I've rebutted Mr. Himes on this subject before but he's given me some numbers this time to highlight the ridiculous nature of what we'll be hearing as November approaches.
My rebuttals in red.
Immigration Reform: A Jobs Plan & Fair Reform
Published 5:38 pm, Friday, December 20, 2013
Imagine, in this moment of hesitant economic recovery, a federal jobs law that would put 120,000 people to work every year. Imagine it increasing the annual incomes of Connecticut families by $160 million and breathing entrepreneurial energy into high-tech startups like etouches in Norwalk and corporations like Deloitte and Starwood in Stamford. Imagine if that legislation also dramatically cut our deficit.
While Kool-Aid drinkers everywhere are undoubtedly enthralled by this opening, Himes never shows how these things might come to pass; instead he hopes we won't notice as he changes the focus from Connecticut to a broader defense of the indefensible.
Too good to be true? Far from it. It's there for the taking.
It doesn't really sound too good to be true that Connecticut's 1 million families could earn $160 more per year except that Himes never says how; $3.08/week! Wow, call Guinness!
Even in a House of Representatives frozen in dysfunction, comprehensive immigration reform, which passed the Senate in June by a 68-32 margin, would easily pass the House if it were brought to a vote.
Cheap shot at Republicans who disagree with Himes; a classic liberal tactic.
It's not up for vote because it's a bad idea, though Himes would apparently vote for it; no surprise there.
It's not up for vote because it's a bad idea, though Himes would apparently vote for it; no surprise there.
The economic benefits of well-regulated immigration are not controversial. They are the story of America, and many of us have lived them. Foreign-born Americans are twice as likely to start a small business as the native born. Think of your local restaurants, car washes, and delis. Two in five companies on theFortune 500 were started by immigrants or their children. Think of Andy Grove of Intel and Sergey Brin of Google.
True but irrelevant except when he says that well-regulated immigration is the story of America; if so, why the kerfuffle?
The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) believes that passage of immigration reform would add $1.4 trillion to our GDP in the next ten years.
Given that GDP includes government spending and each illegal immigrant costs $14,148/year (so 11 million of them cost $155 billion/year; $1.55 trillion over 10 years), this statement is of dubious value; their contribution is less than their cost.
The long-term strength of Social Security and Medicare would be improved by the expanded legal workforce and youth of our immigrant population. The CBO estimates that the Senate immigration bill would cut deficits by $200 billion over 10 years.
For $200 billion in 10 years, we're talking $20 billion/year in taxes. If we assume that half of the 11 million illegals actually have jobs, this represents $3,636/each. This represents the equivalent of FICA (15.4%) on an average income of $23,612; these folks are poor and are thus likely to consume far more in benefits than they pay in taxes.
In addition, $200 billion is less than 15.4% of $1.4 trillion so these numbers don't add up at all.
Finally, with jobs scarce and 11 million more low earners, deficits are more likely to increase, especially for states whose Medicaid rolls would swell.
Finally, with jobs scarce and 11 million more low earners, deficits are more likely to increase, especially for states whose Medicaid rolls would swell.
Critics of immigration reform, or of immigration itself, argue that immigrants, legal and illegal, consume social services, getting benefits for which they do not pay. The undocumented are prohibited by law from using federal safety net programs such as food stamps or Medicaid. They do use hospital emergency rooms and free clinics and do therefore "cost" the system $4.3 billion per year. However, most of the undocumented actually do pay income and payroll taxes, estimated at $11.2 billion.
Unpaid medical bills were $55 billion/year in 2008 so the illegals apparently consume 8% of this even though they represent only 3.5% of the population; a decidedly unhealthy lot that will consume even more in Obamacare subsidies or Medicaid; just what liberals need to further their well-intentioned but ill-considered agenda of economic destruction.
Illegals can only pay taxes if they have fraudulent SSNs, and many do.
It's no stretch that some use them to get welfare as well as jobs; it's a felony but being caught results in free room and board (prison) costing taxpayers an average of $45,000/year; far more than they won't pay in taxes. I'm not advocating imprisonment; deportation is cheaper.
It's no stretch that some use them to get welfare as well as jobs; it's a felony but being caught results in free room and board (prison) costing taxpayers an average of $45,000/year; far more than they won't pay in taxes. I'm not advocating imprisonment; deportation is cheaper.
Himes is misstating the $11.2 billion number anyway, the estimate is for sales and fuel tax, not payroll tax and damned little income tax, if any, based on assumptions.
In any event, this is more an argument for immigration reform than against it. Legalizing the undocumented through a rigorous earned path would help them stay employed and reduce the ills associated with living in the shadows. The alternative is wholesale deportation, an alternative widely regarded as unrealistic and extraordinarily expensive.
I beg to differ; Himes' rigorous path is to let them stay and continue consuming more than they produce. Our economy can't even keep legal workers employed. They chose to live in the shadows, nobody forced them.
Even with these inflated figures, deportation is attractive with payback in less than two years.
The immigration bill awaiting action in the House does three big things: it allocates significant money (some say too much) to border security; it creates a system that simplifies the ability of employers to determine employment eligibility; and it provides a tough earned path to legalization for the nation's 11 million undocumented immigrants.
Good; keep more from entering. Good; easier to find potential deportees although it should not be entrusted to employers. Bad; unless the path includes exit and reentry by legal means.
In the face of narco-trafficking and terrorism, the importance of border security is self-evident. However, secure borders can go only so far in stopping illegal immigration since almost half of undocumented immigrants overstay a visa rather than sneak across a border. And, as the saying goes, as long as employers are willing to hire the undocumented, 50-foot walls along our border will spawn 52-foot ladders.
This is because government is not doing what we pay it to do; Himes, for example, wrote this piece of crap on our dime.
We paid $16 billion for border patrol and immigration control last year but, despite deporting nearly 2 million over the last 5 years, we still have an estimated 11 million illegals.
How can he say half are visa overstays if the count is a guess in the first place? No documents, remember?
We paid $16 billion for border patrol and immigration control last year but, despite deporting nearly 2 million over the last 5 years, we still have an estimated 11 million illegals.
How can he say half are visa overstays if the count is a guess in the first place? No documents, remember?
Immigration reform would address this problem by expanding the E-Verify system so that employers could confirm employment eligibility online with better and more secure documentation. Those employers then breaking the law would be subject to serious penalties. Immigration reform would also improve the immigration system for highly educated immigrants to be sure that they complement rather than crowd out native workers.
Leaving this up to employers is tantamount to leaving the fox in charge of the hen house. Why aren't employers subject to serious penalties already for aiding and abetting? Remember, these employees are criminals. Treasury should be verifying the SSNs of all who pay FICA and conducting spot-checks in all of the likely workplaces instead of snooping on conservative groups.
Finally, the earned path to legalization, while controversial, offers real economic benefits as the undocumented move into the legal economy, while ending the expensive and inhumane aspects of a deportation-oriented system. Deportations, which are at historically high levels, cost taxpayers $18 billion a year and serve mainly to push the undocumented further into the shadows, to live lives of fear and abuse. "Successful" deportations often tear families apart, result in long stretches of expensive incarceration and tie up the courts. In response to this suffering, the Catholic Church, the Unitarian Universalists, the American Jewish Council, and many other religious institutions have urged passage of immigration reform.
The figure of $18 billion/year is nonsense; $47,368 per deportee for Obama's 1.9 million over 5 years? Even the inflated estimate here is only $25,900 per deportee. However, $18 billion is still a lot less than $155 billion. Again, nobody here forced them to be criminals.
Then again, considering the $11 trillion over budget that Obama spent on bailouts and toxic securities...
Then again, considering the $11 trillion over budget that Obama spent on bailouts and toxic securities...
If the religious groups feel so strongly about it, fine; let them subsidize the $155 billion yearly cost of the illegals (they're probably non-profits that pay no taxes so by doing so, they can feel good about themselves, a basic liberal theme). Otherwise, this is like Saudi Arabia urging the US to continue wasting blood and treasure policing their neighborhood; put up or shut up.
Less controversial is the idea that DREAMERs, young adults who as children were brought to America by their parents, should have access to an earned path to citizenship. Many DREAMERs know no other home. Some do not speak the language of their native country. Immigration reform establishes a path for them, through either education or military service, to work toward citizenship while contributing to our communities.
Few would hold children responsible for the crimes of their parents. That said, it begs the question; how do we sort out the 20-year-old recent arrival from the 20-year-old brought here illegally by his parents? There's no documentation, remember?
Who will pay to educate them? College is hugely expensive because of subsidies; does Himes propose more of the same?
If liberals succeed in decimating the military, how can it absorb millions of illegal immigrants? In addition, proficiency in English and civics is required; how many can meet those requirements given the pathetic performance of our publicly financed school system?
More rhetoric without serious thought behind it.
Who will pay to educate them? College is hugely expensive because of subsidies; does Himes propose more of the same?
If liberals succeed in decimating the military, how can it absorb millions of illegal immigrants? In addition, proficiency in English and civics is required; how many can meet those requirements given the pathetic performance of our publicly financed school system?
More rhetoric without serious thought behind it.
The proposed earned path is a far cry from amnesty. Undocumented immigrants would be placed at the end of a 13-year line behind legal applicants to receive a green card and, subsequently, eligibility for citizenship. During this period, they would need to stay gainfully employed, pay all taxes, stay out of trouble, and pay a $2,000 penalty for their initial immigration violation.
This is utter nonsense on several fronts.
The waiting line varies from 0-24 years. It is not fixed at 13 years.
Not even citizens can remain gainfully employed that long (at least 16 years after the initial 0-24 year wait with our 675,000 annual quota). Many are dropping out of the job market because of the impact of dumb policies like this.
Fining a child brought here illegally by parents is morally wrong but fining the parent $2,000 for 0-24 years of taxpayer cost at $14,148/year is an affront to all taxpayers. This shows that Himes does not represent taxpayers' interests, he just wants more democrat voters; he's banking on US bankruptcy occurring after he retires.
It's hard to imagine that we will be presented with a better opportunity any time soon to create jobs, reduce our deficits, and return to an immigration system more reflective of our national and religious values. On the heels of strong bi-partisan support in the Senate, it's time for the House of Representatives to say yes to this opportunity.
This idea will not create jobs outside of government, it will not decrease deficits and it may well be morally reprehensible. That said, the religious among us are welcome to pony up or shut up. As for the House, this is one giveaway too many; vote no!
Jim Himes is the U.S. representative from Connecticut's 4th Congressional District.
In the spirit of hope and change; hopefully this will change.
No comments:
Post a Comment