• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Senate bill allows 46 million immigrants by 2033, says CBO

WCH

Believer
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 30, 2013
Messages
30,953
Reaction score
9,018
Location
The Lone Star State.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The Senate’s pending immigration bill will pave the way for the arrival of 46 million legal immigrants over the next 20 years, increase the federal debt in the same time period and shrink Americans’ average wage, according Alabama Republican Sen. Jeff Session’s critical reading of two new reports on the pending immigration reform bill provided by the Congressional Budget Office.

But Florida Republican Sen. Marco Rubio, the most prominent GOP advocate for the immigration reform bill, says the CBO reports are good news for Americans.

“The CBO has further confirmed what most conservative economists have found: reforming our immigration system is a net benefit for our economy, American workers and taxpayers,” Rubio said in a statement on Tuesday. “The report offers encouraging evidence that the [bill could] reduce the deficit over the next 20 years.”



Read more: CBO says Senate bill will add 46 million immigrants to the United States | The Daily Caller
 

WCH

Believer
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 30, 2013
Messages
30,953
Reaction score
9,018
Location
The Lone Star State.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Hmmm, how is it that 46 million new, poverty level, un-skilled, non-tax paying, *immigrants* would be GOOD for our country??

Rubio is either an idiot or a complicit demon.
 

donsutherland1

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2007
Messages
11,858
Reaction score
10,292
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
The Senate’s pending immigration bill will pave the way for the arrival of 46 million legal immigrants over the next 20 years, increase the federal debt in the same time period and shrink Americans’ average wage, according Alabama Republican Sen. Jeff Session’s critical reading of two new reports on the pending immigration reform bill provided by the Congressional Budget Office.

First, the CBO report indicates that the immigration legislation would reduce, not increase, federal deficits.

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/s744.pdf (the numbers are on page 12)

Second, the CBO also projects that the legislation would increase the population by 16 million persons by 2033, not 46 million

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/44346-Immigration.pdf (the population projection is on page 4)
 

WCH

Believer
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 30, 2013
Messages
30,953
Reaction score
9,018
Location
The Lone Star State.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
First, the CBO report indicates that the immigration legislation would reduce, not increase, federal deficits.

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/s744.pdf (the numbers are on page 12)

Second, the CBO also projects that the legislation would increase the population by 16 million persons by 2033, not 46 million

http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/44346-Immigration.pdf (the population projection is on page 4)

Looks like the CBO is referring to 'labor' force' which is even worse news considering 30 million would be on the government dole.

Then there's this: http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/cbo-immigration-bill-obamacare/2013/06/19/id/510737
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
78,078
Reaction score
34,558
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Looks like the CBO is referring to 'labor' force' which is even worse news considering 30 million would be on the government dole.

Then there's this: CBO: Immigration Bill Could Add Billions to Cost of Obamacare

From your own link

Overall, however, the immigration bill is expected to boost the economy by adding $200 billion to the federal budget in the first decade and an additional $700 billion in the second decade, as the increased revenue from taxes will outweigh the costs of benefits for new citizens.

Seriously dude it was only like 4 paragraphs. Classic media trick: sensationalist headline, but the article is more truthful. A month from now, you're only going to remember the headline.
 

Drake McHugh

Well-known member
Joined
May 23, 2013
Messages
628
Reaction score
138
Location
Brookfield,Wisconsin
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Any serious immigration reform proposal must include ending chain migration. This is the No.1 reason I oppose this bill.
 

Mr.Nick

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 25, 2012
Messages
7,908
Reaction score
1,764
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
The Senate’s pending immigration bill will pave the way for the arrival of 46 million legal immigrants over the next 20 years, increase the federal debt in the same time period and shrink Americans’ average wage, according Alabama Republican Sen. Jeff Session’s critical reading of two new reports on the pending immigration reform bill provided by the Congressional Budget Office.

But Florida Republican Sen. Marco Rubio, the most prominent GOP advocate for the immigration reform bill, says the CBO reports are good news for Americans.

“The CBO has further confirmed what most conservative economists have found: reforming our immigration system is a net benefit for our economy, American workers and taxpayers,” Rubio said in a statement on Tuesday. “The report offers encouraging evidence that the [bill could] reduce the deficit over the next 20 years.”



Read more: CBO says Senate bill will add 46 million immigrants to the United States | The Daily Caller

And considering how the CBO is always wrong the number will be more like 150 million.
 

Drake McHugh

Well-known member
Joined
May 23, 2013
Messages
628
Reaction score
138
Location
Brookfield,Wisconsin
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The CBO uses the numbers given to them by those that support a particular bill. That's not a partisan statement,that is just what they do.
 

donsutherland1

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2007
Messages
11,858
Reaction score
10,292
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
The CBO uses the numbers given to them by those that support a particular bill. That's not a partisan statement,that is just what they do.

That's not correct. From the CBO's discussion of its methodology:

All of CBO’s projections and estimates reflect the agency’s objective, impartial, and nonpartisan analytical judgment. CBO’s estimates of spending and revenues under current law and of the effects of proposed legislation depend on myriad projections of economic and technical factors over the next 10 years or longer, as well as projected behavioral responses to federal policies by families, businesses, and other levels of government. Those projections and estimates are always determined on the basis of the professional judgment of CBO’s staff, drawing upon on a detailed understanding of federal programs, careful reading of the research literature, and consultation with outside experts (as discussed in more detail later on this page). The projections and assumptions are not directed or influenced by the Congress in any way.

To be sure, the evolution of specific federal programs, of the budget as a whole, and of the U.S. economy under current law are often very uncertain, as are the possible effects of legislation being considered by the Congress. Therefore, the agency’s goal is to develop estimates that are in the middle of the distribution of possible outcomes and to communicate clearly the basis for those estimates and the uncertainty surrounding them.

In constructing projections of budget outcomes, CBO takes existing law as it is stands and does not attempt to predict changes that might be made by the Congress in the future. When the Congress considers modifying current law, CBO provides cost estimates for those modifications. As it prepares those estimates, CBO takes that legislation as it is written and does not attempt to predict the ways in which the Congress might amend that legislation in the future. There is no plausible alternative to that approach. If, instead, CBO incorporated its own predictions of future Congressional action in its analysis of current or proposed laws, that analysis would ultimately be hard to interpret and less useful to the Congress and the public. However, in addition to its budget projections that reflect current law, the agency regularly shows the effects of adopting alternative policies that have been discussed by the Congress, so that the budgetary impact of those alternative policies is clear.


CBO | our processes
 

Drake McHugh

Well-known member
Joined
May 23, 2013
Messages
628
Reaction score
138
Location
Brookfield,Wisconsin
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
That's not correct. From the CBO's discussion of its methodology:

All of CBO’s projections and estimates reflect the agency’s objective, impartial, and nonpartisan analytical judgment. CBO’s estimates of spending and revenues under current law and of the effects of proposed legislation depend on myriad projections of economic and technical factors over the next 10 years or longer, as well as projected behavioral responses to federal policies by families, businesses, and other levels of government. Those projections and estimates are always determined on the basis of the professional judgment of CBO’s staff, drawing upon on a detailed understanding of federal programs, careful reading of the research literature, and consultation with outside experts (as discussed in more detail later on this page). The projections and assumptions are not directed or influenced by the Congress in any way.

To be sure, the evolution of specific federal programs, of the budget as a whole, and of the U.S. economy under current law are often very uncertain, as are the possible effects of legislation being considered by the Congress. Therefore, the agency’s goal is to develop estimates that are in the middle of the distribution of possible outcomes and to communicate clearly the basis for those estimates and the uncertainty surrounding them.

In constructing projections of budget outcomes, CBO takes existing law as it is stands and does not attempt to predict changes that might be made by the Congress in the future. When the Congress considers modifying current law, CBO provides cost estimates for those modifications. As it prepares those estimates, CBO takes that legislation as it is written and does not attempt to predict the ways in which the Congress might amend that legislation in the future. There is no plausible alternative to that approach. If, instead, CBO incorporated its own predictions of future Congressional action in its analysis of current or proposed laws, that analysis would ultimately be hard to interpret and less useful to the Congress and the public. However, in addition to its budget projections that reflect current law, the agency regularly shows the effects of adopting alternative policies that have been discussed by the Congress, so that the budgetary impact of those alternative policies is clear.


CBO | our processes

Yes,they are going to admit that they basically abdicate their job! Not to mention the fact that they were dead wrong on Obamacare and EVERY estimate(always WAY low). They use the numbers given to them.
 

donsutherland1

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2007
Messages
11,858
Reaction score
10,292
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Yes,they are going to admit that they basically abdicate their job! Not to mention the fact that they were dead wrong on Obamacare and EVERY estimate(always WAY low). They use the numbers given to them.

Economic forecasting is an inherently difficult job on account of the enormous complexity of human behavior, among other factors. In general, the quality of economic forecasts is not good. Not surprisingly projections that depend largely on economic forecasts e.g., long-term fiscal impacts, also are subject to very large errors.

As for the projections concerning the immigration legislation, one should not expect precision in the outcomes relative to the projections. However, there is reason for at least a degree of confidence in the direction of the change e.g., some reduction in long-term debt relative to current law, because that's what happened following the 1986 immigration reform from changes in legalized immigrants' income, which boosted tax revenue growth. Some structural changes that have occurred since that time might argue for a somewhat more muted response this time around over the long-term.
 

upsideguy

Pragmatic Idealist
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2009
Messages
17,725
Reaction score
10,634
Location
Rocky Mtn. High
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
The Senate’s pending immigration bill will pave the way for the arrival of 46 million legal immigrants over the next 20 years, increase the federal debt in the same time period and shrink Americans’ average wage, according Alabama Republican Sen. Jeff Session’s critical reading of two new reports on the pending immigration reform bill provided by the Congressional Budget Office.

But Florida Republican Sen. Marco Rubio, the most prominent GOP advocate for the immigration reform bill, says the CBO reports are good news for Americans.

“The CBO has further confirmed what most conservative economists have found: reforming our immigration system is a net benefit for our economy, American workers and taxpayers,” Rubio said in a statement on Tuesday. “The report offers encouraging evidence that the [bill could] reduce the deficit over the next 20 years.”



Read more: CBO says Senate bill will add 46 million immigrants to the United States | The Daily Caller

Once again we get our panties in a bunch by something we read on a political porn site.... whose sole purpose is to put your panties in a bunch. Congratulations: you've been had.

Why not find something legitimate to support your position, like, say, the CBO report and start from there.
 

jonny5

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 4, 2012
Messages
21,404
Reaction score
3,095
Location
Republic of Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Rubio tried to sell us this bill on the idea that illegal immigration would stop. Thats obvisouly not the case, and thats all that matters here. The supposed economic benefit is irrelevant. Even Rubio is about to bail since the Senate is trying to strip border control from the bill. Americans are not entirely dumb and they dont support amnesty.
 

CanadaJohn

Canadian Conservative
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 27, 2013
Messages
28,702
Reaction score
20,419
Location
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I'd make a couple of points here as an outside observer.

1. Canada, on average, takes in the neighborhood of 250,000 new entrants into the country each year and is generally able to smoothly absorb them although there are significant costs to large cities like Toronto where the social costs to the city's residents are not fully funded by the federal government who allows the new entrants in. That said, since America is 10 times Canada's population and your economy is significantly greater than that in comparison to Canada's, one would assume that an average of 2.5 million new entrants to the US each year would be manageable, statistically.

2. Since the US currently has stagnant growth and an underperforming economy with millions out of work and millions more leaving the workforce in frustration at not finding work, one has to wonder where the CBO currently sees increased tax revenue from these new immigrants. It is true, however, that the workforce in the US is aging, as it is in Canada, and our birthrates are not sufficient to generate the necessary workforce to support the aging population so immigration is necessary to provide that workforce. But what kind of skills will these immigrants bring - America, nor Canada, needs much more in the area of unskilled labor.

3. These CBO numbers are for "legal" immigration. How many more millions will find their way into the US illegally? If there have been as reported about 12 to 15 milliion illegals in the US since the 1986 amnesty, with countless others they have birthed since being in America, how has the continued influx of illegals been considered in this report and going forward?

There are lots of other questions that should be asked - America is a very generous country but to believe that this immigration reform is a money maker going forward seems ludicrous to me.
 

polgara

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
Messages
20,215
Reaction score
17,786
Location
NE Ohio
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
I'd make a couple of points here as an outside observer.

1. Canada, on average, takes in the neighborhood of 250,000 new entrants into the country each year and is generally able to smoothly absorb them although there are significant costs to large cities like Toronto where the social costs to the city's residents are not fully funded by the federal government who allows the new entrants in. That said, since America is 10 times Canada's population and your economy is significantly greater than that in comparison to Canada's, one would assume that an average of 2.5 million new entrants to the US each year would be manageable, statistically.

2. Since the US currently has stagnant growth and an underperforming economy with millions out of work and millions more leaving the workforce in frustration at not finding work, one has to wonder where the CBO currently sees increased tax revenue from these new immigrants. It is true, however, that the workforce in the US is aging, as it is in Canada, and our birthrates are not sufficient to generate the necessary workforce to support the aging population so immigration is necessary to provide that workforce. But what kind of skills will these immigrants bring - America, nor Canada, needs much more in the area of unskilled labor.

3. These CBO numbers are for "legal" immigration. How many more millions will find their way into the US illegally? If there have been as reported about 12 to 15 milliion illegals in the US since the 1986 amnesty, with countless others they have birthed since being in America, how has the continued influx of illegals been considered in this report and going forward?

There are lots of other questions that should be asked - America is a very generous country but to believe that this immigration reform is a money maker going forward seems ludicrous to me.

Good morning, CJ. :2wave:

Excellent post, with questions that are going to have to be answered sooner than anyone would like. Right now, the emphasis seems to be on getting as many immigrants as possible in order to swell the ranks of those that will probably vote Democrat. The "productive" wagon is being pulled by fewer and fewer people, though, as the number of immigrants is increasing percentage wise. What kind of jobs do the Democrats have in mind for these immigrants to be able to pay their share of taxes? I have heard nothing about that problem. We don't have sufficient jobs for people who want to work now...how are we going to provide jobs for millions of new immigrants?

Short-sighted scenarios always bring problems, and this will be no different, IMO! :shock:
 

donsutherland1

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2007
Messages
11,858
Reaction score
10,292
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
2. Since the US currently has stagnant growth and an underperforming economy with millions out of work and millions more leaving the workforce in frustration at not finding work, one has to wonder where the CBO currently sees increased tax revenue from these new immigrants. It is true, however, that the workforce in the US is aging, as it is in Canada, and our birthrates are not sufficient to generate the necessary workforce to support the aging population so immigration is necessary to provide that workforce. But what kind of skills will these immigrants bring - America, nor Canada, needs much more in the area of unskilled labor.

The empirical evidence following the 1986 immigration reform revealed:

1) A jump in immigrants' income
2) Legalized immigrants pursued opportunities to enhance their skills/education, and that led to further increases in income
3) Increases in income contributed to tax revenue growth

3. These CBO numbers are for "legal" immigration. How many more millions will find their way into the US illegally? If there have been as reported about 12 to 15 milliion illegals in the US since the 1986 amnesty, with countless others they have birthed since being in America, how has the continued influx of illegals been considered in this report and going forward?

The legislation contains mechanisms aimed at reducing the number of undocumented immigrants making it to the U.S. /able to work in the U.S. (tighter border security, e-verify, etc.). Absent the legislation, the barriers to undocumented immigration would be lower. Hence, assuming that border control and e-verify can reduce undocumented immigration, one should see fewer new undocumented immigrants following the adoption of the law than under current law.

There are lots of other questions that should be asked - America is a very generous country but to believe that this immigration reform is a money maker going forward seems ludicrous to me.

Even if the CBO's numbers are reasonably accurate, the net positive fiscal impact will be modest. CBO is not suggesting that adoption of the law would yield a large fiscal windfall. The undocumented immigrants account for a small share of the overall U.S. population, so the impact can't realistically be anything but modest.
 

WCH

Believer
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 30, 2013
Messages
30,953
Reaction score
9,018
Location
The Lone Star State.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Once again we get our panties in a bunch by something we read on a political porn site.... whose sole purpose is to put your panties in a bunch. Congratulations: you've been had.

Why not find something legitimate to support your position, like, say, the CBO report and start from there.

I've heard these same numbers (and more) in the past. Chain migration increases the total dramatically.

The CBO is generally FOS.
 

jonny5

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 4, 2012
Messages
21,404
Reaction score
3,095
Location
Republic of Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I'd make a couple of points here as an outside observer.

1. Canada, on average, takes in the neighborhood of 250,000 new entrants into the country each year and is generally able to smoothly absorb them although there are significant costs to large cities like Toronto where the social costs to the city's residents are not fully funded by the federal government who allows the new entrants in. That said, since America is 10 times Canada's population and your economy is significantly greater than that in comparison to Canada's, one would assume that an average of 2.5 million new entrants to the US each year would be manageable, statistically.

2. Since the US currently has stagnant growth and an underperforming economy with millions out of work and millions more leaving the workforce in frustration at not finding work, one has to wonder where the CBO currently sees increased tax revenue from these new immigrants. It is true, however, that the workforce in the US is aging, as it is in Canada, and our birthrates are not sufficient to generate the necessary workforce to support the aging population so immigration is necessary to provide that workforce. But what kind of skills will these immigrants bring - America, nor Canada, needs much more in the area of unskilled labor.

3. These CBO numbers are for "legal" immigration. How many more millions will find their way into the US illegally? If there have been as reported about 12 to 15 milliion illegals in the US since the 1986 amnesty, with countless others they have birthed since being in America, how has the continued influx of illegals been considered in this report and going forward?

There are lots of other questions that should be asked - America is a very generous country but to believe that this immigration reform is a money maker going forward seems ludicrous to me.

For the libertarians here, a lot this is moot, as we dont beleive the federal govt should use immigration to control the economy. The purpose of border control is security. So, if someone wants to come into the country, they should be free to so long as they wont be violent. The issues of birth rates, labor force, labor skills are not the responsibility of the federal govt. If someone imigrates here and cant find a job, they will leave or starve. What the states do is a different matter.
 

polgara

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
Messages
20,215
Reaction score
17,786
Location
NE Ohio
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
I've heard these same numbers (and more) in the past. Chain migration increases the total dramatically.

The CBO is generally FOS.

Greetings, WCH. :2wave:


The CBO does the best they can under the circumstances, IMO. The CBO can only project on the data they are given to work with. If the data is faulty, then what faith can we put in their projections, even if they issue disclaimers? :shock:
 

WCH

Believer
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 30, 2013
Messages
30,953
Reaction score
9,018
Location
The Lone Star State.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Greetings, WCH. :2wave:


The CBO does the best they can under the circumstances, IMO. The CBO can only project on the data they are given to work with. If the data is faulty, then what faith can we put in their projections, even if they issue disclaimers? :shock:

That's likely correct in this case. I know there was an out-cry immediately after it's release, just not sure for what sector.
 

Northern Light

The Light of Truth
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 7, 2013
Messages
6,897
Reaction score
4,271
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
All those immigrants will be used to fill the lowest rung labor positions that no one else wants to do. The economic policies in our nation prevent the majority of professional immigrants from getting cheaply re-certified once they land. It's the same in other developed nations. Our government has an active interest in maintaining the privileged positions for its own people.
 

CanadaJohn

Canadian Conservative
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 27, 2013
Messages
28,702
Reaction score
20,419
Location
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Good morning, CJ. :2wave:

Excellent post, with questions that are going to have to be answered sooner than anyone would like. Right now, the emphasis seems to be on getting as many immigrants as possible in order to swell the ranks of those that will probably vote Democrat. The "productive" wagon is being pulled by fewer and fewer people, though, as the number of immigrants is increasing percentage wise. What kind of jobs do the Democrats have in mind for these immigrants to be able to pay their share of taxes? I have heard nothing about that problem. We don't have sufficient jobs for people who want to work now...how are we going to provide jobs for millions of new immigrants?

Short-sighted scenarios always bring problems, and this will be no different, IMO! :shock:

Good afternoon Lady P.

With respect to voting Democrat, there was a time in Canada when most immigrants voted Liberal here and many still do, but they've proven not to be so monolithic a block and many come with conservative philosophies and they don't like tax dollars being wasted nor do they like loose morals - in the short run, it may assist Democrats, but I'll be more hopeful in the long run.
 

CanadaJohn

Canadian Conservative
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 27, 2013
Messages
28,702
Reaction score
20,419
Location
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The empirical evidence following the 1986 immigration reform revealed:

1) A jump in immigrants' income
2) Legalized immigrants pursued opportunities to enhance their skills/education, and that led to further increases in income
3) Increases in income contributed to tax revenue growth



The legislation contains mechanisms aimed at reducing the number of undocumented immigrants making it to the U.S. /able to work in the U.S. (tighter border security, e-verify, etc.). Absent the legislation, the barriers to undocumented immigration would be lower. Hence, assuming that border control and e-verify can reduce undocumented immigration, one should see fewer new undocumented immigrants following the adoption of the law than under current law.



Even if the CBO's numbers are reasonably accurate, the net positive fiscal impact will be modest. CBO is not suggesting that adoption of the law would yield a large fiscal windfall. The undocumented immigrants account for a small share of the overall U.S. population, so the impact can't realistically be anything but modest.

Fair points - I would counter as follows:

First point - those general observations from 1986 referred to those illegals who were given amnesty and entered the mainstream - that may be revisited again with those who are currently here - that doesn't answer the question about the new 46 million and what skills they will bring with them. Here in Canada we provide faster access to those who have skills needed in our economy and/or those who bring with them $500,000 they are going to invest in Canada. I don't see there being 46 million wealthy and/or highly educated immigrants being the only ones finding their way to the US.

Second point - the mechanisms you point out for reducing undocumented immigrants currently exist but, as in the case of e-verify, are not being used for political reasons. You also currently have a President who's ordered his Justice Department to not enforce the law in some cases making a mockery of those mechanisms. What's to say there won't be another lawless President who feels it's his/her perogative to flout American immigration law? If you don't secure the border sufficiently before you start granting amnesty, you'll have another flood of illegals seeking access to the land of opportunity and they will again be the least skilled and educated and a major drain on southern state's resources.
 

Hicup

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 11, 2009
Messages
9,081
Reaction score
2,709
Location
Rochester, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Here's a novel idea; why doesn't the US government spend some money in areas that will produce instant effects? What I'm talking about is the underemployed areas of our economy. Places like plumbers, brick layers, pipe fitters, technical jobs, engineering, the list is actually quite large. Instead, no, states subsidize education for careers in psychology, philosophy, IT, where there are NO JOBS. If congress, and state legislatures want us to take them seriously that they are truly in it for the long haul, then why subsidize education for an education that gets someone nowhere fast, other than being in debt, and broke? Seriously, education, loan guarantees should reflect the reality of the marketplace, and it's not like no one knows how to add or subtract? We KNOW where the jobs are needed so why not offer real incentives to educate people to fill those positions?

As far as the OP, well, I'm not particularly sold on CBO estimates, as I've never seen one EVER come even close to the projection, and the whole system, and its worth to legislators needs to be reevaluated, IMO.


Tim-
 

donsutherland1

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2007
Messages
11,858
Reaction score
10,292
Location
New York
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Fair points - I would counter as follows:

First point - those general observations from 1986 referred to those illegals who were given amnesty and entered the mainstream - that may be revisited again with those who are currently here - that doesn't answer the question about the new 46 million and what skills they will bring with them. Here in Canada we provide faster access to those who have skills needed in our economy and/or those who bring with them $500,000 they are going to invest in Canada. I don't see there being 46 million wealthy and/or highly educated immigrants being the only ones finding their way to the US.

Elsewhere, I suggested that there are some structural factors that could produce a more muted response than had been the case in 1986. Among those factors is that the composition of the economy, particularly increasing knowledge-intensity, will create some barriers to significant near-term income expansion for the newly legalized immigrants. Some income increase will take place, but the headwinds affecting parts of the sectors that utilize a significant share of the undocumented immigrants could cap the income increase. CBO says that the population increase from the newly legalized immigrants would be 16 million not 46 million by 2033. That's not trivial, but IMO--others disagree--legalization may be the only practical means for addressing the status of those who are already in the U.S.

When it comes to future immigration policy, I'd like to see greater emphasis on easy admission for immigrants who possess critical skills.

Second point - the mechanisms you point out for reducing undocumented immigrants currently exist but, as in the case of e-verify, are not being used for political reasons. You also currently have a President who's ordered his Justice Department to not enforce the law in some cases making a mockery of those mechanisms. What's to say there won't be another lawless President who feels it's his/her perogative to flout American immigration law? If you don't secure the border sufficiently before you start granting amnesty, you'll have another flood of illegals seeking access to the land of opportunity and they will again be the least skilled and educated and a major drain on southern state's resources.

While I favor legalization for the undocumented immigrants who are in the U.S., excluding those who have committed crimes (not including their undocumented status), I also favor enhanced border security and universal application of e-verify. Employers not utilizing e-verify should be given a reasonable time to implement it with failure to do so resulting in significant penalties. I also favor an expedited work permit process to address labor market demand for immigrant labor. IMO, that approach offers a good way to address the fate of the undocumented immigrants who are already in the U.S. and it can create a framework for substantially improving U.S. border control.
 
Top Bottom