levels by funding all of it.
  
  if migrants didn't generate net revenues positively in their country of origin, what makes you think they generate a net positive in the new host country? If they didn't generate a net positive for their country of origin, like a failed state like Venezuela, by which evidence do you use to determine they are indeed productive enough?
  The underlying assumption here is that the value of a human lies in their ability to generate profit for the factory owners, entrepreneurs, and venture capitalists of America. If they can't, then they don't deserve life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness.
  
  Many immigrants come with children.
  I wasn't complaining about the inclusion of those children. I was complaining of the inclusion of children of immigrants born in the US which constitutionally makes them American citizens.
  Law enforcement costs money and pulled away from normal operation.
  Which is a choice we make. It is not inherent to immigration. For half the existence of this country we spent zero on regulating immigration.
  if migrants didn't generate net revenues positively in their country of origin, what makes you think they generate a net positive in the new host country?
  Failure of productivity results from a corrupt and inefficient government in places like Venezuela. It has little to do with the capability of people. Go to any construction site or kitchen in the US and you will find them staffed with mostly immigrants. Labor created value and anyone can do labor if managed effectively.
  Furthermore, why do municipalities like NYC have to cut services? Why do they have to evict migrants from shelters?
  Because they don't have sufficient funds to do so which could easily be fixed if xenophobes in government didn't block taking action.
  Using their logic, we should take in all the people in poverty in the world, and boost the GDP to astronomical levels by funding all of it.
  Correct. Labor is the most valuable natural resource on Earth.
Hmm whatdya s'pose it would cost to finish that wall and put a rifleman on a tower every couple hunnerd yards or so? Might be healthcare and social services works out to be a better deal in the long run.
- The border between the USA and Mexico is 3,439,000 yards long. Even if we assume that it's passable along that entire length, that still works out to only about 17,000 riflemen. They can't be on duty 24/7 but even 60,000 soldiers is not that many compared to the size of the US military. (For comparison, the NYPD has 30,000 cops and a yearly budget of 5.8 billion. Homeland Security's yearly budget is over 60 billion.) You wouldn't need a wall between the guard posts because if the public wouldn't mind seeing people shot while trying to cross the border illegally, it wouldn't mind seeing people stuck in (much cheaper) barbed wire either.
  Of course guard towers every 200 yards wouldn't be how the border would be secured with 21st century technology. (Unrestrained violence isn't necessary.) My point is that the USA chooses to let people cross illegally; stopping them is realistic.
  
  I guess you're right. I thought the wall idea was kinda dumb too, but that was the idea that got pushed. Stopping anybody from crossing the border is feasible, but I suppose it's a matter of priorities. Yes people are crossing the border illegally, meanwhile the department of defense is practically pissing money into the ocean, all manner of iniquities and wickedness is going on in America. Why focus so much on this particular issue?
How the defense industry drains much more every year.

25 comments