The carrying costs of immigrants: a response to Arnold Kling

In response to my post on GDP per capita, Arnold Kling responded:

Letting in a low-skilled immigrant to mow my lawn will indeed lower average productivity in this country. But I will be better off.

Indeed, if we let in a single low-skilled immigrant just to do services for Arnold Kling, Arnold Kling will benefit, but only at the expense of other American taxpayers who have to pay his servant's carrying costs.

In a modern welfare state, letting in low skilled, low IQ, low wage immigrants, lowers the standard of living of non-immigrants because they have to pay for the immigrants’ carrying costs.

All levels of government in the United States spend approximately $16,800 per person per year ($5.1105 trillion of spending divided by 304.2 million people). A guy who mows lawns does not pay $16,800 of taxes, thus his labor is being heavily subsidized by the American taxpayer.

In fact, if the immigrant works 40 hours per week, he needs to earn more than $8.07/hour just to make as much money as the government is spending on his support. I don’t know how you can say that an immigrant is adding to the economy if the market value of his labor is less than what it costs the government to subsidize him. If a business owned a machine that produced $15,000 per year of output, but cost $16,8000 per year to maintain, the machine would be sold for scrap. Of course that assumes that the business is paying the machine’s costs. If the government were paying for the machine, then of course the business would keep it, because all businesses are glad to take corporate welfare from the government. Immigration is a form of corporate welfare.

We should also consider that immigrants become citizens and then vote in elections. If they are poor, they will vote for politicians who promise to increase government spending for poor people. It’s strange that a libertarian like Arnold Kling promotes a government immigration policy that’s guaranteed to result in a bigger welfare state.

How much money does an immigrant have to earn before the value that his labor adds to the economy plus the amount of taxes that he pays equals $16,800 per year? To be on the safe side, we should insist that an immigrant be able to earn at least twice that amount, $33,600 per year or $16.14 per hour, before he’s allowed to move here. The $33,600 per year worker still doesn't pay his share of taxes, but there's a chance that the value of his labor plus his taxes paid makes his presence worthwhile.

Hardly any illegal immigrants earn $33,600 per year, so all illegal immigrants should be deported.

Comments

[Polanski]

immigrants as parasites

Hallmarks of a parasitical population:

1. dependency on caucasians
2. high crime rates
3. low IQ; therefore no entrepreneurial skills
4. affirmative action/blame whitey mentality

[Uncle Kenny]

Or just raise the minimum wage to $16!, he said, channeling the democrats running for president.

[Steve Johnson]

I don't see how an economist can disagree with this post. In conventional economics (half sigma econ works differently) workers get paid their marginal product of labor; low pay is proof of low value work.

The only real argument left is that it's a huge benefit to the immigrant to be let into the country. Strangely this argument is exactly the same as the argument for extreme wealth redistribution. The argument for soak the rich, give to the poor (if you're economically literate) goes, "well, it makes the rich worse off and damages the economy in the long run, but the people on the bottom benefit greatly."

"Libertarian" economists end up making the same argument in favor of letting in immigrants; "well, they're a net drain on tax payers and they lower wages for the poor / working class, but the immigrants themselves are made much better off." How can you consistently make one argument but not the other? At least the liberal position is consistent: destroy future productivity to "help" the poor of today.

[what if]

Half Sigma, what I like in your post is that you differentiated between illegal and legal immigrants.

You make a good point, but this is not the full story. For example, if we deport all the illegal immigrants, who's going to mow Arnold Kling's lawn?

I agree with illegal immigrant deportations only because of the long term benefits. Some of them don't seem to have the potential to be productive in other ways than low skilled jobs.

[Gil]

But another problem is that it takes lots of money to find and deport illegal immigrants.

[Randall Parker]

I continue to be amazed at libertarians who favor the immigration of people who will vote for highly anti-libertarian policies.

[Mulching Mower]

"For example, if we deport all the illegal immigrants, who's going to mow Arnold Kling's lawn?"

Maybe he could do it himself. People used to cut their own lawns. Some still do.

[what if]

Maybe he could do it himself. People used to cut their own lawns. Some still do.
What about restaurants? Who's going to wash the dished, serve the customers, wipe the floors, deliver the food on bikes, etc? This country has been built on cheap labor. It started with slaves, then irish and italian immigrants, and now mexicans.

[what if]

Maybe he could do it himself. People used to cut their own lawns. Some still do.
At Bell Labs in 2002 they decided to cut costs. One of the costs they cut was the low paid mail man. The mail was dropped somewhere on a very long corridor and everybody had to go there to check their mail. It took me 5 minutes to get there, that's 10+ in total wasted. If everybody lost 10 minutes with the mail, the company was actually losing a lot more in productivity that what the mail man costs.

The same with mowing the lawn. It's more cost efficient to pay an illegal immigrant do it than do it yourself, especially if you don't get any satisfaction from it. So in a way, the guy who mows the lawn enables Arnold Kling to make more money.

[Comrade Smiley]

I can't believe this. There are still those that argue against replacing the population of North America. Whether or not Arnold Kling mows his own lawn is immaterial. Understand this; you don't have the right to argue against your disposession. Your guilt is as plain as the sickly, white skin on your face, that is all that matters.

[Mark]

You say we "have to pay the carrying costs" and that's 100% wrong. Whites have chosen to pay for a welfare state out of misplaced guilt and disregard for their own children's future.

White people's taxation is immoral, as is their love of it and the welfare/warfare state it creates.

Whites are about to elect a Mugabe or Mandela who will ruin their country; that's more important than immigration.

[Mulching Mower]

what if,
Before all this illegal immigration were all of our lawns overgrown and dishes dirty? Dishwashers are now automatic and there are robots that can cut the lawn.

http://www.friendlyrobotics.com/robomow/

[professor]

The problem is that people who decide to immigrate illegally are the worse off people in their native country. They tend to be the least educated and the ugliest. Luckily, they are not parasites, but rather hard working, as they know they will have to work hard in their new country. No wonder that they generally perform the low skill jobs.

The question remains: do we want them? If you look at US immigration policy, the answer is yes.

[New Anon]

"so all illegal immigrants should be deported."

All Non-NEAsian, Non-whites LEGAL immigrants should be thrown out of the country.

Non-white, Non-NEAsian legal immigrants I have seen are just as stupid, arrogant, ugly and welfare prone as the illegals are (And I am not really in love with NEAsians either, but at least their birthrate is low and they pay taxes due to high incomes).

[New Anon]

"I continue to be amazed at libertarians who favor the immigration of people who will vote for highly anti-libertarian policies."

Maybe they privately want to overload the welfare system with immigrants on top of the baby boomer retirements to the point where whites rebel against tax rates?

Or maybe we simply need more NeoNazis to join the CATO institute? ;)

[Tired of Smoke Rings]

"Luckily, they are not parasites, but rather hard working, as they know they will have to work hard in their new country. No wonder that they generally perform the low skill jobs...The question remains: do we want them?"

Define "we". The fact that people are being robbed tag-team style by what Vdare.com accurately describes as the "treason lobby" confuses people.

A low skilled worker can emmigrate from Mexico and improve their compensation level by several orders of magnitude. This includes the entire matrix of our civilzation which most of us take for granted. Things like good roads, rule of law, running water, sewerage...not to mention wages, public schools and subsidised medical care. The enterprises that employ immigrant labor have an economic incentive or they wouldn't be hiring them. The suckers getting stuck with the check is everybody else. So really in spite of their "hard work" most of the benefit comes from John Q. Taxslave. Personally, my tolerance for government enforced do-goodism and business subsidy is being strained.

[Canson]

"Maybe they privately want to overload the welfare system with immigrants on top of the baby boomer retirements to the point where whites rebel against tax rates?"

That's a hot one! You can't even get most people to openly admit that immigration is a problem at all. Only the worst kind of bigot wouldn't want to shell out thousands of extra dollars a year so that the local agribiz, fast food franchisee or welfare case worker can get their's.

[Peter]

Comparisons of this sort are difficult because people differ markedly in the amount of services they receive vs. the taxes they pay.

[JewishAtheist]

All levels of government in the United States spend approximately $16,800 per person per year ($5.1105 trillion of spending divided by 304.2 million people).

Illegal immigrants don't significantly add to the costs of defense, the interest, etc., so your math is BS. It costs the government something to carry them, but not 16 grand.

You're also not taking into account the fact that work can add to the economy more than its paid by an employer.

Real economists almost unanimously agree that illegal immigrants are a net plus to the economy.

[JewishAtheist]

test

[JewishAtheist]

Sorry, last sentence should be:

Real economists almost unanimously agree that illegal immigrants are a net plus to the economy.

[Comrade Smiley]

Wow, JA stoops to conquer. I imagine that citing the WSJ must have been distasteful. As for me, I would rather drink bleach. Way to take on for the team, JA, you're a mensh!

[New Anon]

Jewish Atheist,

I think Israel is underpopulated.

Perhaps the US needs to force Israel to take in, oh, 15 million Nigerians and 10 million Yemenis.

I'm sure they will add to the Israeli economy, after all "Real economists almost unanimously agree" that low-skill third world immigration is "good".

Best of all, those nice young strapping Nigerian men will get their hands on some nice, curvy Israeli beach babes - one way or another.

I am sure they will especially enjoy those nice blond Israeli beach babes who immigrated from the Former Soviet Union.

And I hear Yemenis are really useful at setting up explosive devices.

You agree don't you, asshole? ;)

[Christopher Tracy]

But don't a lot of immigrants add more than the 16 thousand something odd dollars than the government spends on them by adding to the productivity for the companies they work for?

I think you could argue this especially for immigrants who work for factories and produce goods which more than surpass the wage their paid. An immigrant might make 16k a year, but could produce over 50k in goods for a factory, and government would earn more money in taxes from taxing the company and then receiving sales taxes on the goods the immigrant produces.

Sorry if this is a little rambled. I just got up.

[JewishAtheist]

Just shocking that two commenters would refer to the fact that I'm Jewish in their replies. Why don't you guys just admit your immigration concerns are 100% racist? Why all the bullshit about the economy, etc.?

[New Anon]

"Why don't you guys just admit your immigration concerns are 100% racist?"

Does Israel have a right to remain Jewish?

And if you answer "yes" then why is it not ok for White nations to stay white while Israel can have an essentially race based immigration policy?

You leftist Jews can't have it both ways and then scream "HITLER" when somebody points out the contradiction.

(I am half Jewish, btw, but was raised Catholic and never identified as Jewish so don't scream racism at me please).

[Brandon Berg]

Low-skill illegal immigrants don't each pay $16,000 per year in taxes, but they also don't go to school, collect Social Security or Medicare, or necessitate additional military spending.

The ideal solution, I think, would be to aggressively recruit high-skill immigrants while creating a guest worker program for low-skill immigrants. That way we get the benefit of their work while minimizing carrying costs.

[Mark]

As New Anon suggested, I do hope the welfare system gets overloaded and collapses. I resent every penny extracted from me in taxation, and think anyone advocating any level of forcible taxation is immoral, and my enemy.

[Nathan]

New Anon is half Jewish?

This explains everything about his posts.

[JewishAtheist]

New Anon:

First of all, we aren't talking about whether the U.S. has the "right" to "remain" white. We're talking about whether illegals are a net plus or net minus for the economy. All I'm asking is that racists stop pretending that they want to stop (illegal/legal) immigration out of their great concern for our economy. Quit being pussies about your real beliefs just because you know they're unpopular.

As for Israel, first, I am not an Israeli and probably never will be. Second, Israel has exactly the same "right" to maintain whatever demographics they want as any other country does. Third, Jews are not a race. Israel has tons of black Ethiopian Jews, for example, and a bunch of Arab citizens as well. Fourth, Israel is a bit of a special case, since it really was founded out of a desire to have a safe place for Jews.

[David Alexander]

And if you answer "yes" then why is it not ok for White nations to stay white while Israel can have an essentially race based immigration policy?

Well, there are black, Arab, Persian, and Indian Jews so it's not exactly a race based policy, but a policy that is based on the inherited religion of the applicant.

a guest worker program for low-skill immigrants

I think you'll have to contend with the problem some of the guest-workers may like America more than their home nations. They may also stumble upon pesky Americans who may think that they're potential romantic interests.

Interestingly as a policy proposal, I wonder if it would be cheaper to just spend billions on building Mexico up to code. It's slightly similar to how the EU (and the former European Commmunity) spent billions on repairing and upgrading critical infrastructure, industry, and social welfare instruments on its poorer members to ensure that they would meet minimal standards of first world living. An economically developed Mexico would be less likely to have large outflows of immigrants leaving to come to the US. While Canadians do immigrate to the US, one doesn't see large outflows of the Canadian population fleeing to move to the US primarily because Canada is economically developed enough to employ its citizens.

a bunch of Arab citizens as well

I've always wondered how Israel would have worked out had the "local area Arab residents" did not flee in the 1948 war. A Jewish state with a large plurality of Arabs...

[tommy]

Real economists almost unanimously agree that illegal immigrants are a net plus to the economy.

Steve Sailer has previously responded to that article by pointing out that most of the economists in question know next to nothing about immigration.

[tommy]

Third, Jews are not a race. Israel has tons of black Ethiopian Jews,

The black population in Israel is minuscule compared to the black population in the United States. Jews are much closer to being a race than a religion. There are far more irreligious Jews who are Jews by birthright than there are non-ethnic Jews who have converted to Judaism.

for example, and a bunch of Arab citizens as well.

Which Israeli Jews are constantly fretting about.

Fourth, Israel is a bit of a special case, since it really was founded out of a desire to have a safe place for Jews.

As opposed to the overrunning of almost every country that could be a safe place for non-Jewish whites -- a policy supported by most Jews in these countries.

[tommy]

Whites are about to elect a Mugabe or Mandela who will ruin their country; that's more important than immigration.

You're much less likely to get the libertarian policies you want with more Mexicans in the country.

[Gamma Man]

Mowing lawns, picking lettuces, washing floors etc, are all jobs that can be automated, as some poster above pointed out.

Robotics is the answer in the twenty first century, not importing millions of unskilled and soon-to-be unemployable workers and their extended families.
Mr. Kling, we don't live in 1843 anymore.

As for your lawn, Kling, why don't you have your own son mow it for his allowance, or buy a damn ultra- tech gizmo to do it, since you're so progressive.

[JewishAtheist]

Steve Sailer has previously responded to that article by pointing out that most of the economists in question know next to nothing about immigration.

Funny how the experts are always wrong when they disagree with you.

[tommy]

Funny how the experts are always wrong when they disagree with you.

Sailer's point was that the "experts" aren't experts at all and the true experts on such matters, like George Borjas, should have been the ones the WSJ queried.

[tommy]

Robotics is the answer in the twenty first century, not importing millions of unskilled and soon-to-be unemployable workers and their extended families.
Mr. Kling, we don't live in 1843 anymore.

It would be interesting if we had an objective measure of the impact of immigration (and mean national IQ) on technological development. Technology has proven a far greater stimulus of economic growth over the past few hundred years than any economic policy argued by libertarians.

[tommy]

The ideal solution, I think, would be to aggressively recruit high-skill immigrants while creating a guest worker program for low-skill immigrants. That way we get the benefit of their work while minimizing carrying costs.

Guest worker programs have proven themselves a failure in every country foolish enough to try them. The "guests" in countries like Germany and France have never left. In the United States, with the ridiculous interpretation of the Constitution as granting birthright citizenship, the guests would have even less incentive to leave. The guest worker program that people like McCain have proposed should more accurately be called a "bypass the border patrol program."

[tommy]

All I'm asking is that racists stop pretending that they want to stop (illegal/legal) immigration out of their great concern for our economy. Quit being pussies about your real beliefs just because you know they're unpopular.

I'm not a pussy about my real beliefs. I want America to remain white and I believe immigration is a net economic loss. Somebody has to pay for the education of a rapidly growing population of Hispanic students (at least until a substantial number of them drop out of school) and it obviously isn't being financed by the tax revenue generated by their low-income parents.

Actually, it's you who are being the pussy. Half Sigma makes a commonsense argument about tax revenue versus expenditures and your response is an appeal to the authority of economists, nearly all of whom don't conduct research in the area of immigration, and as selected by the open borders Wall Street Journal. Man up.

[slwerner]

"Low-skill illegal immigrants don't each pay $16,000 per year in taxes, but they also don't go to school, collect Social Security or Medicare, or necessitate additional military spending."

Even if they don't go to school - their kids sure do. And those kid's typically cost more to educate than do typical white children (bilingual ed, free meals, etc).(We can save for another time a discussion of the effects of their reduced property tax liabilities, due to packing multiple families into single residences, on the balance of what they pay in vs what their children cost to educate)

And, while they technically don't receive Medicaid benefits, for all practical purposes, the fact that they are guaranteed emergency medical care - for which they are extremely unlikely to ever pay for - ends up costing taxpayers nearly the same as if they did.

And, don't be so certain about them not (eventually) collecting that SS. Already, immigration activists are starting to suggest that it is "unfair" that they pay in, but cannot get back. Some people are even musing about what potential changes in their ability to get SS benefits will mean for people who, for instance, have had their SS numbers used by illegals. Will these people get to keep the portion those who illegally used their numbers paid in, or will those illegals be able to sue to get "their" portion back?

I think a better way to assess the costs of individuals would be in a manner to the way we are now being asked to assess out individual "Carbon Footprints" - by our "Tax Cost Footprint".

Certain costs are unavoidable in such a consideration, but we need to focus in on those that are avoidable.

Without griping about just how much more than that $16.8K I personally pay in, I can will all honesty report that the taxpayers have never had to put me up in a jail facility (even for a night), I've never had medical costs that the taxpayer have had to "eat", I've always paid for the food I (and my family) have eaten with money I've earned, and taxpayers have never had to cleanup and fix any property damage to public properties that I've caused.

By avoiding creating such costs for others, I've managed to keep my own cost footprint down. I'm probably rather typical of the majority of the white populace of this country.

Now, given what we know of the typical illegal immigrant (and family), do you really believe they give a shit about keeping their own Tax Cost Footprints down? Right!

[mnjohn]

Has anybody mentioned that America is still far to the right when it comes to taxation and welfare compared to every other industrialized nation. So what we see now as far as what is costs in terms of taxes for illegal immigrants is smaller than what we'll pay once the democrats pass subsidized childcare, universal healthcare and the myriad of other programs.

[tommy]

Has anybody mentioned that America is still far to the right when it comes to taxation and welfare compared to every other industrialized nation.

But America isn't to the right of Mark, which is why we need to swamp America with Third World newcomers so that the system can collapse and we can create the libertarian utopia Mark has in mind. It's a strategy that has worked wonders in Africa and Latin America, you see?

[Independent Accountant]

Real economists? Jewish Atheist, are you familar with George Borjas of Harvard? He claims they cost the US about $338 billion a year net. Go to California and look around you ignoramus. Tell me they are a net plus. How did lawns get mowed before illegal aliens came? Why not invite all 800 million Africans here too?
My experience with academic economists is 90+% just live from grant to grant. Look at what happened to Larry Summers at Harvard. Economists by and large would be afraid to say anything other than illegal aliens are good for the economy. As Milton Friedman used to say, "You can't have open borders and a welfare state".

[professor]

Has anybody mentioned that America is still far to the right when it comes to taxation and welfare compared to every other industrialized nation. So what we see now as far as what is costs in terms of taxes for illegal immigrants is smaller than what we'll pay once the democrats pass subsidized childcare, universal healthcare and the myriad of other programs.

Most of the countries that recently joined EU have flat taxation: Lituania, Letonia, Estonia, Slovakia, and Romania. Not exactly underdeveloped countries. Their population is highly educated, a lot more than in the US. Other nearby countries joined suit: Ukraine, Russia, Macedonia, and others plan to switch this year: Croatia and Greece.

Why would they do this? It's because they are more interested in growing the pie than eating it.

[professor]

I like the german immigration system: give residency only to skilled workers, and make them pass a language test.

[Vim]

Maybe it's just me but I am in general disappointed when I follow up on much said here. As far as I can tell, Borjas says that immigrants add 30 billion to the US economy. In fact he says quite straightforwardly that:

I think the most credible estimate of the net benefit from immigration is probably around $30 billion

However, he seems to be saying there is a 400 billion dollar transfer from workers to employers that occurs because of the depression of wages. The United States keeps the money but the richer people get it.

http://borjas.typepad.com/the_borjas_blog/2007/06/no_pain_no_gain.html

[Nathan]

I always laugh when people get heated up over these immigration threads. This is the internet you God-damn idiots.

Realistically, there is probably not much that will be done in the near future about rampant illegal immigration. California, New Mexico, Arizona and Texas are already pretty much Hispanic states. The best case senario would be a tightening of the border with more walls/gaurds and a tighting up of the lax workplace enforement by ICE. That is it.

All this talk about white backlash and mass deportations is just that...talk.

But people like Tommy or New Anon love to waste time typing away about it. They must have a lot of spare time on their hands.

[SLORC]

"Even if they don't go to school - their kids sure do. And those kid's typically cost more to educate than do typical white children (bilingual ed, free meals, etc).(We can save for another time a discussion of the effects of their reduced property tax liabilities, due to packing multiple families into single residences, on the balance of what they pay in vs what their children cost to educate)"

You are mistaken if you think that this would bother liberals. First off, most send their kids to either private schools or "good" public (white/asian) ones. They don't have their precious kids come in contact with low IQ immigrant hispanics or blacks. Liberals also tend to live in "nice" (white, low amounts of kinorities, if any) areas as well, with hardly any immigrants around (or blacks for that matter). The only non-whites that show up come to cut the lawn, take care of a baby, etc...they don't live there. If there is an area that liberals want to live in, gentrification is a great way to take care of the problem of too many minorities or working/low-class, un-hip, whites about.
The added tax bill is a small price for them to pay to live in a "nice" area, send their kids to "nice" schools, yet maintain their liberal/progressive/non-racist credentials, lord it over us racists and engage in one upsmanship at Whole Foods. If anything liberals should be proud of themselves. They've got their "Separate but Equal" when it comes to schools and their living areas are segregated from minorities. If minorities have to leave an area because of rising rents, well, that is regretable and all, but...No fuss, no muss! Great work!

[Polanski]

I'm surprised no one has commented on who Mexicanillegals are. Suggest you read Heather Mac Donald's work on this issue in City Journal. Gangs, crime, illegitimacy--these people are creating a 2d underclass.

And some morons on this board think that these people will make good neighbors.

Dat a good one!

[Randall Parker]

"what if",

The illegal immigrant who frees up some time by his labor also uses lots of other people's time. He requires the time of doctors, nurses, medical technicians, people who supply hospital equipment, police, defense attorneys, judges, juries, teachers, social workers, and so on.

You can look at just what labor he does. But consider what labor he uses.

The labor he uses is far more skilled than the labor he provides. The laborers who serve him could do doing other things that produce goods and services for natives.

[Randall Parker]

Jewish Atheist,

Real economists? Few real economists study labor economics and few of those study immigrant labor economics.

Ah, but George Borjas at Harvard studies immigrant labor economics. He disagrees with the knee jerk libertarian and liberal economists who, using far less real evidence, proclaim the benefits of immigration.

[Polanski]

"I'm not a pussy about my real beliefs. I want America to remain white," says Tommy.

What about Indians, Chinese, Japanese? Most of the people from these groups are productive.

[David Alexander]

"I'm not a pussy about my real beliefs. I want America to remain white,"

It's rather ironic to see a South Asian openly admit to that sentiment. Obviously, *I* could never say something like that for obvious emotional reasons.

[Gil]

Invariably I doubt a Hispanic would care less about any effects (positive or negative) of immigration. It's not their problem if they ultimately net loss to society as their lot in life has a net increase. Perhaps the cringe factor is one that if poor migrants cause decent societies to go mostly broke then their lot in life might still not be any worse than from whence they came therefore they'd still have abolutely no incentive to stay at home.

[tommy]

But people like Tommy or New Anon love to waste time typing away about it. They must have a lot of spare time on their hands.

May I suggest you use your obviously valuable Saturday time more wisely by not responding to my time-wasting practices then?

[tommy]

What about Indians, Chinese, Japanese? Most of the people from these groups are productive.

I would still prefer America remain predominantly white than an Indo-Chinese hybrid. Culturally, I prefer Western Civ to the Oriental variety. If I didn't, I would move to China or India.

[tommy]

It's rather ironic to see a South Asian openly admit to that sentiment.

Germans come from South Asia?

[David Alexander]

Germans come from South Asia?

For some reason, I had presumed you were South Asian. I apologize for the error since it appears that I have confused you with another poster who may or may not exist.

[tommy]

For some reason, I had presumed you were South Asian. I apologize for the error since it appears that I have confused you with another poster who may or may not exist.

No problem, DA.

[mikeca]

This is the stupidest argument I have ever seen against illegal immigration. Most of the government spending is on Social Security, Medicare and National Defense. Illegal immigrants are never going to collect Social Security or Medicare. Some illegal immigrants who use stolen social security numbers and fake IDs, actually pay social security and Medicare taxes, even though they will never be able to collect benefits. Is anyone suggesting we could spend less on National Defense if we just got ride of all the illegal immigrants.

Bzzzt, try again. Come up with a real argument against illegal immigration.

[tommy]

Bzzzt, try again. Come up with a real argument against illegal immigration.

Among other things, how about the education of their children and the fact that those native-born children will be entitled to all the benefits you just mentioned even though, due to lower lifetime earnings, they will not pay nearly as much as whites do? As someone already mentioned, illegals are already entitled to de facto free health care via the emergency room.

Nice try, though.

[Half Sigma]

mikeca: "This is the stupidest argument I have ever seen against illegal immigration. Most of the government spending is on Social Security, Medicare and National Defense."

Obviously you didn't bother to click on the link, you're just spouting off your mouth.

Defense: $730.8 million
Social Security: $615.3 billion
Medicare: $396.3 billion
ALL SPENDING: $5,110.5 billion

Thus defense, SS and Medicare are 35% of all spending, that's not "most" of spending.

I don't know why you would include Medicare in there, if an illegal immigrant shows up at a hospital, the law says that he has to be treated. The way I see it, the illegal immigrant uses up MORE government healthcare spending than the typical working American who has health insurance and is able to pay his health bills.

Illegal immigrants probably cause more of other sorts of government spending because they consume more police and fire services and social welfare services.

There's no reason to think that illegal immigrants cost the government less per year than the typical working American, even after you average in Americans who used to work but are now retired.

Furthermore, this blog post was about all immigrants not just illegal immigrants. Illegal immigrants tend to become citizens because their babies are born here and are granted citizenship, and politicians keep granting them amnesty.

[Vim]

As far as I understand the consensus on immigration, it's a small net positive but if it is a net negative, it is a small net negative.

I agree with makeca in that I did catch the error that HS made, I would have said something at the time but I don't buy this is all about how much it costs in general. It's about how much it costs the white individuals concerned in particular and their particular concerns about their position in society.

Anyway, makeca's point doesn't have to prove that they cost nothing, only that it lowers the cost per immigrant below what you said it was, to the point where they are net positive.

The statistic you're using to compute the gain due to a particular immigrant is ad hoc and incomplete even at first glance.

[Mark]

State-worshipers like Polanski did such a good job creating the 1st underclass that it's time to try freedom for a change. Both McCain or Obama are giving them amnesty, so I guess your blogging was to no avail. More Mexican girls for guys like me.
The only race replaced will be the blacks, and that's a winner.

[professor]

US's biggest problem in terms of immigration: the new skilled workforce and companies are more and more international. It's not uncommon for people from HBS, Stanford GSB, to go work abroad. Due to globalization, it's easier than ever. This creates an international elite which can change countries easily. Top companies in consulting, IT, finance are international. Moving is easy. If US decides to tax more and more for a welfare state, why wouldn't the best workers leave for other countries?

[tommy]

The only race replaced will be the blacks, and that's a winner.

Blacks will still be here.

[DAJ]

David Alexander: "'I'm not a pussy about my real beliefs. I want America to remain white...'

Obviously, *I* could never say something like that for obvious emotional reasons."

You might be unable to utter aloud such a statement, but do you not at least believe it internally? Remember, your family left a black-run/black-majority nation for the more promising shores of a white-run /white-majority nation. I believe you have stated that your family emigrated from Haiti in the 1960s. The U.S. was around 90% white during that period.

Would you rather the U.S. retain its traditional white majority or transform into a polity with a black and Hispanic mestizo plurality? Be honest with yourself. What black or Hispanic mestizo society has ever collectively achieved first-world modernity? Are the populations of these societies showing collective signs of becoming first-word economies?

I am not of white northern and western European descent, but I find no other human population that has proved more capable of forming, sustaining, and running the amazing reality of a democratic, first-world, techno-industrial, modern nation (except for perhaps the Japanese, but they seem content on remaining in the Land of the Rising Sun). As I can attest, when you are not a northern/western European white, such an admission definitely fails to stroke the ego, but at some point one must shed emotion, look at a subject objectively, and come to a rational conclusion. It is not always easy.

[superdestroyer]

You need to put Arnold Kling's comments into context. He lives, I believe, in Fairfax County Virginia where there are virtually no blue collar whites. If there were no illegal immigration to fill all of the low paying, menial jobs that whites in Fairfax County refuse to do, then wages would be hier and there would be more blue collar whites. It is easier for elitist whites to function in a location where there are no blue collar whites because we you see whites, you know that are upper class.

Of course, blue collar whites do not have the coping mechanism fo ethnicity based business, packing extended families into a single house, cheating on taxes, identify theft, zoning code violations, and crime that help them cope with living in the same cities as the rich whites.

[Randall Parker]

Illegal immigrants who get amnesty (and our elites want to give them amnesty) then can collect Social Security and Medicare.

Mark,

The blacks are getting replaced? The blacks are being traded with Mexico for Mexicans? You mean the blacks are leaving? I must have missed this.

[David Alexander]

You might be unable to utter aloud such a statement, but do you not at least believe it internally?

Am I thankful for countries like America or Canada that have allowed my friends and family to succeed and make the best use of their talents and abilities? Certainly since there are plenty of Haitians back "home" who would kill to live at the poverty level here in the US in a three room basement apartment. I know damn well that I lucked out on the genetic, temporal, class, and geographic lottery.

Would you rather the U.S. retain its traditional white majority or transform into a polity with a black and Hispanic mestizo plurality? Be honest with yourself. What black or Hispanic mestizo society has ever collectively achieved first-world modernity? Are the populations of these societies showing collective signs of becoming first-word economies?

Well, that's the underlying question. Can a majority black or mestizo population develop, operate, and maintain a first world nation? I'll refrain from pointing out mid-ranking countries like Trinidad, the Bahamas, or Barbados primarily because they're centres for tourism, off-shore banking, and oil refining which makes them fluke cases. Admittedly, the Caribbean gives a certain degree of hope that it could be possible, but I really can't answer the question without bias.

but at some point one must shed emotion, look at a subject objectively, and come to a rational conclusion

Nobody really wants to be the "parasite", and certainly nobody wants to admit that their culture, ethnicity, or race is not "performing", especially when it lends credence to rather hate filled people who lurk in the shadows. In short, there's no mental gain in admitting inferiority to other collective groups.

[David Alexander]

then wages would be hier and there would be more blue collar whites

The problem is that if wages were higher, the demand for work that is being performed by blue collar whites would decrease. If the cost of renovating a home goes up, people are less likely to want to have the work done which means there's less of a market for the blue collar workers to return back to.

OTOH, unrenovated houses tend to have lower values which has the effect of keeping home prices lower. One of the fun observations from house hunting two years ago during the real estate boom was that nearly every home was renovated in some form within the past 5 years with the exception of homes previous owned by senior citizens. IIRC, there was a nearly $50K to $100K difference in prices between renovated and unrenovated homes in the same community. I suspect that the cheap renovations that were fueled by illegal immigrant labour and low interest rate aided in pumping an already overhyped real estate market.

BTW, my current home is an unrenovated home that was previously owned by a senior citizen, and was $150K less than a matching home with renovated interior that just sold 6 months ago.

It is easier for elitist whites to function in a location where there are no blue collar whites because we you see whites, you know that are upper class.

Poor whites seem to be everybody's whipping post. Middle and upper class whites view them as lazy and unwilling to go to school, and blacks and immigrants view them as failed whites who couldn't do better.

Silly Question: Are poor whites (or low IQ whites) as "destructive" as their minority counterparts?

The blacks are getting replaced? The blacks are being traded with Mexico for Mexicans? You mean the blacks are leaving? I must have missed this.

Race Baiting Question: Would you rather have a pool of illegal Mexican immigrants, Arab Muslims, or Caribbeans? For the purposes of this question, Asians, whites, or "none of the above" is not answer choice.

[Polanski]

"State-worshipers like Polanski did such a good job creating the 1st underclass that it's time to try freedom for a change. Both McCain or Obama are giving them amnesty, so I guess your blogging was to no avail. More Mexican girls for guys like me.
The only race replaced will be the blacks, and that's a winner."--Mark

OK, I'll bite: why am I a state worshiper, and what's your real point?

[Polanski]

To David Alexander:

I certainly do not believe that all blacks are parasites; what I do believe is that the black civil rights culture, dominated by lightweights like Barack Obama and Jesse Jackson, has a socialist agenda that promotes divisive policies like affirmative action, white bashing, and infantilism.

[Polanski]

As of this writing there are no suspects in this murder. Anyone want to lay odds on the race of the killer?

Family of slain Chelsea woman is 'overcome with grief'
Sunday, June 1st 2008, 4:02 PM

Margaux Powers.
Michael Powers, the father of the 26-year-old prep-school grad found murdered in her Chelsea apartment bathtub released this statement:

We are completely devastated by the loss of Margaux. She was an extremely loving and loyal daughter, sister, granddaughter and a joy to our family. A life long resident of Glen Cove, she was a 2005 graduate of Cornell University and recently moved to Manhattan where she was pursuing a career in finance. Margaux was a sweet, caring young woman and a friend to all who were lucky enough to know her.

We were so proud of all she had accomplished and the person she had become. We were looking forward to watching her life continue to blossom and she was very excited about going to graduate school. But her future has been tragically cut short and we are overcome with grief.

We appreciate the work of the 10th Precinct of the New York City Police Department. Their investigation is on going. No further statements will be made by the family. Please respect our privacy as we go through the process of laying Margaux to rest. We ask that you keep Margaux and us in your prayers.

Admittedly, the Caribbean gives a certain degree of hope that it could be possible, but I really can't answer the question without bias.

Hope? Yes, why not!? Haiti has been such a success! The nation that brought us dirt cookies, voodoo...Blacks can't even run Detroit. Then again, nobody goes there for tourism.

[Φ]

Immigration is a form of corporate welfare.

Beautiful.

Jewish Athiest is probably right that $16.8K overstates many immigrants' marginal impact on public expenditures. And I would be prepared to allow, subject to rigorous profiling, that many immigrants cost much less.

However, I would go much further than Half Sigma in setting a threshold for admission. The fact that someone earning $33.6K benefits "the economy" overlooks that those benefits accrue to particular individuals. And that's okay . . . as long as those individuals pay the costs!. Put another way, the only way anyone would or should consent to an immigrant increasing his tax burden is if the allged economic benefits of said immigrant went to him personally.

[Eurosabra]

Interestingly enough, DA, UN 181 would have provided a state that was about 53% Jewish and 47% Muslim/Christian Arab, Druze, + Other (Greek/Armenian Christians & Turkish/Bosnian Muslims mainly.) The Druze did not flee for the most part and their common characteristic is loyalty to whichever state (Israel, Lebanon, Syria) they inhabit--however, Golan Druze are overwhelmingly pro-Syrian, despite the extension of Israeli civil law to the Golan in 1980. Unfortunately, civil institutions were divided (trade unions, etc) until the 60s. A more peaceful initial situation that would have allowed 181 might also have fostered unitary trade unions instead of the separation/parallel development of the 20s/30s. Ironically, the Israeli Communist Party was among the last to split, well after the '48 war. Lastly, the universities adopted entry criteria in 2000-1 that brought Arabs in in proportion to their % in the population, but that has since been rolled back. :-(

[ragnar_rahl]

What you're missing is that increased immigration will cause the large welfare state to become openly less sustainable and thus even less likely to last. The way to get rid of something is not that to stop the consequences, but to feed them until they become obvious. If you ban immigration to keep the costs of the welfare state down, you are not only violating the rights of whichever immigrants happen to not be like that, you are also helping the welfare state last longer.

[Tired of Smoke Rings]

"If you ban immigration to keep the costs of the welfare state down, you are not only violating the rights of whichever immigrants happen to not be like that, you are also helping the welfare state last longer."

First, I don't know of any "right" to immigrate to the country of your choice.

Second, dependent immigrants + easy citizenship+ pandering politicians = bloc voting for more goodies.

Why do libertarians and the like seem to think you can defeat a welfare state by further entrenching it? Seriously, even if this were to work what do you expect would happen to the suddenly checkless masses?