"Immigration and Social Security"

From Kevin Drum:

Immigration and Social Security, by Kevin Drum: Paul Krugman points out that in the 2008 report of the Social Security Trustees released today the "actuarial balance" of the system is better than it's been since 1993. ... But how much better? ... [L]ast year the trustees estimated that Social Security had an overall 75-year deficit of 1.95% of taxable payroll. ...This year it's 1.70%. That's a pretty substantial improvement. What caused it? ...

[I]mmigrants. To be specific, better estimates of the taxes and benefits received by illegal immigrants — or, as the trustees refer to them, "other-immigrants":

In previous reports, the other-immigrant population was projected using assumed ... numbers... For this year's report, the ... numbers ... are projected by explicitly modeling other immigrants and other emigrants...

Translation: instead of just pulling a net number out of a hat, the trustees built a model... And guess what?

• Illegal immigrants tend to skew young. This benefits the system.
• Young people have more children than older people. This benefits the system.
• Some illegal immigrants pay taxes for a few years and then leave. This benefits the system.

Bottom line: "This year's report results in [...] a substantial increase in the number of working-age individuals contributing payroll taxes, but a relatively smaller increase in the number of retirement-age individuals receiving benefits in the latter half of the long-range period." Give or take a bit, it turns out that this shores up the Social Security system to the tune of around $13 billion per year. Thanks, illegal immigrants!

Comments

[Jim Tarrant]

Good post. I think many commentators forget that this generation and maybe future ones are likely to be a lot more global-mobile than previous ones. Not just in the USA but in many other countries, "immigrants" may return to their home of origin after decades of living abroad. Ironically, recession or depression may make this more difficult, if it happens.

[BJ Feng]

Increased immigration is one of the more palatable fixes for Social Security, though not enough by itself. However there are still many illegal immigrants who are working underground and don't pay into Social Security. I am not against more immigration, nor some sort of amnesty in the future, but it's clear that there is no excuse for illegal immigration. I have no problem with increasing legal immigration substantially, yet I think we can all agree that there must be some sort of yearly cap or quota. The increased immigration cap MUST be enforced, and that means illegal immigration must continue to be illegal and actively discouraged.

The illegal immigration activists are on shaky ground because they want open borders without any cap or quota. The discussion is not about increasing legal immigration, only allowing unlimited immigration. Most Americans are very much against open borders and unlimited immigration.

If there is to be a cap, then we have to enforce the borders and illegal immigration will continue to be unacceptable, including amnesty. Activists must learn to compromise and shoot for increased legal immigration, not unlimited illegal immigration.

[NoMoreBlatherDotCom]

Kevin Drum and/or WM deleted the comment I left on the link. Surely, Mark Thoma would like to oppose government corruption rather than support it as Kevin Drum does, right? Perhaps he should do more than simply link but should come right out and tell us whether he supports the feds trying to profit from illegal activity.

[NLS]

Thanks, Mark Thoma, for posting this.

BJ Feng: SS does not need fixing. Ask Bruce Webb, or did he already tell you that a hundred times?

[NLS]

And BJ, who are these "activists?"

[BJ Feng]

Activists refers to the radical open borders, pro-illegal immigration advocates such as MALDEF and La Raza who don't even try to make an intellectual argument for their position, but rather rely on bullying and cries of racism.

If there is no Social Security problem, then there is even less reason to support illegal immigration. I'm not surprised those comments were deleted, there really isn't a good argument why we should tolerate illegal immigration given that we can increase legal immigration, if the level of immigration is really the issue we're debating.

Supporters of illegal immigration must convince us why open borders/no national boundaries is a good idea. Most don't even understand that is their only logical line of argument, and those who do understand refuse to go down that line because they cannot present a compelling case. Mexico also has immigration laws and enforces them, yet for some reason the United States is not allowed to do as Mexico does.

[ken melvin]

Again, what's the net? I assume that the $13 billion represents some $50 billion in wages lost to US citizens. A couple million livelihoods. At least that many were displaced or forced to work for lower wages. 'Progressives' like Kevin Drum are the reason John McCain, no matter that he is stupid, senile, and corrupt, will be the our next president.

[save_the_rustbelt]

I have a stack of about 1200 pages of government documents in my office, and there are a couple of more notes:

1) SSA is choking on phony and stolen Social Security numbers, the administrative burden creates quite a mess

2) many illegals are "off the books" so the positive impact may not be as great as estimated

3) some employers are collecting full FICA but only forwarding some part of it, with phonied F941s, and there have been indictments in just a few cases for tax fraud

[lonesome moderate]

yes, of course more and more illegals are working off the books, at temporary or informal jobs, nowadays. Why? Because enforcement of laws requiring valid social security numbers to work an on-the-books job is getting steadily better. As the crackdown continues, I would expect the benefits to social security to diminish, unless they are offered some kind of legal or semi-legal status.

[lonesome moderate]

B J FengMexico also has immigration laws and enforces them, yet for some reason the United States is not allowed to do as Mexico does.

This is a common misconception of Americans who hear stories about the brutality of Mexican immigration agents and police toward illegals. However, Mexico's overall enforcement of immigration lawas is weak, certainly weaker than ours. Parts of southern Mexico in fact do have a substantial presence of illegal immigrants from Central America, which is far poorer than Mexico.

[Brooks]

If the question is whether or not illegal immigrants have a net positive impact on our ability to fund SS benefits in the future, then calculation of their impact on projections of SS balance is only part of the answer. What matters is their OVERALL fiscal impact (impact on total federal tax revenues vs. impact on total federal expenses [an argument could be made for including state budgetary impact]), as well as impact on GDP and on cost of living (e.g., lowering food & housing prices). Ultimately, our ability to pay for SS -- like our ability to pay for ANYTHING -- will be a function of our national wealth, national income, overall tax revenues, overall expenses, and debt burden.

[Bruce Webb]

Well lets start injecting some numbers into this. First lets look at the actual Principal Demographic Assumptions from the 2008 Report and then compare them to the same table from the 2007 Report. The changes in fertility are not dramatic, the Report still projects ultimate fertility to decline to 2.0%, or replacement, just at a pace five years slower. I got to chase some things down on immigration and then I'll be back. Meanwhile enjoy the numbers.

[anne]

"Supporters of illegal immigration must convince us why open borders/no national boundaries is a good idea."

Notice the deceiving viciousness of the language, all you supporters of illegal illegality. Me, I suuport illegal illegality everywhere, always, and forever. Open Borders! Free the antelope.

[Bruce Webb]

Table II.D2.—Reasons for Change in the 75-Year Actuarial Balance Under Intermediate Assumptions [As a percentage of taxable payroll] Well this table could use some explication. (Easier to read in the original, feel free to click through)

Actuarial balance 2007
OAS -1.69
DI -.27
OASDI -1.95

Changes in actuarial balance due to changes in:
Legislation / Regulation
OAS .00
DI .00
OASDI .00

Valuation period 1
OAS -.06
DI -.01
OASDI -.06

Demographic data and assumptions
OAS -.02
DI +.02
OASDI .00

Economic data and assumptions
OAS -.01
DI +.01
OASDI .00

Disability assumptions
OAS .00
DI .00
OASDI .00

Methods and programmatic data
OAS +.31
DI +.01
OASDI +.32

Total change in actuarial balance
OAS +.23
DI +.03
OASDI +.26

Shown in this report:
Actuarial balance
OAS -1.46
DI -.24
OASDI -1.70

At first glance this would seem to throws a monkey wrench into the immigration as causation argument. Net change in actuarial balance due to demography is zero.

Changes in methodology are the main reason for the decrease in the deficit. The most significant methodological change for this report is the introduction of a new approach for projecting other (undocumented and temporary legal) immigration. Changes in several assumptions and recent data had largely offsetting effects. For example, an increase in the assumed level of legal immigration improved the OASDI actuarial balance by 0.07 percent of payroll, but this improvement was offset by other changes in demographic assumptions and starting values. For a detailed description of the specific changes identified in table II.D2 below, see section Long Range Estimates IV.B.7 on page 67.

You have to scroll to section 7 to get the explanation but the net effect of the changes in how 'other immigrants' effect the solvency of the system is .30% of payroll.

I might point out that the Trustees are not tasked with presenting ideal policy options, nor do the three cabinet members among them have much authority over immigration enforcement. Instead they are asked to project actual numbers as they exist on the ground. Social Security solvency is an important thing but not so important as ignoring side effects on economic justice. If Congress wants to act in a way that restricts illegal immigration in a way that raises employment and real wages among the legal population well let them have at it, that would probably have a positive net effect on Social Security anyway.

[Ali]

A few years ago, I looked at the SS payouts for a year (available on the SS website) versus the money in the Suspense Fund. The latter is the accumulation of literally decades. At that time, the money in the Suspense would have covered maybe six months worths of obligations. $13 BILLION seems like a lot until you look at what the System owes each year.

[Bruce Webb]

Ali, unless by 'a few years' you mean sometime in the late eighties this just isn't so. Trust Fund Reserves as a function of time exceeded one full year of expenditures in 1993 and have since grown to three and a half years.
Table IV.A3.—Operations of the Combined OASI and DI Trust Funds, Calendar Years 2003-17These are typically expressed in terms of a Trust Fund Ratio where 1 year = 100. The TF ratio at the end of 2007 was 345, in dollar terms the combined Trust Fund had $2.2 trillion in assets as opposed to total 2007 cost of $785 billion.

Nor are the Trust Funds really the result of 'decades of accumulation'. The Trust Funds actually hit zero during the course of 1983 and only slowly built after that.
Table VI.A4.—Historical Operations of the Combined OASI and DI Trust Funds,
Calendar Years 1957-2007 [Amounts in billions] It wasn't until 1993 that the Trust Fund ratio hit it statutory target of 100. Trust Fund annual surpluses were pretty steady between 1989 and 1995 in the range of $55 billion a year, they exploded in the years after 1996 to the $200 billion a year plus we will be experiencing going forward.

I have provided convenient access to all Reports back to 2001 in HTML and to 1942 in PDF. For example you would be one link away from the 2008 Social Security Report List of Tables by clicking on this; 2008 Report If you prefer to download your own versions you can go right to the source at http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TR/index.html

Because I am afraid that vague recollections of something people read about Social Security some time back some where are not cutting it anymore. The data is readily available in HTML, PDF and by request in paper with first class postage paid by the SSA. People who want to cite numbers should do so with some precision.

[Brooks]

As follow-up to my comment upthread:

Last year Heritage and the WSJ debated the issue of fiscal impact of illegal immigrants in a broader, more appropriate manner than the overly narrow, inappropriately simplistic approach some apparently take of just looking at their contributions to SS. I can't speak to the validity of either of these analyses (and I assume many here regard Heritage and the WSJ as just different versions of Satan) but I offer them to point out that the analysis of impact on our fiscal outlook, and in turn on SS, requires asking a broader set of questions to get at the overall fiscal impact.
http://www.heritage.org/research/immigration/SR14es.cfm
http://opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010116
http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed052407c.cfm
http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed061207b.cfm

[anne]

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/25/look-and-feel-15-years-younger/

March 25, 2008

Look and Feel 15 Years Younger!
By Paul Krugman

The latest report of the Social Security Trustees * is out. I think the key message is what has happened to the estimate of actuarial balance ** — the difference between projected outlays and projected revenues over the next 75 years. This is the thing that's supposed to get steadily worse as time goes by, as the 75-year window contains ever fewer years in which the baby boomers are in the work force, paying payroll taxes, and ever more years when the boomers are out of the work force and collecting benefits.

In fact, however, the actuarial balance has been improving rather than worsening. It's now better than it's been since 1993. What this tells us is that projections made in the mid-to-late 1990s were, in the light of subsequent revisions, way too pessimistic.

Moral: Social Security's financial problem is relatively minor. It doesn't deserve the emphasis it receives from most pundits.

* http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TR/TR08/trTOC.html

** http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TR/TR08/VI_LRact_bal.html#102806

[Heritage is Not Credible]

Heritage isn't credible, and those studies are all about legal immigration costs which has nothing to do with the point here. Even the WSJ knocks Heritage - they got it totally wrong - so why bother with it?:

"One basic flaw in the Heritage analysis is that, as a study by the Immigration Policy Center points out: "The vast majority of immigrants are not eligible to receive any of these [welfare] benefits for many years after their arrival in the United States. . . . Legal permanent residents cannot receive SSI [Supplemental Security Income], which is available only to U.S. citizens, and are not eligible for means-tested public benefits until 5 years after receiving their green cards."

Illegal immigrants are also ineligible for any kind of federal welfare benefits--with the exception of emergency health care. Many of the Congressional proposals to legalize this population would not allow these workers to collect welfare until waiting up to eight years for a green card and five years after that."

[anne]

All that is important is to understand that Social Security has a massive an growing surplus, and will be completely fine for decades to come but we are in the midst of a $3 trillion war that the fiends who wish to slash and bash Social Security care nothing about. War is costless, while caring for Grandma is costly beyond compare; such is the chant of Social Security fiends.

Let us all turn to Heritage fiends now and chant against the gohst of Franklin Roosevelt. Wooooo.

[anne]

"Something there is that doesn't love a wall," she remembered. Free the antelopes!

[Brooks]

Heritage,

Re: "those studies are all about legal immigration costs"

You are correct. Thanks for pointing out my mistake. Per the Heritage study, only 40% of the group they were analyzing, "households headed by immigrants without a high school diploma" were illegal immigrants, and 60% legal.

Re: "Even the WSJ knocks Heritage - they got it totally wrong - so why bother with it?"

As I stated clearly in my comment, I can't speak to the validity of either analysis, but I presented them to illustrate the broader analytical perspective that is appropriate for addressing and quantifying the overall net fiscal impact of illegal immigrants, which in turn largely determines their impact on our ability to fund SS. Simply calculating what they will pay into SS and what they will receive in benefits is an overly narrow, misleading approach. That's my point.

[Brooks]

Heritage,

Correction:

You wrote: "those studies are all about legal immigration costs"

And I gave you credit for pointing out my mistake, and I still do. But I was wrong for describing your comment as "correct". You made the same type of error that I did. As I stated above, the Heritage analysis covered a segment comprised partly of illegal immigrants and partly legal. So we were both wrong.

[Brooks]

By the way, does anyone know of a source of detailed info on funding of think tanks? Is such info (e.g., how much money specific individuals and specific organizations/businessesses donated) generally publicly available?

[BJ Feng]

I read the Heritage study back when it was released. From what I remember, there were several scenarios they studied and so it's important to tie a number to a particular scenario.

In the main or first scenario, illegal immigrants are assumed to remain illegal. Heritage then calculates the costs of providing public services such as education and medical care (yes many illegals use the emergency rooms for non-emergency health care). Illegal also receive WIC and other benefits because many State agencies do not require proof of legal residence for aid, and are fighting the Secure ID Act passed by Congress. Most States also give in-State tuition rates and other subsidies to illegal immigrants knowingly.

Heritage calculates costs based on what illegals can already receive. They then show that most illegals work in low paying jobs and calculate state sales taxes collected and SS taxes collected based on those low paying jobs.

The conclusion they reach is that illegals are a net drain to a tune of around $15,000 per year. Under another scenario where illegals are made legal, the drain increases to more than $20,000 a year per illegal if I remember correctly. The increase comes from more available benefits, including the Earned Income Tax Credit that would actually give them money back for filing a tax return because their incomes are so low. The only criticism I can come up with is that they include cost of K-12 education in their calculations, and I believe they include children of illegals (NOT SURE ABOUT THIS) in that calculation, though many are US citizens.

Regardless, even if you remove the cost of K-12 education, the fact remains that illegals are a net drain to our society. They occupy low paying jobs that will actually result in a net negative revenue for the US Treasury (through the EITC where the government pays low income people for work) if legalized, and generate very little revenue as they stand currently. They don't contribute much to the sales tax as they don't have much to spend, yet take up far more in public benefits. The general conclusions of the study have yet to be challenged on a serious level by anyone I know of. Most objections attack the study's source of funds and Heritages ties, not the validity of the study itself.

Hey, just because I give $100 to NPR doesn't mean they are wrong when they announce the time is 1:00PM.

[NoMoreBlatherDotCom]

Studies, schmudies. I'll stipulate that whatever type of immigrant you want to consider could benefit the average household up to $50 a month. I'm absolutely positive that not even the most biased study would even come close to that, but I'd be willing to say up to $50/month.

However, as a condition I require those "economists" and others who consistently promote various kinds of immigration to try to put a dollar figure on the costs they consistently fail to note.

For instance, I have yet to see a single "economist" note the PoliticalPower that the MexicanGovernment has inside the U.S. That includes links to U.S. NGOs and even Democratic politicians. That includes having links to some of those who organized the 2006 marches (one organizer is a former ConsulGeneral, another is an official with a MexicanPoliticalParty, some others serve on a MexicanGovernment advisory board, etc.) And, the MexicanGovernment has explicitly stated that they're going to be using U.S. NGOs to push their agenda inside the U.S. They're also spending millions on ads to push their agenda. They give away "free" textbooks to U.S. public schools that teach their side of history. Various MSM reporters have gushed over their local MexicanConsuls, and others have taken their words completely at face value. CNN allowed a MexicanCitizen to quiz the U.S. presidential candidates at their recent debate, without revealing the fact that he's a MexicanCitizen. And on and on and on.

Got a cost for all those, Mark Thoma?

[Mark Thoma]

Nice distortions.

I think free speech is a good thing and I support it, even for people I disagree with.

I think journalists could do a lot to improve, but hard to blame that on illegals.

The cost of allowing free speech? It's a benefit...

But yes, we should be pretty worried that Mexico is going to take us over!!! Be afraid!!! Good thing we're building a fence.

[Some people should abide by the monikers they choose.]

[anne]

"The conclusion they reach is that illegals are a net drain to a tune of around $15,000 per year."

"The conclusion they reach is that illegals are a net drain to a tune of around $150,000 per year."

"The conclusion they reach is that illegals are a net drain to a tune of around $1,500,000 per year."

"The conclusion they reach is that illegals are a net drain to a tune of around $15,000,000 per year."

"The conclusion they reach is that illegals are a net drain to a tune of around $150,000,000 per year."

[Brooks]

BJ,

Does the Heritage study consider non-fiscal economic effects, most notably lower prices for goods (groceries, housing, etc.) due to lower labor cost? This effect obviously positively impacts our standard of living (in aggregate, and for most Americans), so should be considered before concluding, as you have, that illegals are "a net drain to our society", right?

[anne]

"CNN allowed a MexicanCitizen to quiz the U.S. presidential candidates at their recent debate, without revealing the fact that he's a MexicanCitizen."

OMG!

Are Mexican Citizens different than MexicanCitizens or just Mexican Citizens?

Is the Mexican Government different than the MexicanGovernment or just the MexicanGovernment?

OMG!

Actually though the painting is lovely, Mexican Painting that is which is different than MexicanPainting to which I am largely in-different.

[anne]

http://www.ddooss.org/articulos/cuentos/Beckett_S.htm

1988

Sobresaltos
Por Samuel Beckett
Traducción de Antonio Marquet

Sentado una noche a su mesa con la cabeza en las manos se vio levantarse y partir. Una noche o un día. Pues aunque apagada su luz no se quedaba a oscuras. Le venía entonces de la única alta ventana una apariencia de luz. Debajo de ella todavía el banco en el cual se subía a ver el cielo hasta ya no poder desearlo. Si no se asomaba para ver cómo era abajo era quizá porque la ventana no estaba hecha para abrirse o porque no podía o no quería abrirla. Quizá sabía perfectamente cómo era abajo y ya no deseaba verlo. Tan bien que permanecía simple y llanamente allí encima de la lejana tierra viendo a través del vidrio nublado el cielo sin nubes. Tenue luz invariable sin par en su memoria de días y noches de antaño en los que la noche venía puntualmente a relevar al día y el día a la noche. Única luz pues apagada la suya de ahora en adelante aquélla le llegaría del exterior hasta que a su vez se apagara dejándolo en la oscuridad. Hasta que él a su vez se apague....

[Mark Thoma]

My grandfather spoke perfect Spanish. He learned when he was a little boy. His father ran a labor camp - I think for the railroads in Northern California but not completely sure. He always said that, growing up, it was easier for him to learn to speak Spanish than for others to speak English since he was pretty much the only kid in the camps who spoke English (this was when he was around five until he was older).

My grandfather turned out to be a WWII serving, flag waving, get those damn hippies off my lawn type conservative. Even with his background, there was no hint that he adopted anything but a US-centric, ultra-patriotic philosophy. In fact, he showed illegals little respect (though I will admit he loved the food and insisted that it be prepared authentically - however, actually seeing the lard go into refried beans kind of tempers your taste for them, at least it did for me).

The small ag town I grew up in is just about 50% non-native speakers, it was like that when I was a kid, it was like that when my mom (who was born there) was a kid, it's been stable forever. It's basically made up of true-blue conservative farmers with gun racks in their pickups, GWB stickers, country music on the radio, and the people who work on or support the farming effort. [I don't think they want the illegals to go anywhere though.]

I see no need for worry, except that somehow exposure to illegal aliens and Mexican culture leads to flag-waving conservatism with little tolerance for others.

[anne]

Mark Thoma:

"My grandfather spoke perfect Spanish. He learned when he was a little boy. His father ran a labor camp - I think for the railroads in Northern California but not completely sure. He always said that, growing up, it was easier for him to learn to speak Spanish than for others to speak English since he was pretty much the only kid in the camps who spoke English (this was when he was around five until he was older)."

There is language immersion, at just the right age.

[Brooks]

I have mixed feelings about illegal immigration. I think there are legitimate (and illegitimate) arguments on both "sides". There are economic arguments on both sides. There are humanitarian arguments on both sides (although I'm more sympathetic on a humanitarian level to an extremely poor illegal immigrant than to a relatively well-off American blue collar worker). And while there is some degree of xenophobia and racism among opponents, I do understand the concerns some have that a heavy influx in their communities may make them less competitive in the job market or in business unless they become fluent in Spanish, and I understand the negative feelings some have to our borders being violated (as a matter of principle).

I wish America could have a more respectful, thoughtful debate on the issue than we've seen so far.

[notsneaky]

"there really isn't a good argument why we should tolerate illegal immigration given that we can increase legal immigration"

You're equivocating on the word "can" here. Of course in some sense we "can" increase legal immigration. Are we going to? Is it politically feasible (to increase it to the extent that it will put a dent in illegal immigration)? Nope.

But yes, of course, increasing the possibility of legal immigration would make the enforcement of remaining illegal immigration much easier.

[Patricia Shannon]

I agree with Brooks in this instance. Extremism on either side of any issue is almost always irrational.

[Andrew Biggs]

Bruce,

Ali referred to the suspense fund, which you took to mean the trust fund. Actually, the suspense fund is a record of the amount of taxes paid that couldn't be attributed to individuals. It's assumed that most of this is taxes from illegal immigrants -- e.g., if you use a fake Social Security Number and pay taxes, those taxes will go to Social Security but the agency won't be able to figure out who they should go to. If the total value of all those unclaimed taxes is only $13 billion, that gives you a rough idea of how much taxes are being paid by these folks. Some illegals use other people's SSNs, not fake ones; taxes paid by these workers would be credited to an actual person, though that may get sifted out later. None of this settles the issue, but Ali raises an interesting point.

[Bruce Webb]

Thank you Dr. Biggs. In that case I have some of the same questions as Ali, the amounts in the Suspense fund are hardly enough to explain a .30 change in actuarial gap. As I read the Trustees Report they did not seem to be explaining this shift as funds simply caught up in administration confusion but instead as funds paid in under accounts that never accumulated forty quarters of eligibility. That is whether you are talking legal/illegal or single/multiple user of a particular account if there is not the equvalent of 10 years of participation in the system than nobody gets anything. If the typical life cycle of a more or less fraudulent SSN is less than ten years then both the legal immigrant and the groups of illegal immigrants lose out on benefits.

As stated on your site the $12 billion a year attributed to what I am now informed to be called 'Suspence accounts' do not seem to be a big enough tail to wag this dog. My thanks to you and my apologies to Ali. But in self-serving defense both the infoormation and disinformation is flowing pretty freely since 3PM EDT Tuesday with the Report Release, it may take us some time to reach nuance.

[BJ Feng]

You're equivocating on the word "can" here. Of course in some sense we "can" increase legal immigration. Are we going to? Is it politically feasible (to increase it to the extent that it will put a dent in illegal immigration)? Nope.

If that were the issue being debated! I'm perfectly willing to support an increase in legal immigration up to around 3 million a year. I believe most Americans would have no problem with an increase in legal immigration. But that's not even on the table. The illegal immigration crowd refuses to discuss raising legal immigration levels because that would force them to concede that there should be enforcement on illegals above and beyond the legal number. They would have to support enforcement and wouldn't be able to defend what they really are after, unrestricted immigration and open borders. That's why they refuse to engage in a meaningful discussion about increasing immigration and refuse to set a target number. Instead, they argue that the United States has no right to set any number and illegal immigrants, once they make it over the border, should be made legal all the while protesting any attempt to stop them from coming over the border in the first place. Basically, they state that there should be no such thing as illegal immigration, which effectively means that there should be no maximum number, thus open borders.

If you believe that the United States has the right to set a number, then you also must also agree with enforcement or else that number is meaningless. That's why the debate is not about how many immigrants we should let in. It's not even on the table!

[oops]

the ssa has something like 9-10 million contributors that they know to be fake. so these workers can't but help the baby boomer retirement burden that we face.

one of bernanke's first speaches after taking his job as fed chair was about the coming boomer burden. in the q&a afterward he was asked if immigration could solve the problem. he said that we would have to triple it if that were going to be the only fix.

i have no link for this. it was in the q&a and was not part of the text that was available online. still illegals can't solve the issue but can contribute.

that's one reason that i'm a staus quo'er on immigration. the payroll tax is a fine little illegal alien tax that most will never see a dime from (except when the feds raid it to pay for other stuff, but that is another "lockbox" matter)

the dallas morning news named the illegal alien their person of the year in texas last year saying "we can't live with 'em and we can't live without 'em"

here's that link
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/texanofyear/stories/123007dnedianonymous.278c46.html

[anne]

What are illegal aliens as opposed to legal aliens and why are we not doing more to oppose Martians who are are come to earth for Martian-like reasons known only to Martians?

says...

"that's one reason that i'm a staus quo'er on immigration. the payroll tax is a fine little illegal alien tax that most will never see a dime from (except when the feds raid it to pay for other stuff, but that is another "lockbox" matter)"

The only problem is that the illegal alien once he becomes legalized will demand his SS money. You can bank on that.

[anne]

"The only problem is that the illegal alien once he becomes legalized will demand his SS money."

Since Martians are planning to take control legally or non-legally, I would not worry. "Martian Power."

[oops]

"The only problem is that the illegal alien once he becomes legalized will demand his SS money. You can bank on that."

first of all since they jumped in line they don't get legalized. don't like it? so sorry that is what you get for jumping in line. that's what status quo means.

second- they can't prove that they paid it since they did so under someone else's ss#. currently that is a crime. they have no legal recourse.

the only way they get it is if reform allows them to get it through some path to citizenship for illegls. we can keep the laws the way they are now and they get nothing but their paychecks.

[Icarus]

I'm amused at the particiapants on this blog who want open borders, and a massive welfare state, all at the same time.

Exactly who will pay for all this, no one seems to care...'blame the capitalists!'.

I have 25 million people in the slums of Mumbai and Calcutta who'd love US education for their children, medicare/aid, and other handouts of the US. Should they be allowed to emmigrate? No paperwork, no permissions?

[Brooks]

Icarus,

That's a good point. It seems to apply to all immigration, legal or illegal, however, unless your point is that, with legal immigration, we can screen for economic viability (or sponsors) and can limit quantity. But in itself, your argument seems to be that we shouldn't allow millions more poor immigrants into this country, whether legal or illegal. I'm not criticizing your point, just making that observation. As a practical matter, the distinction may not make much difference.

On the other hand, you seem to be considering only one side of the equation. There are economic benefits that poor immigrants (legal or illegal) bring, most notably cheap labor and lower prices.

[oops]

Icarus-

Mexico City has millions of people that don't come here. Those that come are in generally hard workers. Illegals don't get welfare to any large extent. They pay the medicare and medicaid of others through the payroll tax. Education isn't welfare. It is investment in human capital which provides future returns.

One of the biggest mistakes that the anti-immigrataion crowd makes is confusing the cashflow of investment in education with expense. cashflow does not equal expense.

[PanicInDetroit]

* Immigrants have one birthday per year, just like citizens. Not only that, but they often work in dangerous / physically demanding jobs and thus qualify for disability rather quickly.

* Everyone seems to agree that illegals provide cheap labor. But low wages = low taxes. How many $11/hour illegal drywall hangers does it take to cover the SS benefit of a $30/hr union drywall hanger? More importantly, how many illiterate illegals does it take to cover the SS benefit of a median educated American such as the readers of this blog?

* As to the "housing cost" issue, illegal immigrants often share housing well beyond the terms of their lease / fire code provisions. This increases demand and drives up rental prices.

says...

"the only way they get it is if reform allows them to get it through some path to citizenship for illegls. we can keep the laws the way they are now and they get nothing but their paychecks."

This will never fly.