Economy Should we provide migrants with housing, welfare, medical, etc..?

[The XL]

Prioritizing illegals over our own is immoral and treasonous.

 

[avenue94]

No they should get nothing. There are too many American citizens that need help and mass immigration is a reason many people are doing poorly because they devalue wages.

Any peer reviewed research on this matter you'd like to share?

1. We close mental health facilities all over the country for budgetary cuts.
2. We have no viable public Drug addiction treatment centers, due to budgetary concerns.

Immigration improves government finances, whether it's sales tax, payroll tax that they will never collect, or just normal income tax as citizens.

2b. The homeless population is at unprecedented levels due to this. Literal health concerns like diseases emerge that we haven't seen in decades due to the people living on the streets.
3. We have Vets that are homeless and need assistance.

We have homeless primarily because the country has refused to build enough housing and artificially restricted supply.

4. Hey, come on in everyone from other countries, we will feed, clothe and house you. We will educate your kids! Yeah it may cost billions, but so what??

I suppose the irony of effectively paraphrasing the Statue of Liberty is lost on you. Any study worth it's salt and vaguely rigorous has found that immigration is a net positive financially for America.

 

[JonnyBonesPharmacist]

Anyone that thinks the current boarder situation is all good, you Fkers pay for them.

 

[Two Crows]

OP, can you clarify whom we are looking at?

Legal immigrants are a very different issue from illegal. They are net contributors. Attempting to the paint both issues with one brush results in misleading conclusions.

As to illegal immigrants, from Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation, testified before US Senate Budget Committee, 9/13/23:

"Illegal or unauthorized aliens are persons who reside in the nation unlawfully; they have entered and reside in the country without legal permission or have entered the country on a temporary visa and have remained here after its expiration. The current net fiscal cost of illegal aliens in the U.S.is between $84 and $94 billion per year. This means that illegal aliens receive $84 to $94 billion more in government benefits and services than they pay in total taxes.
... Using figures from the National Academies of Science, the net life-time fiscal cost of current illegal aliens following amnesty would between $3.8 and $4.2 trillion (in 2022 dollars).Immigration obviously increases the Gross Domestic Product but most of this increase goes as wages to the immigrant workers themselves. An increase in GDP due to immigration does not mean there is an increase in the per capita income of U.S. The real economic test of any immigration policy is whether it makes current lawful residents better off by raising their after-tax incomes. Both low skill immigration and illegal immigration in general harm current citizens and lawful residents by placing substantial added burdens on U.S. taxpayers."

The 17 page summation offers data supporting Legal Immigration as a net benefit to the US, but Illegal Immigration as a net cost.

So, which one are we talking about?

(Either way, the question of where the money will come from stands, as we can not afford to continue to provide our current citizens what we are offering now, sans fiscal change).

 

[gspieler]

I've never looked into this topic extensively. Having said that, I think it's more complex than a simple yes/no answer. There's legal, ethical, and logistical considerations at play, that at times may contradict one another. For example, what happens to the labor market? Many industries, including farm labor, rely heavily upon undocumented workers. Are you prepared to pay exorbitant prices for food(assuming it even gets the shelves without adequate labor supply)?

 

[Senzo Tanaka]

Not until they are taxing paying citizens. And to me, that would mean serving a probation period and a slew of other conditions to meet.

Almost all immigrants are simply economic migrants. They are moving to places where there is money or they can get free stuff. Take that away and you get only the people that want to move there and integrate.

I don’t think any country should take people in without a strict integration procedure and deportation if you do anything violent.

 

[Jack V Savage]

OP, can you clarify whom we are looking at?

Legal immigrants are a very different issue from illegal. They are net contributors. Attempting to the paint both issues with one brush results in misleading conclusions.

As to illegal immigrants, from Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation, testified before US Senate Budget Committee, 9/13/23:

"Illegal or unauthorized aliens are persons who reside in the nation unlawfully; they have entered and reside in the country without legal permission or have entered the country on a temporary visa and have remained here after its expiration. The current net fiscal cost of illegal aliens in the U.S.is between $84 and $94 billion per year. This means that illegal aliens receive $84 to $94 billion more in government benefits and services than they pay in total taxes.
... Using figures from the National Academies of Science, the net life-time fiscal cost of current illegal aliens following amnesty would between $3.8 and $4.2 trillion (in 2022 dollars).Immigration obviously increases the Gross Domestic Product but most of this increase goes as wages to the immigrant workers themselves. An increase in GDP due to immigration does not mean there is an increase in the per capita income of U.S. The real economic test of any immigration policy is whether it makes current lawful residents better off by raising their after-tax incomes. Both low skill immigration and illegal immigration in general harm current citizens and lawful residents by placing substantial added burdens on U.S. taxpayers."

The 17 page summation offers data supporting Legal Immigration as a net benefit to the US, but Illegal Immigration as a net cost.

So, which one are we talking about?

(Either way, the question of where the money will come from stands, as we can not afford to continue to provide our current citizens what we are offering now, sans fiscal change).

I think the Heritage Foundation has essentially zero credibility, as it's just a political lobbying group, especially when their findings are a big outlier.

There's a lot of detail (and balance) on the wiki page (and they also specifically point to issues with Rector's work): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_impact_of_illegal_immigrants_in_the_United_States

I think the conclusion of most research is just kind of repulsive to a lot of rightists so it gets rejected, and then you have unscrupulous actors like Heritage trying to muddy the waters.

 

[Spounman]

Do you think we should provide migrants with free housing, food, medical, welfare in general, etc..?

Fuck no. Any of that aid should go to homeless and poor American citizens.

 

[freakroor]

Everyone should be provided with everything. The earth has abundant wealth and resources. Too bad the usual suspects are hoarding everything for themselves. They keep the lower class divided with nationality, race, politics, gender, religion, etc... Then they tell lies like "if people had all their needs accounted for then nobody would want to do anything productive/creative."

 

[Hdfi]

Fuck no, I don't want to work to sustain foreign invaders.

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

No. Accepted migrants should have either demonstrable established means or private sponsorship. Illegals should get absolutely nothing. Asylum seekers are a different topic but I generally believe the level for their admittance should be incredibly high and selective

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

Fuck no. Any of that aid should go to homeless and poor American citizens.

Or just go back to tax payers based on dollar contribution

 

[RoastBeast]

Where does the money come from?

US transfer payments in 2022 were over 3.7$ trillion, comprising ~54% of all federal outlays.
("Transfer payments" are any payments the government does not currently receive any goods and/or services for, such as Social Security, Pensions, Welfare, Medicare, etc.)

The primary deficit is over 2.4$ trillion, and the entire Defense budget was just 900$ billion (less than 25% of transfers).

Where is the money coming from to pay for this?

The people who advocate for this stuff don't actually think more than one step ahead.

 

[squeezewax]

Are we talking about the replacement immigrants that are coming to the West in huge numbers?

 

[BreatheSherBro]

There needs to be some kind of holding center for them rather than just let them squat in tents in major cities. Keep them there until you identify if they are supposed to be here.

There needs to be some kind of rational immigration policy. It shouldn't be a free for all for anyone that finds their way in and it also shouldnt be unnecessarily arduous to legally immigrate. Many immigrants make positive contributions. Others are a problem. There should be a system in place designed to maximize the benefits of immigration while minimizing potential harm. Find the immigrants that are going to have the greatest potential to benefit the country and make it easy for them to immigrate. Exclude and keep out the ones with the least potential to benefit the country.

 

[avenue94]

Immigration obviously increases the Gross Domestic Product but most of this increase goes as wages to the immigrant workers themselves.

Do these workers not spend money in the US or something? Do they not eat, or need housing? The fact that this is how the author frames the data is a red flag he's abusing it for partisan gain.

(Either way, the question of where the money will come from stands, as we can not afford to continue to provide our current citizens what we are offering now, sans fiscal change).

The solution is pretty clearly increase your tax base or increase tax rates. Aka immigration does the former and I don't think people want to pay higher taxes.

No. Accepted migrants should have either demonstrable established means or private sponsorship. Illegals should get absolutely nothing. Asylum seekers are a different topic but I generally believe the level for their admittance should be incredibly high and selective

Is there a reason that migrants today should have to jump through insanely higher hoops than migrants 100 years ago?

Or just go back to tax payers based on dollar contribution

So....effectively a tax cut for wealthy Americans?

The people who advocate for this stuff don't actually think more than one step ahead.

I know, it's not like Social Security is literally funded by payroll tax, whether workers are here illegally or not. Illegal immigrants pay into Social Security for benefits they very realistically will never receive.

Find the immigrants that are going to have the greatest potential to benefit the country and make it easy for them to immigrate. Exclude and keep out the ones with the least potential to benefit the country.

Of these two immigrants, which one is more likely to contribute to the US in your opinion.
1. Someone who gave up everything to travel thousands of miles on a dangerous journey with no guarantee of success and extremely limited access to welfare or government support.
2. Someone who flew here on a plane because their parents were rich enough to invest in some very expensive property.

 

[Two Crows]

Do these workers not spend money in the US or something? Do they not eat, or need housing? The fact that this is how the author frames the data is a red flag he's abusing it for partisan gain.

The solution is pretty clearly increase your tax base or increase tax rates. Aka immigration does the former and I don't think people want to pay higher taxes.

Your falling into the trap of perceiving any disagreement with a party stance as partisan (at least in the party-vs-party sense).

By "spending money", I suppose you are referring to sales tax?

Sales tax is collected at the state level, not the federal level (where the transfer payments primarily occur). Buying groceries does not contribute toward the vast majority of housing assistance, TANF, Medicaid, or any federal assistance programs. Only ~25% of transfer payments occur at the state level, and states themselves (on average) receive ~33% of those funds from the federal system. (IOW, the average state receives money from the feds to the tune of ~330$ billion).

Those receiving housing assistance and food assistance are not even contributing as much as has been mentioned. The NIH reports ~25% of illegal immigrants are elderly or near-elderly, which means they will never contribute what they cost. Additionally, ~16% are children, meaning although they may contribute in the future, they will not do so now.

Simply increasing the population does not increase the federal tax base at all.

Increasing the tax rate is precisely the sort of question I was asking; but who do you want taxed more? The top 1% pay 42% of all federal taxes already, and the top 10% pay more the entire bottom 90% combined. AND this still results in a enormous deteriorating primary deficit.

As things are right now, excluding illegal immigrants, very large spending cuts or tax increases are already necessary. How do you propose to pay for more?

 

[Michaelangelo]

How about help American citizens first

Unemployment, poverty, broken homes, mental health

Nah fuck’em

 

[Michaelangelo]

Do these workers not spend money in the US or something? Do they not eat, or need housing? The fact that this is how the author frames the data is a red flag he's abusing it for partisan gain.

The solution is pretty clearly increase your tax base or increase tax rates. Aka immigration does the former and I don't think people want to pay higher taxes.

Is there a reason that migrants today should have to jump through insanely higher hoops than migrants 100 years ago?

So....effectively a tax cut for wealthy Americans?

I know, it's not like Social Security is literally funded by payroll tax, whether workers are here illegally or not. Illegal immigrants pay into Social Security for benefits they very realistically will never receive.

Of these two immigrants, which one is more likely to contribute to the US in your opinion.
1. Someone who gave up everything to travel thousands of miles on a dangerous journey with no guarantee of success and extremely limited access to welfare or government support.
2. Someone who flew here on a plane because their parents were rich enough to invest in some very expensive property.

This is a lot of to reply to but raising taxes doesn’t mean anything if the govt can’t spend it responsibly

Also the guy who flew in a plane has parents who likely paid taxes. In a way his parents earned the right to have their son join them.

The guy who is sneaking in will likely get a job off the books while receiving all the welfare benefits (free health care, etc.) with zero contribution to actual taxes.

 

[Guy LeDouche]

I still like the idea of an immigration Olympics where illegal immigrants participate in an annual televised contest. Kind of like an American l gladiator, running man, squid game like contest where the winners get free citizenship without having to go through the intense rigermole of legal immigration. And the losers well…