Big Mac Immigration - The Humanitarian Hypocrisy of US Immigration Policy

I recommend the Economic Policy Institute http://www.epi.org as a source for figures such as taxes-paid vs benefits-recieved questions -- particularly the work of Jeff Faux, author of "The Global Class War".

"Studies show that immigrants to the US work hard, paying an estimated $70.3 billion in taxes and receiving just $5 billion in welfare benefits, and $11.5 billion in education benefits." Pramila Jayapal, "Mother of Immigrants".

It should be noted that the US treasury and funds such as Social Security receive great infusions from immigrants who obtain jobs with false IDs, and then don't risk discovery that could come by filing paperwork for refunds and benefits.

A very important topic, and an article beautiful on many levels, Killfile. Thank you.

Certainly they do place a burden on those services that they're not paying for - at least in the sense that they don't pay income or property taxes.

But IEs do pay sales taxes and other fees associated with living in the United States.

Arent you forgetting a few things? How about hospital expenses(which is a huge cost by itself), their kids in schools, the ones in jails, accidents they are involved in where they dont have insurance, etc. There are many more costs involved in all this. One only needs to look at the financial crisis in California alone to see a microcosm of the effects.

And yes lets whitewash the fact that, while their intentions are not criminal, actually being here unlawfully is. Especially when many get deported or ordered to leave and they again break the law and continue to stay or return. Im sorry but I dont have much pity for them at that point when they finally do get caught any more than I feel sorry for the thief whose family is left in the lurch when they are caught and go to jail.

Personally I think one of the reasons the politicos dont do much about is because of things like social security. They are using the workers money to help delay and offset the problems with the system. However, if they want to fast track these people to become citizens, which I disagree with, they will wind up with an even bigger problem as many that will come will just add to those that live off the system.

And its not true that only decent people come here. We get plenty of their criminals as well. Look at the statistics, especially in the southwest, of the prison populations.

And exactly what is the reasonable level of immigration? We cant just let large numbers into the country, especially of those that cannot afford to be here. Cause what happens when they get here? They go on government assistance. They need to be able to assimilate and it can be very hard for a culture to assimilate very large groups of people in a short period of time. That is a recipe for disaster.

One only needs to look at the financial crisis in California alone to see a microcosm of the effects.

California would economically disabled without the monumental efforts that immigrants have brought. If California is economically disabled, the whole of the United States is disabled.

And yes lets whitewash the fact that, while their intentions are not criminal, actually being here unlawfully is.

Laws are a funny thing in that they are always socially lagging. There are many things that are illegal, but not immoral. For example, my typing this response from a university computer on university time is illegal, but not immoral.

It's kind of funny that in America, we have no problem with interjecting our businesses into other countries, whether "legally" or illegally, but we hesitate to share our fruits with others.

Thats kinda funny. Yes the whole of the United States is disabled. We have been for a long time now, its called deficit spending and the debt.

Technically your computer use is immoral. If you are not a student, you are using services without paying for them. That would be stealing, its immoral and illegal. However, if you pay taxes and its a government school, you are paying for some of it so limited use would be ok.

Alot of Americans do have a problem with us interjecting our business into other countries. And we far from hesitate to share with others. The government gives tons of money in aid to other countries. We have charitable groups all across the land. We have other private organizations whose main purpose is not charity but many, if not most, do charity events. Hell, even hardcore bikers do charity events. And its not always just for people in this country. We also admit around 1-1.5 million legal immigrants a year. We are always one of the first countries, if not the first, to help out in tragedies across the globe, usually providing the most amount of aid. And we do this at the cost of helping our own citizens. Dont give me that crap that we hesitate to share our fruits with others, especially when its with people who are not citizens and are breaking our laws.

Quoth FL Independent :

We are always one of the first countries, if not the first, to help out in tragedies across the globe, usually providing the most amount of aid. And we do this at the cost of helping our own citizens. Dont give me that crap that we hesitate to share our fruits with others, especially when its with people who are not citizens and are breaking our laws.

Cf:
"Considered as a portion of the nation's economy, or of its federal expenditures, the U.S. is actually among the smallest donors of international aid among the world's developed countries.

The Development Assistance Committee of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development compiles statistics on how much Official Development Assistance the world's 22 wealthiest countries give each year. The organization's numbers show that as a portion of Gross National Income (roughly equivalent to GDP), the U.S. now ranks second-to-last in giving, at 0.16 percent. (In 2004, Italy dropped into last place below the U.S.)

The U.S. also gives much less than what the industrialized countries pledged to give at the 1992 Rio Conference, which was 0.7 percent of their GDP. U.S. development aid, at 0.16 percent of GDP, represents less than one-quarter of this promise." --FAIR.org The World's Most Generous Miser

Yes, I am quite familiar with that stat but really what good is that stat? Thats like dissing people who give you christmas presents cause they didnt spend more than somebody else. So what if we give a lesser percentage when we outgive everybody else already in acutal amount. Greedy much?

Greedy much?

Why yes. Yes I am. I'm greedy to take as much as half from the 51% of federal outlays that go to bloat the military-industrial complex war-profiteering rackets, and put it to work where it's actually needed to benefit people

breacadh, the problem with those stats is that they only track aid coming from the government. Considering you will be hard to find foreign aid even mentioned in the Constitution, any foreign aid from the government is too much foreign aid.

Now if you look at statistics based on all aid including from private sources, you'll see a completely different picture.

I'm fine with all foreign aid from the US being private, Adam, until I start thinking about the more than 737 military bases we maintain in 130 countries around the world; the $10 billion a month we (or our children & grandchildren) are paying to occupy Iraq and control their oil; the massive damage done by our predatory need to exploit the resources and labor markets globally. The balance of give and take is sorely out of whack.

My point is that we don't do enough, we can't do enough in foreign aid, whether publicly or privately funded, to offset the harm done by our profit-driven system of exploitation of the world by our few, our greedy, our corporate and financial oligarchs.

This relates to the topic of immigration in that the massive disruption of third world economies by our predatory 'free trade' policies is a direct cause of worker-disruption and migration. Immigration from Mexico to the US, for instance, has tripled since NAFTA went into effect in 1994. NAFTA forced the removal of Mexican tarriff protections for Mexican farmers, and simultaneously subsidized US agribusiness outfits like Cargill and Archer Daniels Midland. US taxpayer-funded grain was then dumped on Mexican markets at prices below what the Mexican farmers could compete with, forcing over a million campaseno families off the land.

Where'd the now-landless Mexican farmers go? To the NAFTA-enabled machiladora sweatshops set up by US firms to exploit the cheap labor markets. Some risked life and dignity to find work in the US, picking our crops, mowing our lawns...

Of course our godlike corporados can continue to skip back and forth across borders as if they don't exist, but the desperate peasants whose lives are near-ruined by corporate machinations must heed our notions of justice about the border we set when we stole half of Mexican land in 1848...

Amen, but now well be label as hatefilled racists.

I have a solution. Offset the costs of immigration by not fighting an illegal war, and illegally killing many citizens of a country we illegally entered, then watch as our economy rises from the output of their labor.

Our economy goes up, costs us nothing, less people die, and more people get rich. What do you think?

It's important not to lose sight of one of Killfile's main points: that the American economy cannot pursue "business as usual" and sustain its price point without illegal labor. The system has evolve to a point where certain industries (especially agriculture) is structured around the assumption that a large workforce is available to which conventional labor laws do not apply. If the "immigrant problem" is ever "solved," it will certainly require a number of industries to radically alter their operations, and prices will rise as a consequence.

Until the concept of 'countries' ceases to exist, there will be borders. Uhose borders tend to define the boundaries of culture, language, political systems, economic structure, etc. between neighboring countries.

I take issue with the idea that the boundaries between nations ought to act as cultural and linguistic barriers. There's a knee-jerk reaction in issued of immigration (legal or otherwise) where a nation's xenophobia demands that anyone who gains citizenship (or even residency) "integrate" into the cultural status quo. Borders are simply lines on a map, drawn by nations to denote who has a a legal claim to a patch of ground. In America, having a right to stand on that patch of ground doesn't require "purity" or "integration."

Which brings us back to the legal question of who ought to have that right. And one of the central tensions that exists in this debate is the fact that America's economy has grown dependent on cheap labor under oppressive conditions. It's not simply a matter of legal vs. illegal immigrants doing the same jobs: many of the jobs done by illegal immigrants have conditions that are themselves a violation of US law.

Start jailing executives who hire illegals and the demand will also dry up very quickly.

I absolutely agree that the lack of enforcement is what has allowed this situation to grow as bad as it has. While I suspect that the demand will be somewhat slower to dry because illegal labor has become systemic, those who would subject workers (illegal or otherwise) to unlawful and immoral working conditions should suffer the consequences. Ensuring that worker's rights are protected will create a level playing field where American laborers and legal immigrants are willing to compete for the jobs. Right now, no one with legal alternatives wants to pick peaches for a wage that hasn't changed in 30 years.

However the situation develops, Americans can ill afford to remain ignorant about how their own economy works. In the immigration debate, more is at issue than which languages the Star Spangled Banner can be sung in. One of the fundamental ways our country functions is under discussion.

I completely agree with you. I just wanted to make sure both points were on the table.

Well, at the wages they're receiving, they probably don't consume at nearly the same rate as those guaranteed the minimum wage. (winces) Oh, there's a 3/5 of a consumer line coming here, I just know it...

There's an underlying assumption here that deserves further investigation: should criminals in general (immigrant or otherwise) receive decent treatment? It's a no-brainer that not all people who commit crimes are bad people, but our justice system does a pretty good job at dehumanizing people in jail, then marginalizing them once they're released. The dehumanizing stance many hold on illegal immigration extends to their positions on crime in general: trumpet getting the offending infidels out of sight and then keep them out of mind.

good point. There has always been groups who want to keep out certain nationalities, from the Irish to the Italians, Asians and now Mexicans.
All of it based on bigotry.