$6.2 Trillion????

Darth Cheney wrote:Think of all the poorly educated democrat voters/welfare recipients we will get...that is priceless while using other people's money.

BladeRunner wrote:http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/06/study-pegs-cost-immigration-bills-mass-legalization-at-63t/

RedWhiteBlue wrote:

BladeRunner wrote:http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/06/study-pegs-cost-immigration-bills-mass-legalization-at-63t/

6.2. OK. Seems like a lot. Anybody know what the net costs turned out to be when Reagan granted amnesty to the 3-million (eventually about 11-million) illegals? Or did it turn out to be a net gain for the country.

From the link:

"Stephen Moore, an economist and Wall Street Journal writer, said many economists challenge the notion that immigrants are a net cost to the country. He told Fox News despite the Heritage findings, there are other studies showing the legalization will be an economic boon that could grow the economy -- in turn alleviating the country's deficit problem.

"You've got to look at both sides of the equation," Moore said. "Yes, the immigrants will use benefits, no question about that, but as they become more productive citizens and they come out of the shadows, a lot of economists -- myself included -- think they'll become more productive and they'll pay more taxes."

Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., a key co-author of the legislation, has also stressed that illegal immigrants applying for legal status would not have access to federal benefits while they are applying. After obtaining a green card, they would still be ineligible for many federal benefits for five years."

RedWhiteBlue wrote:

BladeRunner wrote:http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/06/study-pegs-cost-immigration-bills-mass-legalization-at-63t/

6.2. OK. Seems like a lot. Anybody know what the net costs turned out to be when Reagan granted amnesty to the 3-million (eventually about 11-million) illegals? Or did it turn out to be a net gain for the country.

From the link:

"Stephen Moore, an economist and Wall Street Journal writer, said many economists challenge the notion that immigrants are a net cost to the country. He told Fox News despite the Heritage findings, there are other studies showing the legalization will be an economic boon that could grow the economy -- in turn alleviating the country's deficit problem.

"You've got to look at both sides of the equation," Moore said. "Yes, the immigrants will use benefits, no question about that, but as they become more productive citizens and they come out of the shadows, a lot of economists -- myself included -- think they'll become more productive and they'll pay more taxes."

Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., a key co-author of the legislation, has also stressed that illegal immigrants applying for legal status would not have access to federal benefits while they are applying. After obtaining a green card, they would still be ineligible for many federal benefits for five years."

Darth Cheney wrote:

RedWhiteBlue wrote:

BladeRunner wrote:http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/06/study-pegs-cost-immigration-bills-mass-legalization-at-63t/

6.2. OK. Seems like a lot. Anybody know what the net costs turned out to be when Reagan granted amnesty to the 3-million (eventually about 11-million) illegals? Or did it turn out to be a net gain for the country.

From the link:

"Stephen Moore, an economist and Wall Street Journal writer, said many economists challenge the notion that immigrants are a net cost to the country. He told Fox News despite the Heritage findings, there are other studies showing the legalization will be an economic boon that could grow the economy -- in turn alleviating the country's deficit problem.

"You've got to look at both sides of the equation," Moore said. "Yes, the immigrants will use benefits, no question about that, but as they become more productive citizens and they come out of the shadows, a lot of economists -- myself included -- think they'll become more productive and they'll pay more taxes."

Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., a key co-author of the legislation, has also stressed that illegal immigrants applying for legal status would not have access to federal benefits while they are applying. After obtaining a green card, they would still be ineligible for many federal benefits for five years."

You keep repeating how Reagen granted amnesty...I assume then that Obama can also grant amnesty and if he fails will be another example of his failed administration. Please expand on my statement and why Obama doesn't just grant amnesty and bypass the Congress. (DA)

Freedom Forever wrote:

RedWhiteBlue wrote:

BladeRunner wrote:http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/06/study-pegs-cost-immigration-bills-mass-legalization-at-63t/

6.2. OK. Seems like a lot. Anybody know what the net costs turned out to be when Reagan granted amnesty to the 3-million (eventually about 11-million) illegals? Or did it turn out to be a net gain for the country.

From the link:

"Stephen Moore, an economist and Wall Street Journal writer, said many economists challenge the notion that immigrants are a net cost to the country. He told Fox News despite the Heritage findings, there are other studies showing the legalization will be an economic boon that could grow the economy -- in turn alleviating the country's deficit problem.

"You've got to look at both sides of the equation," Moore said. "Yes, the immigrants will use benefits, no question about that, but as they become more productive citizens and they come out of the shadows, a lot of economists -- myself included -- think they'll become more productive and they'll pay more taxes."

Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., a key co-author of the legislation, has also stressed that illegal immigrants applying for legal status would not have access to federal benefits while they are applying. After obtaining a green card, they would still be ineligible for many federal benefits for five years."

Funny how increased tax revenues automatically mean economic prosperity. I'm all for taxing them, I just don't buy into the assumption.

RedWhiteBlue wrote:

Darth Cheney wrote:

RedWhiteBlue wrote:

BladeRunner wrote:http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/06/study-pegs-cost-immigration-bills-mass-legalization-at-63t/

6.2. OK. Seems like a lot. Anybody know what the net costs turned out to be when Reagan granted amnesty to the 3-million (eventually about 11-million) illegals? Or did it turn out to be a net gain for the country.

From the link:

"Stephen Moore, an economist and Wall Street Journal writer, said many economists challenge the notion that immigrants are a net cost to the country. He told Fox News despite the Heritage findings, there are other studies showing the legalization will be an economic boon that could grow the economy -- in turn alleviating the country's deficit problem.

"You've got to look at both sides of the equation," Moore said. "Yes, the immigrants will use benefits, no question about that, but as they become more productive citizens and they come out of the shadows, a lot of economists -- myself included -- think they'll become more productive and they'll pay more taxes."

Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., a key co-author of the legislation, has also stressed that illegal immigrants applying for legal status would not have access to federal benefits while they are applying. After obtaining a green card, they would still be ineligible for many federal benefits for five years."

You keep repeating how Reagen granted amnesty...I assume then that Obama can also grant amnesty and if he fails will be another example of his failed administration. Please expand on my statement and why Obama doesn't just grant amnesty and bypass the Congress. (DA)

That didn't work for Reagan. I don't think it would work now, either. The current plan, even with the kinks, is much better.

Darth Cheney wrote:

RedWhiteBlue wrote:

Darth Cheney wrote:

RedWhiteBlue wrote:

BladeRunner wrote:http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/06/study-pegs-cost-immigration-bills-mass-legalization-at-63t/

6.2. OK. Seems like a lot. Anybody know what the net costs turned out to be when Reagan granted amnesty to the 3-million (eventually about 11-million) illegals? Or did it turn out to be a net gain for the country.

From the link:

"Stephen Moore, an economist and Wall Street Journal writer, said many economists challenge the notion that immigrants are a net cost to the country. He told Fox News despite the Heritage findings, there are other studies showing the legalization will be an economic boon that could grow the economy -- in turn alleviating the country's deficit problem.

"You've got to look at both sides of the equation," Moore said. "Yes, the immigrants will use benefits, no question about that, but as they become more productive citizens and they come out of the shadows, a lot of economists -- myself included -- think they'll become more productive and they'll pay more taxes."

Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., a key co-author of the legislation, has also stressed that illegal immigrants applying for legal status would not have access to federal benefits while they are applying. After obtaining a green card, they would still be ineligible for many federal benefits for five years."

You keep repeating how Reagen granted amnesty...I assume then that Obama can also grant amnesty and if he fails will be another example of his failed administration. Please expand on my statement and why Obama doesn't just grant amnesty and bypass the Congress. (DA)

That didn't work for Reagan. I don't think it would work now, either. The current plan, even with the kinks, is much better.

The point was, according to you, that Reagen granted amnesty and the question is why doesn't Obama grant amnesty?

According to a 1997 report by the Center for Immigration Studies, the cost of amnesty for 2.7 million illegal immigrants had accumulated to $156.7 billion (in 1986 dollars!) by 1997. The net cost after $78 billion in tax collections was $78.7 billion dollars. This amounts to a subsidy per amnestied illegal of $29,148 in 1986 dollars, which is an important indirect subsidy for the employers of illegal workers. But U.S. workers paid the highest price. The 1986 amnesty displaced 1,872,000 American workers over the next decade. This and downward pressure on American wages are not adequately accounted for in the report. In fact, downward pressure on U.S. worker income may be the largest cost to the American economy of amnesty and excess immigration levels.

pse1124 wrote:When illegals become legal, the sudden surge in workers into a legal workforce will raise unemployment levels to previously unheard of levels. This will cause the wages to plummett. I thought liberals wanted to lower unemployment and raise wages. This will do the oppositte of that. How would that be a "boon" for the economy again?

pse1124 wrote:When illegals become legal, the sudden surge in workers into a legal workforce will raise unemployment levels to previously unheard of levels. This will cause the wages to plummett. I thought liberals wanted to lower unemployment and raise wages. This will do the oppositte of that. How would that be a "boon" for the economy again?

Gomezz Adddams wrote:"Stephen Moore, an economist and Wall Street Journal writer, said many economists challenge the notion that immigrants are a net cost to the country. He told Fox News despite the Heritage findings, there are other studies showing the legalization will be an economic boon that could grow the economy -- in turn alleviating the country's deficit problem."

While I typically agree with much of what Stephen Moore says, I believe he is wrong in his comments. We are already reaping many of the benefits of illegal aliens working in the US. The underground economy, where many of the illegals work, has been calculated to be contributing over $2T to the economy and may very well be keeping the country afloat. While illegals may not be taxed on their incomes they still are paying local sales taxes, gas taxes and property taxes when they rent property. Moore is in effect counting the so called "boon" twice

RedWhiteBlue wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:"Stephen Moore, an economist and Wall Street Journal writer, said many economists challenge the notion that immigrants are a net cost to the country. He told Fox News despite the Heritage findings, there are other studies showing the legalization will be an economic boon that could grow the economy -- in turn alleviating the country's deficit problem."

While I typically agree with much of what Stephen Moore says, I believe he is wrong in his comments. We are already reaping many of the benefits of illegal aliens working in the US. The underground economy, where many of the illegals work, has been calculated to be contributing over $2T to the economy and may very well be keeping the country afloat. While illegals may not be taxed on their incomes they still are paying local sales taxes, gas taxes and property taxes when they rent property. Moore is in effect counting the so called "boon" twice

Even if you spread out 20 million (nobody knows how many, but its more than 11 million) over 13 years, and add to it their family that they will be allowed to bring into the country, it still is a "surge". Do you think this economy can handle an additional 20 million + into the workforce over 13 years and not have huge unemployment?

Interesting points. There is no indication that Moore is counting the boon twice. But, there is no indication that he is not. It would be interesting to see the studies he referenced. I found no source or link to that in the Fox report.

We also have no way of knowing how much of the "underground economy" includes illegals.
Yes, they are currently paying "local sales taxes, gas taxes and property taxes", etc.
(lol - just like the infamous "47%").

PSE1124 - If you look at the current plan, you will see that there won't be that "sudden surge" you mentioned, this time. The time length of the "path" will vary considerably. (such as military service = shorter time)

pse1124 wrote:

RedWhiteBlue wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:"Stephen Moore, an economist and Wall Street Journal writer, said many economists challenge the notion that immigrants are a net cost to the country. He told Fox News despite the Heritage findings, there are other studies showing the legalization will be an economic boon that could grow the economy -- in turn alleviating the country's deficit problem."

While I typically agree with much of what Stephen Moore says, I believe he is wrong in his comments. We are already reaping many of the benefits of illegal aliens working in the US. The underground economy, where many of the illegals work, has been calculated to be contributing over $2T to the economy and may very well be keeping the country afloat. While illegals may not be taxed on their incomes they still are paying local sales taxes, gas taxes and property taxes when they rent property. Moore is in effect counting the so called "boon" twice

Interesting points. There is no indication that Moore is counting the boon twice. But, there is no indication that he is not. It would be interesting to see the studies he referenced. I found no source or link to that in the Fox report.

We also have no way of knowing how much of the "underground economy" includes illegals.
Yes, they are currently paying "local sales taxes, gas taxes and property taxes", etc.
(lol - just like the infamous "47%").

PSE1124 - If you look at the current plan, you will see that there won't be that "sudden surge" you mentioned, this time. The time length of the "path" will vary considerably. (such as military service = shorter time)