PDA

View Full Version : The Very Real, Very Massive Cost of Amnesty



red states rule
05-05-2013, 09:15 AM
It is clear it is much cheaper to enforce our laws then give another amnesity

However, the poliitcal gines bothe parties think they will enjoy makes the cost to taxpayers irreverent





Amnesty will come with massive costs.


Proponents of the Gang of Eight’s immigration bill deny that illegal immigrants given legal status will be eligible for Obamacare and other entitlements. Unfortunately for taxpayers, that’s not what the text of the legislation states. Betsy McCaughey, former lieutenant governor of New York, gave those “outrageously untrue” claims a solid thrashing (http://twitchy.com/2013/04/25/team-rubio-says-no-welfare-but-its-amnesty-bill-says-otherwise/) because she actually read the bill.


Today, Americans face nearly $17 trillion in debt. If conservative reforms are not put in place, we can look forward to roughly $86.8 trillion unfunded liabilities (http://www.redstate.com/2013/02/20/why-are-we-not-talking-about-americas-123-trillion-in-unfunded-liabilities/) of the federal government in the future. That includes the money for Social Security, Medicare, and federal employee’s future retirement benefits, and other entitlement programs.


When illegal immigrants who are given amnesty start receiving entitlement benefits from the federal government, that $17 trillion problem and that $86.8 trillion problem will be bigger.


The Heritage Foundation explains (http://blog.heritage.org/2013/04/25/morning-bell-immigration-american-families-cannot-afford-the-cost-of-amnesty/):


We have more than $12 trillion in public debt and tens of trillions of dollars more in unfunded obligations that we have no way to afford, thanks to promises made by past and present politicians. With this in mind, today’s political leaders must consider the fiscal impact of amnesty and a path to citizenship that would enable millions of unlawful immigrants to qualify for costly welfare and entitlement programs.


And of course, the left is trying to argue that illegal immigrants given legal status will make all this better.



The left and proponents of the Senate’s immigration reform bill, which would give amnesty to 11 million people here unlawfully, are championing the idea that these individuals would help to improve Social Security’s solvency (sub. req’d (http://www.cq.com/doc/news-4263247)).


Simply adding 11 million people to our legal population is not the answer to fixing entitlement programs. In the long run (i.e., outside the CBO’s ten-year budget window), these individuals will be receiving far more from government programs than they pay in. This is the modus operandi for current American citizens (http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/12/3-social-security-fixes-to-solve-the-real-fiscal-crisis). In other words, Social Security runs multi-billion deficits each year because the program pays out more in benefits than it receives in payroll taxes.


To be clear, conservatives are well aware of the demographic challenges (http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/03/medicares-demographic-challenge-and-the-urgent-need-for-reform) we face with regard to Social Security and other entitlements. However, giving 11 million immigrants amnesty is not the solution to those challenges. On the contrary, there are a number of conservative reforms that can be implemented, such as raising the standard eligibility age for both Medicare and Social Security – because life expectancy has increased since these programs’ inception.


The math and economics of this may be complex, but the central idea here is simple: the 11 million illegal immigrants who are granted legal status (i.e., given amnesty) will at some point become eligible for government benefits. When they choose to take advantage of these taxpayer funded benefits, they will be taking more, or extracting more from the economy than they are contributing. Recall (http://blog.heritage.org/2013/04/25/morning-bell-immigration-american-families-cannot-afford-the-cost-of-amnesty/):
The average unlawful immigrant has a 10th grade education, and low-skill immigrants on average take more in government benefits than they pay in taxes at every stage of their lives.

In a perfect world, or one where at least our tax dollars grew on trees, this may work. However, the reality is that there is no way taxpayers will be able to afford this, especially when they cannot afford the current system.


We still await the exact estimates of the cost to taxpayers, but as Heritage also explains (http://blog.heritage.org/2013/04/25/morning-bell-immigration-american-families-cannot-afford-the-cost-of-amnesty/), the number will almost surely be higher than the 2007 estimate of $2.5 trillion. The bottom line is the price tag on the Gang of Eight’s immigration bill is something America cannot afford.


http://heritageaction.com/2013/04/the-very-real-very-massive-cost-of-amnesty/

Missileman
05-05-2013, 09:35 AM
It is clear it is much cheaper to enforce our laws then give another amnesity

However, the poliitcal gines bothe parties think they will enjoy makes the cost to taxpayers irreverent

They don't care if it winds up destroying the country, it's politically expedient at this moment.

red states rule
05-05-2013, 09:37 AM
They don't care if it winds up destroying the country, it's politically expedient at this moment.

That is the mind set of many in DC. Screw the country - I need to protect my phoney baloney job

Meanwhile, CA is leading the way as they bow down to the undocumented democrats on another issue




The California Assembly passed a bill on Thursday that would make the state the first in the nation to allow non-citizens who are in the country legally to serve on jury duty.


Assemblyman Bob Wieckowski, D-Fremont, said his bill, AB1401, would help California widen the pool of prospective jurors and help integrate immigrants into the community.


It does not change other criteria for being eligible to serve on a jury, such as being at least 18, living in the county that is making the summons, and being proficient in English.


The bill passed 45-25 largely on a party-line vote in the Democratic-controlled Assembly and will move on to the Senate. One Democrat — Assemblyman Adam Gray, of Merced — voted no, while some other Democrats did not vote.


Democratic lawmakers who voted for the bill said there is no correlation between being a citizen and a juror, and they noted that there is no citizenship requirement to be an attorney or a judge. Republican lawmakers who opposed Wieckowski's bill called it misguided and premature.


Assemblywoman Diane Harkey, R-Dana Point, said there is no shortage of jurors.


"Jury selection is not the problem. The problem is trial court funding," Harkey said before the vote. "I hope we can focus on that. Let's not break something; it's not broken now. Let's not whittle away at what is reserved for U.S. citizens. There's a reason for it."


Wieckowski's office said the bill is the first of its kind in the nation and suggested that courts regularly struggle to find enough prospective jurors because jury duty is often seen as an inconvenience, if not a burden. His office did not cite any statistics but pointed to a 2003 legislative report that said numerous articles have noted high rates of non-participation.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/26/california-bill-would-let-illegal-immigrants-serve-on-juries/#ixzz2SROnwJdh

red states rule
05-07-2013, 02:40 AM
Now the excuses flow over the cost of amnesty



The intra-conservative war over the working immigration reform legislation was ramped up today when the Heritage Foundation's economic analysis gave the opposition a major piece of ammunition in the form of a study showing that the reform legislation could cost $6.3 trillion (http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2013/05/06/heritage-gang-of-8-plan-to-cost-63-trillion-n1588212).


Conservatives who have been proponents of immigration reform legislation jumped to discredit the Heritage study as it made the rounds this morning. Rep. Paul Ryan questioned its methodology (http://blogs.rollcall.com/goppers/ryan-critical-of-heritage-immigration-study/#sthash.qa2GgPwo.dpbs), saying "the Congressional Budget Office has found that fixing our broken immigration could help our economy grow. A proper accounting of immigration reform should take into account these dynamic effects.”


The principal criticism of the Heritage study is precisely that it does not take into account the effects of immigration on economic growth. Conservatives in the past have criticized economic modeling for leaving out projections of economic growth - on tax cuts, for example - but some are defending the Heritage Foundation's methodology.


Sen. Jeff Sessions trumpeted the results of the study. "The study puts to rest the contention that the bill will benefit American taxpayers, reduce our deficits, or strengthen our already endangered Social Security and Medicare programs," Sessions said in a statement. Sen. Sessions has been one of the leading skeptics of the comprehensive immigration reform legislation on Capitol Hill.


Other conservative coalition groups like Americans for Tax Reform and the American Action Forum jumped on the dynamic scoring issue today, noting the inconsistency apparent in the Heritage Foundation's approach. ATR's Josh Culling said on a media call this afternoon that "though Heritage is a treasured ally... this report looks only at the cost side of the economic equation and completely ignores any economic benefit."


The Heritage Foundation report acknowledges a certain amount of growth that would take place but cautions growth-enthusiasts that the prosperity might not be widely-shared:

While it is true that unlawful immigrants enlarge GDP by roughly 2 percent, the problem with this argument is that the immigrants themselves capture most of the gain from expanded production in their own wages. Metaphorically, while unlawful immigrants make the american economic pie larger, they themselves consume most of the slice that their labor adds.
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/kevinglass/2013/05/06/conservatives-hit-back-at-heritages-6-trillion-immigration-reform-estimate-n1588627