Why are we debating this because the facts are we are losing money on illegal immigrants.
Introduction
A continually growing population of illegal aliens, along with the federal government’s ineffective efforts to secure our borders, present significant national security and public safety threats to the United States. They also have a severely negative impact on the nation’s taxpayers at the local, state, and national levels. Illegal immigration costs Americans billions of dollars each year. Illegal aliens are net consumers of taxpayer-funded services and the limited taxes paid by some segments of the illegal alien population are, in no way, significant enough to offset the growing financial burdens imposed on U.S. taxpayers by massive numbers of uninvited guests. This study examines the fiscal impact of illegal aliens as reflected in both federal and state budgets.
The Number of Illegal Immigrants in the US
Estimating the fiscal burden of illegal immigration on the U.S. taxpayer depends on the size and characteristics of the illegal alien population. FAIR defines “illegal alien” as anyone who entered the United States without authorization and anyone who unlawfully remains once his/her authorization has expired. Unfortunately, the U.S. government has no central database containing information on the citizenship status of everyone lawfully present in the United States. The overall problem of estimating the illegal alien population is further complicated by the fact that the majority of available sources on immigration status rely on self-reported data. Given that illegal aliens have a motive to lie about their immigration status, in order to avoid discovery, the accuracy of these statistics is dubious, at best. All of the foregoing issues make it very difficult to assess the current illegal alien population of the United States.
However, FAIR now estimates that there are approximately 12.5 million illegal alien residents. This number uses FAIR’s previous estimates but adjusts for suspected changes in levels of unlawful migration, based on information available from the Department of Homeland Security, data available from other federal and state government agencies, and other research studies completed by reliable think tanks, universities, and other research organizations.
The Cost of Illegal Immigration to the United States
At the federal, state, and local levels, taxpayers shell out approximately $134.9 billion to cover the costs incurred by the presence of more than 12.5 million illegal aliens, and about 4.2 million citizen children of illegal aliens. That amounts to a tax burden of approximately $8,075 per illegal alien family member and a total of $115,894,597,664. The total cost of illegal immigration to U.S. taxpayers is both staggering and crippling. In 2013, FAIR estimated the total cost to be approximately $113 billion. So, in under four years, the cost has risen nearly $3 billion. This is a disturbing and unsustainable trend. The sections below will break down and further explain these numbers at the federal, state, and local levels.
Total Governmental Expenditures on Illegal Aliens
Total Tax Contributions by Illegal Aliens
Total Economic Impact of Illegal Immigration
Federal
The Federal government spends a net amount of $45.8 billion on illegal aliens and their U.S.-born children. This amount includes expenditures for public education, medical care, justice enforcement initiatives, welfare programs and other miscellaneous costs. It also factors in the meager amount illegal aliens pay to the federal government in income, social security, Medicare and excise taxes.
FEDERAL SPENDING
The approximately $46 billion in federal expenditures attributable to illegal aliens is staggering. Assuming an illegal alien population of approximately 12.5 million illegal aliens and 4.2 million U.S.-born children of illegal aliens, that amounts to roughly $2,746 per illegal alien, per year. For the sake of comparison, the average American college student receives only $4,800 in federal student loans each year.
FAIR maintains that every concerned American citizen should be asking our government why, in a time of increasing costs and shrinking resources, is it spending such large amounts of money on individuals who have no right, nor authorization, to be in the United States? This is an especially important question in view of the fact that the illegal alien beneficiaries of American taxpayer largess offset very little of the enormous costs of their presence by the payment of taxes. Meanwhile, average Americans pay approximately 30% of their income in taxes.
Taxes collected from illegal aliens offset fiscal outlays and, therefore must be included in any examination of the cost of illegal immigration. However, illegal alien apologists frequently cite the allegedly large tax payments made by illegal aliens as a justification for their unlawful presence, and as a basis for offering them permanent legal status through a new amnesty, similar to the one enacted in 1986. That argument is nothing more than a red herring.
FAIR believes that most studies grossly overestimate both the taxes actually collected from illegal aliens and, more importantly, the amount of taxes actually paid by illegal aliens (i.e., the amount of money collected from illegal aliens and actually kept by the federal government). This belief is based on a number of factors: Since the 1990’s, the United States has focused on apprehending and removing criminal aliens. The majority of illegal aliens seeking employment in the United States have lived in an environment where they have little fear of deportation, even if discovered. This has created an environment where most illegal aliens are both able and willing to file tax returns. Because the vast majority of illegal aliens hold low-paying jobs, those who are subject to wage deductions actually wind up receiving a complete refund of all taxes paid, plus net payments made on the basis of tax credits.
As a result, illegal aliens actually profit from filing a tax return and, therefore, have a strong interest in doing so.
Two new studies, one from The Sentencing Project and one from the libertarian Cato Institute, reported that the percentage of immigrants committing crimes is lower than that of United States citizens. However, the underlying methodology used in each was critically flawed.
It is possible that legal immigrants commit crimes at a rate lower than U.S. citizens and that they are incarcerated at a lower rate than U.S. citizens. After all, legal immigrants are well vetted, and if they have criminal records in their countries of origin they are generally ineligible for admission to American.
The same cannot be said for illegal aliens because virtually all adult, illegal aliens commit felonies in order to procure the documents they need to get jobs, to drive and to obtain other benefits that are restricted to U.S. citizens.
The vast majority of illegal aliens use fraudulently obtained Social Security numbers. They possess fake drivers’ licenses, phony “green cards,” fraudulent birth certificates and any other documents that U.S. citizens and legal residents have. In addition, they falsify I-9 forms under penalty of perjury. Thus, the average illegal alien routinely commits multiple felonies –forgery, Social Security fraud, identity theft, and perjury.
This criminal activity is routinely swept under the rug in order to protect the myth of the law abiding illegal alien. However, when pushed, even the strongest supporters of illegal aliens are forced to acknowledge that the vast majority of illegal aliens commit multiple felonies. In fact, the Social Security Administration and New York Times report that approximately 75 percent of illegal aliens have fraudulently obtained Social Security numbers which is a felony. The ACLU accepts this figure and uses it to show that illegal aliens pay payroll taxes.
Furthermore, the Los Angeles Times reports that up to 8 million of 11.1 million (72 percent) illegal aliens commit job-related felonies. La Raza says that illegal aliens contribute $15 billion annually in Social Security payments through payroll taxes [by using illegally obtained Social Security numbers – felony].
Mexican-born American journalist Jorge Ramos admits that many illegal aliens use “fake” documents (a felony).
Even the president of the California State Senate admitted this month that “half” of his family “would be eligible for deportation under [President Trump’s] executive order, because if they got a false Social Security card, if they got a false identification, if they got a false driver’s license prior to us passing AB60, if they got a false green card, and anyone who has family members, you know, who are undocumented knows that almost entirely everybody has secured some sort of false identification (felonies).”
Neither the study from Cato or The Sentencing Project acknowledged these realities. And as a result, they tremendously understated the incidence of illegal alien criminal activity. Even the strongest supporters of illegal aliens acknowledge that 75 percent of illegal aliens routinely commit felonies of the aforementioned variety.
The Cato Institute further limited its study to the incarceration rate for legal immigrants, illegal aliens and U.S. citizens. But it was forced to acknowledge that the numbers of incarcerated illegal aliens are not readily available because “local and state governments do not record whether the prisoner is an illegal immigrant.” Cato was therefore forced to “use common statistical methods to identify illegal immigrant prisoners by excluding incarcerated respondents who have characteristics that they are unlikely to have. In other words, we can identify likely illegal immigrants by looking at prisoners with individual characteristics that are highly correlated with being an illegal immigrant.”
The Cato study consequently excluded felonies routinely committed by the vast majority of adult, illegal aliens as long as they were not incarcerated, resulting in a significant understatement of the overall incidence of crimes committed by illegal aliens.
The study conducted by The Sentencing Project similarly focused on the incidence of crimes committed by foreign born individuals. According to the study, “Major national datasets lack information on respondents’ immigration legal status, and this information has not been systematically collected by law enforcement agencies or state departments of corrections.”
That study’s data was just as questionable as that used in the Cato study. And its conclusion, “A century of research has shown immigrants [including illegal aliens] do not threaten public safety and … are less likely to commit crime than native-born citizens,” was patently false.
Democrats often assert as fact that immigrants are less likely to commit crime than U.S. citizens. That argument is totally wrong, because the vast majority of adult illegal aliens are committing felonies by virtue of being active in America.
The myth of the law abiding illegal alien is just that: a myth.
Why in the hell can’t these so-called GOP members get it? It is never a good idea to reward people for braking the damn law.
A plan by President Trump’s administration to give 1.8 million illegal aliens enrolled and eligible for the President Obama-created Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program a pathway to U.S. citizenship matches up with previous amnesty bills that have failed.
In the week that new polling from Harvard-Harris revealed bombshell support for his legal immigration-cutting, merit-based, and pro-American worker initiative on immigration, rather than touting the widespread support for his “America First” ideals, Trump explained why a pathway to U.S. citizenship for DACA illegal aliens would be beneficial.
When asked about citizenship for DACA illegal aliens, Trump said: “We’re going to morph into it, it’s going to happen. Over a period of 10 to 12 years, somebody does a great job, they’ve worked hard.”
“It’s a nice thing to have the [citizenship] incentive of after a period of years, being able to become a citizen,” Trump continued.
On Thursday, senior adviser Stephen Miller revealed a few of the details from the White House’s expansive amnesty. It’s most prominent provision: Giving a pathway to citizenship to 1.8 million illegal aliens after a 10 to 12 year period.
The White House expansive amnesty plan is hardly different from previous amnesties, one of which failed miserably under Obama and another that the White House shot down this week.
For example, the “Gang of Eight” amnesty plan in 2013, which practically destroyed all conservative support for Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) in his presidential aspirations, would have given the entire illegal alien population of about 12 to 30 million illegal aliens a pathway to citizenship as early as five years after being granted amnesty.
Likewise, the current “Gang of Six” amnesty plan sitting in the Senate, pushed prominently by Sens. Jeff Flake (R-AZ), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), and Dick Durbin (D-IL), would begin giving at least 3.5 million illegal aliens a pathway to citizenship as early as ten years after getting amnesty.
On the other hand, the White House-backed House immigration plan, authored by Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), would remain in line with Trump’s concession of only giving legal status to DACA-enrolled illegal aliens with no special path to citizenship.
In exchange for the amnesty solely for DACA-enrolled illegal aliens, the Goodlatte bill implements mandatory E-Verify to ban employers from hiring illegal aliens over Americans, major reductions to legal immigration levels, and full funding for a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border, as well as a slew of other reforms that would help raise the wages of America’s working and middle class.
The White House revealed a proposal to extend legal status and a path for citizenship for 1.8 million illegal immigrants brought to the country as children in exchange for $25 billion in funding for the wall, an end to chain migration across the board, and an end to the visa lottery program.
The bill’s framework would apply to the roughly 690,000 illegal immigrants who registered for the DACA program started by former President Barack Obama as well as illegal immigrants who did not apply. A senior administration official told reporters that the 1.8 million number would be restricted by minor adjustments to timeframes and dates of entry issues.
“The argument is by some people in Congress is that there is another 690,000 roughly that never got around to registering but fall into the general category, age, and all the rest of it,” the official said. “Those combined come to 1.8 million.”
The path to citizenship would require a 10-12 year period where recipients would be required to demonstrate good behavior, work and education requirements, and good moral character.
A senior White House official described the plan as an “extraordinarily generous concession” with Democrats but made several demands considered non-starters by members of Congress supporting amnesty.
The White House said that it intended to send the framework to Senate Majority Mitch McConnell, who promised Democrats a vote on the Senate floor by February 8.
The framework includes a $25 billion lump sum “trust fund” for a border security “wall system” for not only the Southern border but major security investments on the Northern border as well.
It also includes sweeping limitations for chain migration — limiting family immigration sponsorships to only spouses and minor children — not for parents or extended family members.
The new migration limitations would apply to all immigrants in the United States, not just the newly legalized 1.8 million.
“It will never, ever, ever, ever, work unless it’s universal,” the official noted. “It’s a global change to the U.S. immigration system.”
The bill framework was described as an effort to show exactly what the president wanted in a bill after open borders advocates complained that they had no idea where the president stood in their negotiations.
The proposal would also end the visa lottery program and reallocate them towards fulfilling the skills-based visa backlog.
The official noted that the current legislation was “galaxies apart” from what Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer discussed with Trump over lunch before the government shutdown, but felt that it was a plan that could get 60 votes in the Senate.
Trump Says ‘Nice Present’ for One Year Anniversary if they Shut It Down.
President Donald Trump boasted that the Democrats were giving him a political gift after they voted against a bill that would fund the government late Friday night.
“This is the One Year Anniversary of my Presidency and the Democrats wanted to give me a nice present,” Trump wrote on Twitter with the hashtag #DemocratShutdown.
Trump challenged Democrats for focusing more on amnesty for illegal immigrants than funding the government.
“Democrats are far more concerned with Illegal Immigrants than they are with our great Military or Safety at our dangerous Southern Border,” he wrote. “They could have easily made a deal but decided to play Shutdown politics instead.”
On Friday afternoon, Trump met with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer over cheeseburgers at the White House to discuss a possible deal, but it was ultimately rejected.
The president urged Americans to vote more Republicans into the Senate in 2018 to push forward his agenda.
“For those asking, the Republicans only have 51 votes in the Senate, and they need 60,” he wrote. “That is why we need to win more Republicans in 2018 Election! We can then be even tougher on Crime (and Border), and even better to our Military & Veterans!”
Democrats are far more concerned with Illegal Immigrants than they are with our great Military or Safety at our dangerous Southern Border. They could have easily made a deal but decided to play Shutdown politics instead. #WeNeedMoreRepublicansIn18 in order to power through mess!
For those asking, the Republicans only have 51 votes in the Senate, and they need 60. That is why we need to win more Republicans in 2018 Election! We can then be even tougher onCrime (and Border), and even better to our Military & Veterans!
You can’t play nice with liberals. They are from the damn devil. Roll over those SOB’s.
President Donald Trump shot down an amnesty plan offered by Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin and several GOP Senators, prompting amnesty-advocates to wreck the amnesty talks by leaking Trump’s Oval Office “sh*thole” description of undeveloped countries.
The report said:
President Trump grew frustrated with lawmakers Thursday in the Oval Office when they floated restoring protections for immigrants from Haiti, El Salvador and African countries as part of a bipartisan immigration deal, according to two people briefed on the meeting.
“Why are we having all these people from shithole countries come here?” Trump said, according to these people, referring to African countries and Haiti. He then suggested that the United States should instead bring more people from countries like Norway, whose prime minister he met yesterday.
The comments left lawmakers taken aback, according to people familiar with their reactions. Sens. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) and Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) proposed cutting the visa lottery program by 50 percent and then prioritizing countries already in the system, a White House official said.
The amnesty-plus plan was developed by Dubin and several pro-amnesty GOP Senators, including Sen. Cory Gardner from Colorado. The plan would provide an unpopular fast-track amnesty to more than one million illegals, reserve future chain-migration and also provide a quasi-amnesty to the illegal-immigrant parents who brought their children — dubbed ‘dreamers’ by Democrats — to the United States.
The Washington Post‘s story is based on a leak, likely from Durbin’s team. That leak suggests that Durbin and his allies do not expect to make a deal that they can sell to their base. Without that deal, the Democrats are using Trump’s “sh*thole” comment to blame his supposed racism for their failure to persuade Trump to abandon his base by accepting a big amnesty.
The White House released a statement after the Washington Post article was published. The statement did not deny the comment about less-developed countries, but promised an immigration policy which helps Americans and legal immigrants:
White House response to @jdawsey1 report on Trump’s “shithole countries” comment RE El Salvador & African countries:
5:07 PM – Jan 11, 2018
3030 Replies 6969 Retweets 6060 likes
The amnesty advocates had hoped to persuade Trump via a many-on-one lobbying session, but White House officials quickly invited pro-American supporters to attend their pitch. The Trump supporters at the event included Georgia Sen. David Perdue, co-author of the pro-American RAISE Act. his aide tweeted:
Caroline Vanvick
@Cvanvick
NEW: @sendavidperdue on #immigration meeting today at #WhiteHouse:
“Today I went to the White House to stand firm with President Trump.
We’ve been crystal clear: chain migration must end–Period.
Any solution the Senate will consider must include ending chain migration.”
3:28 PM – Jan 11, 2018
99 Replies 3838 Retweets 6767 likes
The meeting also included Sen. Tom Cotton and Rep. Bob Goodlatte, who has drafted an immigration-and-small-amnesty bill that has already won Trump’s approval.
Neil Munro
✔
@NeilMunroDC
Trump semi-endorses House immigration bill, which cuts chain migration, ends visa lottery, changes laws to end catch & release at the border, and provide non-citizenship work-permit to 670k DACA illegals. Business is unhappy.
http://
bit.ly/2AOKMV7
12:22 AM – Jan 11, 2018
President Trump Backs House Immigration Reform Bill – Breitbart
The House bill raises the bar for pro-amnesty Senators now pushing a huge amnesty
breitbart.com
77 Replies 3636 Retweets 5757 likes
Goodlatte’s bill has been applauded by House Speaker Paul Ryan, but Ryan has not yet announced if he plans to schedule a debate and vote.
Polls show that Trump’s American-first immigration policy is very popular. For example, a poll of likely 2018 voters shows two-to-one voter support for Trump’s pro-American immigration policies, and a lopsided four-to-one opposition against the cheap-labor, mass-immigration, economic policy pushed by bipartisan establishment-backed D.C. interest-groups.
Business groups and Democrats tout the misleading, industry-funded “Nation of Immigrants” polls because they which pressure Americans to say they welcome migrants, including the roughly 670,000 ‘DACA’ illegals and the roughly 3.25 million ‘dreamer’ illegals.
The alternative “priority or fairness” polls — plus the 2016 election — show that voters in the polling booth put a much higher priority on helping their families, neighbors, and fellow nationals get decent jobs in a high-tech, high-immigration, low-wage economy.
Four million Americans turn 18 each year and begin looking for good jobs in the free market.
But the federal government inflates the supply of new labor by annually accepting 1 million new legal immigrants, by providing work-permits to roughly 3 million resident foreigners, and by doing little to block the employment of roughly 8 million illegal immigrants.
The Washington-imposed economic policy of economic growth via mass-immigration floods the market with foreign labor, spikes profits and Wall Street values by cutting salaries for manual and skilled labor offered by blue-collar and white-collar employees. It also drives up real estate prices, widens wealth-gaps, reduces high-tech investment, increases state and local tax burdens, hurts kids’ schools and college education, pushes Americans away from high-tech careers, and sidelines at least 5 million marginalized Americans and their families, including many who are now struggling with opioid addictions.
The cheap-labor policy has also reduced investment and job creation in many interior states because the coastal cities have a surplus of imported labor. For example, almost 27 percent of zip codes in Missouri had fewer jobs or businesses in 2015 than in 2000, according to a new report by the Economic Innovation Group. In Kansas, almost 29 percent of zip codes had fewer jobs and businesses in 2015 compared to 2000, which was a two-decade period of massive cheap-labor immigration.
Because of the successful cheap-labor strategy, wages for men have remained flat since 1973, and a large percentage of the nation’s annual income has shifted to investors and away from employees.
