Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Economics of Immigration Enforcement

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The Economics of Immigration Enforcement

    The Economics of Immigration Enforcement

    Research and Assessment
    from The National Policy Institute
    December 2005: Issue Number 101

    All NPI publications can be found at:
    NATIONALPOLICYINSTITUTE.ORG NATIONALPOLICYINSTITUTE.ORG


    The Economics of Immigration Enforcement
    Assessing the Costs and Benefits of Mass Deportation
    Edwin S. Rubenstein

    NPI–ª "to ourselves and our posterity"
    Preamble to the Constitution
    NATIONAL POLICY INSTITUTE
    P.O. Box 847 –ª McLean, VA 22101 –ª 703-442-0558
    nationalpolicyinstitute.org

    THE ECONOMICS OF IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT
    Assessing the Costs and Benefits of Mass Deportation
    Edwin S. Rubenstein

    SYNOPSIS

    In July 2005, the Center for American Progress published a report assessing the costs of arresting, detaining, prosecuting, and deporting illegal aliens. The study, Deporting the Undocumented: A Cost Assessment, estimated that the total cost of mass deportation would be between $206 and $230 billion over five years or an average cost of between $41 and $46 billion annually over a five year period. The following paper reviews the data on mass deportation. In reassessing the cost, the following analysis compares and contrasts what an amnesty would cost taxpayers in terms of social services, lost wages, health care subsidies, and educational expenditures. The author concludes that comparative estimates demonstrate "no matter how high the costs of
    deporting illegal aliens may seem, the costs of not deporting them are larger still."
    1
    National Policy Institute / Analysis #101: The Economics of Immigration Enforcement
    / Page 1 of 19 / NATIONALPOLICYINSTITUTE.ORG
    THE ECONOMICS OF IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT
    Assessing the Costs and Benefits of Mass Deportation
    Edwin S. Rubenstein

    July 2005 study questions whether deporting illegal immigrants would
    be worth the costs. Deporting the Undocumented: A Cost Assessment is
    published by the Center for American Progress, a liberal think-tank. Its
    authors claim the study is the first-ever estimate of costs associated with
    arresting, detaining, prosecuting, and removing immigrants who have entered
    the United States illegally or overstayed their visas.
    The cost of mass deportation?: $206 to $230 billion over five-years,
    depending on how many illegals leave voluntarily. That's an average cost of $41
    billion to $46 billion per year for five years. About 10 million illegals would be
    subject to deportation, according to the study.1
    Advocates for tougher immigration laws say the estimates are too high.
    Mark Krikorian of the Center for Immigration Studies argues, for example, that
    as many as 50 percent of illegals would leave voluntarily if the government were
    to initiate an aggressive deportation policy. By contrast, the study assumes only
    10 to 20 percent would leave voluntarily.
    Rep. Tom Tancredo (R.–CO) called the study "an interesting intellectual
    exercise" that is "useless...because no one's talking about" mass deportation.
    Rather than deport individuals he would impose fines and impose sanctions on
    employers who employ illegals"”something the government has stubbornly
    refused to do.
    We believe that neither the pro- nor the anti-immigration groups are
    asking the right questions. Neither side has assessed the costs of maintaining the
    status quo, i.e., the annual costs of an immigration policy that refuses to either
    stem the influx of illegal aliens or deport illegals already here.

    Illegal aliens are poorer than natives. They are eligible for welfare, medical
    assistance, and housing subsidies. Like all people, they enroll their children in
    school, drive on roads, and require police, fire, and sanitation services. They are
    also more likely to be incarcerated.
    They also pay taxes. Even when working "off the books" illegal
    immigrants can't avoid paying excise, sales and other taxes. So the fact that they
    receive public benefits does not necessarily mean they are a net drain.
    Unfortunately, every study of the fiscal impact of immigration finds that the
    public expenditures attributable to illegal immigrants exceed their tax payments
    by a wide margin.
    In addition there are indirect economic costs. Illegal immigrants reduce
    the incomes and employment opportunities of U.S.-born workers. Since the 1986
    amnesty illegal aliens have become the largest contributor to U.S. labor force
    growth. Immigrant inflows"”about one-third to one-half of which are comprised
    of illegal immigrants"”accounted for almost half of U.S. labor force growth in
    recent years, and even more in certain areas and industries.2
    About 15 percent of U.S. workers were foreign born in 2004, up from 10
    percent in 1990. Exactly how much of a reduction this has had on incomes of U.S.
    born workers cannot be known with certainty. A study by Harvard University
    Professor George Borjas concludes, however, that every 10 percent increase in the
    U.S. labor force due to immigration reduces wages of native workers by about
    3.5 percent.3 If Borjas is right, the income lost by displaced native born workers is
    enormous and growing rapidly.
    In this paper we will show that, no matter how high the costs of deporting
    illegal aliens may seem, the costs of not deporting them are larger still.

    Complete text linked below in PDF format:

    http://www.nationalpolicyinstitute.o...x.php?PageID=1

    http://www.nationalpolicyinstitute.o...eportation.pdf

  • #2
    The Economics of Immigration Enforcement

    Research and Assessment
    from The National Policy Institute
    December 2005: Issue Number 101

    All NPI publications can be found at:
    NATIONALPOLICYINSTITUTE.ORG NATIONALPOLICYINSTITUTE.ORG


    The Economics of Immigration Enforcement
    Assessing the Costs and Benefits of Mass Deportation
    Edwin S. Rubenstein

    NPI–ª "to ourselves and our posterity"
    Preamble to the Constitution
    NATIONAL POLICY INSTITUTE
    P.O. Box 847 –ª McLean, VA 22101 –ª 703-442-0558
    nationalpolicyinstitute.org

    THE ECONOMICS OF IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT
    Assessing the Costs and Benefits of Mass Deportation
    Edwin S. Rubenstein

    SYNOPSIS

    In July 2005, the Center for American Progress published a report assessing the costs of arresting, detaining, prosecuting, and deporting illegal aliens. The study, Deporting the Undocumented: A Cost Assessment, estimated that the total cost of mass deportation would be between $206 and $230 billion over five years or an average cost of between $41 and $46 billion annually over a five year period. The following paper reviews the data on mass deportation. In reassessing the cost, the following analysis compares and contrasts what an amnesty would cost taxpayers in terms of social services, lost wages, health care subsidies, and educational expenditures. The author concludes that comparative estimates demonstrate "no matter how high the costs of
    deporting illegal aliens may seem, the costs of not deporting them are larger still."
    1
    National Policy Institute / Analysis #101: The Economics of Immigration Enforcement
    / Page 1 of 19 / NATIONALPOLICYINSTITUTE.ORG
    THE ECONOMICS OF IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT
    Assessing the Costs and Benefits of Mass Deportation
    Edwin S. Rubenstein

    July 2005 study questions whether deporting illegal immigrants would
    be worth the costs. Deporting the Undocumented: A Cost Assessment is
    published by the Center for American Progress, a liberal think-tank. Its
    authors claim the study is the first-ever estimate of costs associated with
    arresting, detaining, prosecuting, and removing immigrants who have entered
    the United States illegally or overstayed their visas.
    The cost of mass deportation?: $206 to $230 billion over five-years,
    depending on how many illegals leave voluntarily. That's an average cost of $41
    billion to $46 billion per year for five years. About 10 million illegals would be
    subject to deportation, according to the study.1
    Advocates for tougher immigration laws say the estimates are too high.
    Mark Krikorian of the Center for Immigration Studies argues, for example, that
    as many as 50 percent of illegals would leave voluntarily if the government were
    to initiate an aggressive deportation policy. By contrast, the study assumes only
    10 to 20 percent would leave voluntarily.
    Rep. Tom Tancredo (R.–CO) called the study "an interesting intellectual
    exercise" that is "useless...because no one's talking about" mass deportation.
    Rather than deport individuals he would impose fines and impose sanctions on
    employers who employ illegals"”something the government has stubbornly
    refused to do.
    We believe that neither the pro- nor the anti-immigration groups are
    asking the right questions. Neither side has assessed the costs of maintaining the
    status quo, i.e., the annual costs of an immigration policy that refuses to either
    stem the influx of illegal aliens or deport illegals already here.

    Illegal aliens are poorer than natives. They are eligible for welfare, medical
    assistance, and housing subsidies. Like all people, they enroll their children in
    school, drive on roads, and require police, fire, and sanitation services. They are
    also more likely to be incarcerated.
    They also pay taxes. Even when working "off the books" illegal
    immigrants can't avoid paying excise, sales and other taxes. So the fact that they
    receive public benefits does not necessarily mean they are a net drain.
    Unfortunately, every study of the fiscal impact of immigration finds that the
    public expenditures attributable to illegal immigrants exceed their tax payments
    by a wide margin.
    In addition there are indirect economic costs. Illegal immigrants reduce
    the incomes and employment opportunities of U.S.-born workers. Since the 1986
    amnesty illegal aliens have become the largest contributor to U.S. labor force
    growth. Immigrant inflows"”about one-third to one-half of which are comprised
    of illegal immigrants"”accounted for almost half of U.S. labor force growth in
    recent years, and even more in certain areas and industries.2
    About 15 percent of U.S. workers were foreign born in 2004, up from 10
    percent in 1990. Exactly how much of a reduction this has had on incomes of U.S.
    born workers cannot be known with certainty. A study by Harvard University
    Professor George Borjas concludes, however, that every 10 percent increase in the
    U.S. labor force due to immigration reduces wages of native workers by about
    3.5 percent.3 If Borjas is right, the income lost by displaced native born workers is
    enormous and growing rapidly.
    In this paper we will show that, no matter how high the costs of deporting
    illegal aliens may seem, the costs of not deporting them are larger still.

    Complete text linked below in PDF format:

    http://www.nationalpolicyinstitute.o...x.php?PageID=1

    http://www.nationalpolicyinstitute.o...eportation.pdf

    Comment


    • #3
      Every few decades there is this great thirst to single out certain group of people , lynch and scapegoat them so the rest can feel happy and satisfied.

      Scapegoating, btw, is a sort of mental therapy on mass scale - very barbaric and cruel (on top of being Un-Constitutional) way of dealing with mass psychosis, but still universally accepted here...

      Some day it were Native 'Indians', then it were Irish, Italians, Slavs and Jews, today it's mainly about Mexicans, and some day it will be some other group, who knows which?

      And if immigration waves stop completely, well, then expect the random selection from among those already here, just keep in mind that selection will most of all depend on how vulnerable the targeted 'scapegoat' group is.

      Comment


      • #4
        http://www.robinawilliams.com/images...pegoat_med.jpg

        Comment


        • #5
          AF, I agree with you this time. Problems in immigration are always blamed on one group or groups of people. But, the ones that are saved from this persecution are those of European descent. After 9/11, Arab speaking and Middle East looking people have become the most pitiful. This is America !

          Comment


          • #6
            Yeah, add to this the egregious ignorance of the average prejudiced red-necks of world geopolitics and geography and there you have an ample grounds to be persecuted in lieu of 'an Arab'- as long as you don't have blue eyes and yellow hair on your head.

            Comment

            Sorry, you are not authorized to view this page

            Home Page

            Immigration Daily

            Archives

            Processing times

            Immigration forms

            Discussion board

            Resources

            Blogs

            Twitter feed

            Immigrant Nation

            Attorney2Attorney

            CLE Workshops

            Immigration books

            Advertise on ILW

            EB-5

            移民日报

            About ILW.COM

            Connect to us

            Questions/Comments

            SUBSCRIBE

            Immigration Daily



            Working...
            X