Illegal Immigration

[mweiss]

Twenty years ago, there were no immigrants in my rural county. Now they make up a third of the school population. As the county has few businesses, it relies on property taxes for income - the highest rates in the state.

The implication, if I understand you correctly, is that the property taxes would be lower were it not for the illegals.

As for expensive groceries, that is an economic shell game in which a few businessmen are passing costs they should bear onto the taxpayer.

In a microeconomic sense, that is certainly true. However, one of the substitutes available to your local grocery chain is importation of produce from elsewhere (e.g., Mexico), where labor is less expensive than in the US. Without the demand for produce grown in your county, the farms are no longer sustainable. Without the farms, your rural county empties pretty quickly. So which is a better outcome?

Were he paying market rates, the laborer would be better able to buy insurance, pay taxes, etc., instead of the taxpayer paying part of his way.

But here's an interesting point to ponder. The laborer is renting a place to live. The owner of the rented space is paying property taxes based on the value of the property, which is based on demand for housing, which is based on the number of people in the area looking for housing, which is based on the number of jobs in the area, which is based on the number of active farms in the area, which is based on the ability for the farms to be competitive, which is based on the cost of production, which is based on the wages that the farms can pay. Take away the farms, and you reduce the tax burden...but you also reduce the taxes collected. Which effect is greater?

If the farmer bore the full costs of operations, as a consumer I would be able to choose whether I wanted to buy his goods or not. As a taxpayer, as it currently stands, I have no choice.

True though that may be, you assume that the alternative is that the farmer bears the full costs. That is a possible alternative, but not a likely alternative. I wish it were, because my sense of justice would be sated...but it's not.

The economists on this board can better explain it, but if I remember Econ 101, costs should properly be allocated to whatever incurs them, right?

Economists don't deal much in "should." If costs "should" be allocated to those who directly incur them, then we "should" outlaw insurance. :huh:

 

[diogenes]

Hello, Michael, sorry for the delay.

1. Yes, I'm saying that. On 4/6/05, CNN stated that Arizona pays $1,000 dollars per student to teach them English. The Feds (who are supposed to secure the borders) pay $85 of that; the AZ taxpayer gets to pay the rest. That is certainly happening across the country, and I am seeing it happen here in NC. Prior to the influx of illegals, the rural counties around here were providing schools that were barely getting by, but WERE getting by. It had been that way for 100 years. The illegals have been the tipping point.

2. I have no problem importing goods that meet US standards - those regulations, certainly arrived at messily, are there for a reason. Remember e. coli in the strawberries? One of the reasons the price of beef is so high right now is we are banning Canadian beef due to mad cow disease. Works for me, and I would be the first to say the USDA could, and should do a better job policing our own cattle.

3. And here's how the rest of that plays out. There are environmental regs the county is supposed to enforce. In many of the local neighborhoods, the number of occupants per house is restricted to two occupants per bedroom. The reasoning is the house, with however many bedrooms, has a septic system designed to handle that many occupants. If the house occupancy exceeds the regs, the septic system is overwhelmed. So we get a double whammy. The illegals often exceed the occupancy regs, causing an environmental mess. And, if they abided by the rules (since they are in the country illegally, they generally can't be bothered to observe these rules, either), they'd have to occupy more houses, and THEN the right amount of taxes would be paid. And yes, the county looks the other way, as it is now an article of faith in this country that illegal immigration is a good thing.

4. Nothing the matter with trying, is there? 😉

5. And there is the old friction, theory vs. reality.

Although Econ is in my distant past, I understand the gist of utility. And eventually, it is inevitable. But as with every other human endeavour, reasonable regulation is needed.

And for those who wish to label me racist, I'm just as opposed to a massive influx of Canadians into the country, too.

Immigration is the right thing - "give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses...". Illegal anything is a different matter.

 

[diogenes]

More on the hidden costs.

NC requires each car owner to carry liability insurance. Natch, a lot of illegals don't carry insurance. It is so out of hand, we now have to carry uninsured motorists insurance, the costs of which are increasing (surprise).

Two real world incidents.

Two illegals ran a stop sign, and T-boned an elderly couple. The couple went thru a great deal of pain and suffering, and were never really the same. The illegals had no driver's license, illegal license tags on the car and no personal insurance. So the couple's insurance had to cover the damage to their car (totalled), and they had to cover the costs of their medical care that Medicare would not cover. The illegals were judgement-proof, so the couple did not waste their time on a civil action. One of the illegals suffered a broken back in the accident, and was medivac'd to the hospital, where the taxpayer picked up the full tab.

A drunken illegal, no license, insurance, etc. wrecked a local girl, sending her car head on into a tree, killing her. He started to run away, but some local citizens held him until the authorities arrived. The state trooper thanked the citizens, stating that law enforcement has great difficulty tracking illegals down. Addresses are unreliable, generally no prints on file, and illegals are reluctant to cooperate with law enforcement.

Now, we have plenty of citizens who are capable of the above. That is not the point. The point is, there is generally recourse, however unsatisfactory, against a citizen. There is not against an illegal. They are generally judgement-proof, and as they have broken the law to get here in the first place, may not observe the laws (licensing, insurance, etc.) that keep citizens accountable one to another.

 

[TWAnr]

CNN stated that Arizona pays $1,000 dollars per student to teach them English. The Feds (who are supposed to secure the borders) pay $85 of that...

[post="261037"][/post]​

How much does the average Arizonan save per year due to the proliferation of cheap labor provided by the illegal immigrants who do the menial jobs, such as gardeners, cleaning ladies, dishwashers, field workers, etc.?

 

[diogenes]

Most working taxpayers don't have gardeners and maids.

Those reaping the benefit of exploiting illegal aliens are few; those subsidizing the illegals are many.

I do remember this from Econ - if you want more of something, subsidize it.

 

[UAL_TECH]

I remember reading an article about how unfair it is that illegals pay into the tax system and social security without hope of getting benefits.

Maybe someone can explain this to me as I am ignorant on this subject.

B) UT

 

[TWAnr]

Most working taxpayers don't have gardeners and maids.

[post="261164"][/post]​

If they do not employ then directly they benefit from cheaper prices for goods and services from businesses and other entities who do use cheap menial labor.

 

[diogenes]

TWAnr, that is true.

My point is, what you save in goods and services (which you have discretion over), you pay out even more in higher taxes and insurance rates (which you have no discetion over).

 

[NWA/AMT]

There is also the often-used argument that the cheaper labor of the illegals, the same labor that results in those cheaper goods and services, is also used to suppress wages, offsetting the benefit derived through cheaper goods and services.

The usual argument for increasing immigration - the need to fill jobs "Americans just don't want to do" - should be tempered by the realization that in most cases Americans DID do those jobs once, but found themselves unable to live on the wages those jobs provide.

 

[diogenes]

Exactly so.

When I was a young man in college, I worked in a grocery store full time, year-round, at minimum wage.

I had to be very careful with money, and there was no room for frills. I saved the few tips I'd get for a weekly trip to McDonald's (I still have a weakness for quarter pounders!).

But I could support myself - food, transportation, clothing, shelter, and tuition - with no assistance, social services, or loans.

That is simply impossible today. Costs are way out of proportion to income.

 

[UAL_TECH]

By Frosty Wooldridge

When I say you advocate a higher form of slavery, I refer to your overt support of this Administration's encouragement of "slave wages." On March 18, 2005, an article was published about an $11 million dollar settlement by Wal-Mart, and the analysis of the wages paid to the illegal aliens performing cleaning services for Wal-Mart showed an average payment of $1.23 per hour. Therefore, it is rather tacky when reporters point out that you can trace your ancestry back to the "slave" days, when what you currently advocate is revoltingly similar.

B) UT

 

[Seatacus]

How much does the average Arizonan save per year due to the proliferation of cheap labor provided by the illegal immigrants who do the menial jobs, such as gardeners, cleaning ladies, dishwashers, field workers, etc.?

[post="261055"][/post]​

Do you think that whatever savings there are from services performed by illegal immigrants are offset by citizens paying higher taxes?

 

[Boomer]

If they do not employ then directly they benefit from cheaper prices for goods and services from businesses and other entities who do use cheap menial labor.

[post="261260"][/post]​

TWAnr,
Can you prove that the payment of substandard wages does not simply increase the profit margin of the producer?

Given the employment by an unscrupulous employer of illegal workers at substandard wages; is it likely that a percentage of the total gross is actually paid to Workers Compensation Insurance or that actual social security payments are made to workers without social security numbers?

If the unscrupulous Employer is willing to take a chance on shorting his legal requirement to pay for Workers Comp and Social Security taxes; do you really think he is going to pass along his savings to you?

Illegal Immigration Produces Two Victims: the Illegal Immigrant and the US Taxpayer.

 

[TWAnr]

Can you prove that the payment of substandard wages does not simply increase the profit margin of the producer?

[post="262030"][/post]​

You need look no farther than the Wal-Mart business model for your answer (they have a history of using contractors who employ undocumented aliens to clean up stores).

 

[DFWFSC]

These illegals are overrunning the DFW metroplex, but I can't see where they are contributing to the local economy in such a way that they really aren't paying taxes on anything. They don't make major purchases, ie new cars,homes,boats,etc. They live 12-14 in a one bedroom apartment, share one car and maybe 2-3 bicycles, they seem happy eating rice and beans every day, they aren't eating out at Outback or Olive Garden. I also heard they send 80% of their pay back to their native country for the rest of the family to enjoy. I have no idea how they get issued DFW Airport AOA badges, since they had the big raid a few years ago when they found 70 of them using the same #SS number. I asked a couple mexicans working the ramp for GroundGlobe at DFW what kind of medical insurance they get, they said "our supervisor said to go to Parkland hospital in Dallas, they will help us for free" so that's their medical insurance. Sooner or later a few cities are not going to be getting enough city sales tax to pay for schools or fire trucks. Some already have a hard time as it is.