This is a silly analysis as it is for immigrants of all types. The USA added 100 million immigrants since 1987, driving the economy higher. Most are legal, educated and industrious. However, when we look at the recent flood of illegal immigrants, many are hopeless - like the Somali community that exists on welfare, fraud, EBT cards and so on. We need legal, educated and capable immigrants - not insular clans that do not integrate and do not work.
Somali immigrants are all by definition those who entered with inspection and therefore, in common parlance, "legal". One either enters the country after inspection or without, as a matter of law, and considering that there are lawful means for Somalis to enter the country and getting from Somalia to the US on a passport that isn't even accepted in all countries, never mind the lack of direct flights or even ships between the two, you can rant about "illegal immigrants" (which is legally meaningless and the only reason the administration uses it, charitably, because none of them have practiced immigration law and therefore aren't qualified to have the understanding of what the law actually says and how it is conceptualized in reality versus what they imagine the law to be, and unchartiably because they want to start moral panics knowing that lying will bring few consequences, which at least worked on someone it seems), but roping Somali immigrants into that is utterly nonsensical. By the way, asylees are legal under black letter law even if the executive refuses to enforce it. The dereliction of duty does not make the executive somehow the legislature as well, because this is not a monarchy and l'etat n'est pas l'imbecile.
If you have to make specific carveouts then why even do the analysis? You can, through nitpickery, support any conclusion that way. The data not fitting your personal animus is not a sign that the data and analysis is "silly", but rather, your preconceived notions based on nation of origin and painting communities of disaprate individuals in broad strokes is, I guess kindly put, "silly". There are 100k Somali-born persons in the US total, and this ranges from Iman to Rashid Talib. Does it make sense to anyone to think that one needs to exclude a congresswoman a quarter century younger than the model/David Bowie's wife in one fell swoop? Give me a break.
It is embarrassing that you feel so comfortable speaking the way you do and referring to human beings working for the same things that you are in such a dehumanizing way.
Grow the hell up, read the fucking article and most importantly, read the whole study before you continue embarrassing yourself with such uneducated and hate filled rhetoric.
I don't care what they are working for. I care if they are parasites that use violence to steal from me.
The median Hispanic family has an income of $70,000. Over its full cycle lifetime (birth to death) you're looking at a $1M per person net fiscal deficit on direct entitlements (education, healthcare, retirement), higher in blue states. If you include an even per capita of other expenditures (infrastructure, police, military, etc) its $1.5 per person.
That's a three million dollar deficit for two people. That's more than forty years of those median earnings.
That's a household that makes too much to even qualify for direct welfare like medicaid, section 8, etc.
So I don't care. I don't care even if they have some shit job that they work every day for forty years. They are still a parasite. They still steal from me and make my life worse. I still don't want them around.
This logic would label MOST born and bred Americans as "fiscal burdens" though; Children? Veterans? Disabled households? Low income born and bred americans?? If you read through the actual Study top to bottom, you would actively see the data regarding the tax accumulation from immigrants and how that contributes to overall government budgets and alleviating our national debt. All while they have a net lower rate of receiving those benefits they contribute billions towards.
I understand the point you're trying to make and some of your points are grounded in reality (ie. where a majority of govt spending goes - public edu, medicare/medicaid, social security, etc)
However, your 1-1.5M per person deficit is just a huge assumption that only works if you assume things like avg or above avg healthcare costs, full retirement benefits, static tax policy. Aka that deficit you state is completely variable and not actually representative of anything real. It's just an inflammatory number.
You're also ignoring who benefits from that spending - all of us. Education spending benefits our society as a whole and you're just labeling it as a net loss?? Infrastructure investments benefit literally all of us. So does healthcare spending.
Framing all spending as a “loss” to the government is misleading.
Your logic completely condemns not just the immigrants you seek to unjustifiably vilify - but you condemn ALL Americans who aren't high income earners. You could've just said you hate poor people and that you assume any black and brown people automatically fit within that pre-conceived notion. I bet you're one of those that absolutely hates to see a wealthy and successful immigrant who contributes more than you do and flips your logic right back on your plate.
Yes, large swaths of American citizens are fiscal burdens. I don't like it. But they are citizens. That gives them practical and moral rights. practical in that there is no viable way for me to expel them. Moral in the sense that their ancestors built the country and thus they have an equity stake in it (represented by their citizenship).
Neither of these are true for immigrants. I can and desire and practically achieve my goal of keep them from making things worse.
I saw the study. I found it deeply flawed. I offered my critique. You could easily run the same math yourself. Calculating the tax take on a $70,000 married household is easy enough. You can also figure out what its public education expense would be, what its ACA subsidies would be, what its social security and medicare expense would be, etc. These are not that hard to do.
You're right that I'm only calculating the impact under static policy. This is an important point. Policy KEEPS GETTING WORSE. It gets worse BECAUSE IMMIGRANTS VOTE FOR IT TO GET WORSE. Immigrants are huge supporters of more welfare spending on themselves.
We got the ACA because only 27% of Hispanics voted for Mitt Romney (59% of whites did). The signature issue of the election was "the rugged individualism of Joe the plumber" versus "you didn't build that so we need the ACA". The signature issue today is the permanent extension of "temporary" Covid era ACA subsidies. That Hispanic household has ACA subsidies BECAUSE THEY VOTED FOR THEM AND THEIR DEMOGRAPHIC PRESENCE MADE IT LAW.
So yea, I should have some measure for how much worse immigrants make our politics, but that's pretty hard to calculate. So I'm sticking with current law.
Education spending has tripled in inflation adjusted terms and outcomes haven't gotten better (worse even). I'm a big believer in the null hypothesis and that outcomes are mostly just genetics. Public education spending is pure grift for the unions.
But that is neither here nor there. Students are funded on a per capita basis. Fewer students (because the immigrants kids are not here) means lower expenditures.
Infrastructure has to expand to deal with extra bodies. If I have more cars on the road I need more highways, etc.
Anyway, the point is that that they get a lot more then they receive, and our fiscal house would be better in order if they didn't come as a result.
"You could've just said you hate poor people"
I do, but I'm stuck with my native poor people. And anyway the poor population % of America's pre-64 demographics was reasonable enough to get along with. Rapidly browning America not so much.
"you assume any black and brown people automatically fit within that pre-conceived notion"
Their genetic IQs and empirical results indicate that the are doomed to these outcomes forever.
"absolutely hates to see a wealthy and successful immigrant"
I generally like wealth and success. I can think of wealthy immigrants I both like and dislike.
"genetic IQ" is, once again, something you should be embarassed to say out loud. i appreciated your thoughts on economics for a half second there. your eugenic and race based assumptions without a singular glance at environment, context and historical disenfranchisement completely run you moot. good day.
This is a silly analysis as it is for immigrants of all types. The USA added 100 million immigrants since 1987, driving the economy higher. Most are legal, educated and industrious. However, when we look at the recent flood of illegal immigrants, many are hopeless - like the Somali community that exists on welfare, fraud, EBT cards and so on. We need legal, educated and capable immigrants - not insular clans that do not integrate and do not work.
Somali immigrants are all by definition those who entered with inspection and therefore, in common parlance, "legal". One either enters the country after inspection or without, as a matter of law, and considering that there are lawful means for Somalis to enter the country and getting from Somalia to the US on a passport that isn't even accepted in all countries, never mind the lack of direct flights or even ships between the two, you can rant about "illegal immigrants" (which is legally meaningless and the only reason the administration uses it, charitably, because none of them have practiced immigration law and therefore aren't qualified to have the understanding of what the law actually says and how it is conceptualized in reality versus what they imagine the law to be, and unchartiably because they want to start moral panics knowing that lying will bring few consequences, which at least worked on someone it seems), but roping Somali immigrants into that is utterly nonsensical. By the way, asylees are legal under black letter law even if the executive refuses to enforce it. The dereliction of duty does not make the executive somehow the legislature as well, because this is not a monarchy and l'etat n'est pas l'imbecile.
If you have to make specific carveouts then why even do the analysis? You can, through nitpickery, support any conclusion that way. The data not fitting your personal animus is not a sign that the data and analysis is "silly", but rather, your preconceived notions based on nation of origin and painting communities of disaprate individuals in broad strokes is, I guess kindly put, "silly". There are 100k Somali-born persons in the US total, and this ranges from Iman to Rashid Talib. Does it make sense to anyone to think that one needs to exclude a congresswoman a quarter century younger than the model/David Bowie's wife in one fell swoop? Give me a break.
Sounds like you both didn’t read the full article and can’t interpret the data they presented. Congrats!
You’re delusional.
Thank you for this important text.
Lol, importing low IQ brown people who vote democrat and are individual fiscal sinks shrank the deficit.
It is embarrassing that you feel so comfortable speaking the way you do and referring to human beings working for the same things that you are in such a dehumanizing way.
Grow the hell up, read the fucking article and most importantly, read the whole study before you continue embarrassing yourself with such uneducated and hate filled rhetoric.
I don't care what they are working for. I care if they are parasites that use violence to steal from me.
The median Hispanic family has an income of $70,000. Over its full cycle lifetime (birth to death) you're looking at a $1M per person net fiscal deficit on direct entitlements (education, healthcare, retirement), higher in blue states. If you include an even per capita of other expenditures (infrastructure, police, military, etc) its $1.5 per person.
That's a three million dollar deficit for two people. That's more than forty years of those median earnings.
That's a household that makes too much to even qualify for direct welfare like medicaid, section 8, etc.
So I don't care. I don't care even if they have some shit job that they work every day for forty years. They are still a parasite. They still steal from me and make my life worse. I still don't want them around.
This logic would label MOST born and bred Americans as "fiscal burdens" though; Children? Veterans? Disabled households? Low income born and bred americans?? If you read through the actual Study top to bottom, you would actively see the data regarding the tax accumulation from immigrants and how that contributes to overall government budgets and alleviating our national debt. All while they have a net lower rate of receiving those benefits they contribute billions towards.
I understand the point you're trying to make and some of your points are grounded in reality (ie. where a majority of govt spending goes - public edu, medicare/medicaid, social security, etc)
However, your 1-1.5M per person deficit is just a huge assumption that only works if you assume things like avg or above avg healthcare costs, full retirement benefits, static tax policy. Aka that deficit you state is completely variable and not actually representative of anything real. It's just an inflammatory number.
You're also ignoring who benefits from that spending - all of us. Education spending benefits our society as a whole and you're just labeling it as a net loss?? Infrastructure investments benefit literally all of us. So does healthcare spending.
Framing all spending as a “loss” to the government is misleading.
Your logic completely condemns not just the immigrants you seek to unjustifiably vilify - but you condemn ALL Americans who aren't high income earners. You could've just said you hate poor people and that you assume any black and brown people automatically fit within that pre-conceived notion. I bet you're one of those that absolutely hates to see a wealthy and successful immigrant who contributes more than you do and flips your logic right back on your plate.
Yes, large swaths of American citizens are fiscal burdens. I don't like it. But they are citizens. That gives them practical and moral rights. practical in that there is no viable way for me to expel them. Moral in the sense that their ancestors built the country and thus they have an equity stake in it (represented by their citizenship).
Neither of these are true for immigrants. I can and desire and practically achieve my goal of keep them from making things worse.
I saw the study. I found it deeply flawed. I offered my critique. You could easily run the same math yourself. Calculating the tax take on a $70,000 married household is easy enough. You can also figure out what its public education expense would be, what its ACA subsidies would be, what its social security and medicare expense would be, etc. These are not that hard to do.
You're right that I'm only calculating the impact under static policy. This is an important point. Policy KEEPS GETTING WORSE. It gets worse BECAUSE IMMIGRANTS VOTE FOR IT TO GET WORSE. Immigrants are huge supporters of more welfare spending on themselves.
We got the ACA because only 27% of Hispanics voted for Mitt Romney (59% of whites did). The signature issue of the election was "the rugged individualism of Joe the plumber" versus "you didn't build that so we need the ACA". The signature issue today is the permanent extension of "temporary" Covid era ACA subsidies. That Hispanic household has ACA subsidies BECAUSE THEY VOTED FOR THEM AND THEIR DEMOGRAPHIC PRESENCE MADE IT LAW.
So yea, I should have some measure for how much worse immigrants make our politics, but that's pretty hard to calculate. So I'm sticking with current law.
Education spending has tripled in inflation adjusted terms and outcomes haven't gotten better (worse even). I'm a big believer in the null hypothesis and that outcomes are mostly just genetics. Public education spending is pure grift for the unions.
But that is neither here nor there. Students are funded on a per capita basis. Fewer students (because the immigrants kids are not here) means lower expenditures.
Infrastructure has to expand to deal with extra bodies. If I have more cars on the road I need more highways, etc.
Anyway, the point is that that they get a lot more then they receive, and our fiscal house would be better in order if they didn't come as a result.
"You could've just said you hate poor people"
I do, but I'm stuck with my native poor people. And anyway the poor population % of America's pre-64 demographics was reasonable enough to get along with. Rapidly browning America not so much.
"you assume any black and brown people automatically fit within that pre-conceived notion"
Their genetic IQs and empirical results indicate that the are doomed to these outcomes forever.
"absolutely hates to see a wealthy and successful immigrant"
I generally like wealth and success. I can think of wealthy immigrants I both like and dislike.
p.s. where's your outrage about this current admins attempt at suing the IRS for 10 BILLION to be paid via the treasury aka your tax dollars.
"genetic IQ" is, once again, something you should be embarassed to say out loud. i appreciated your thoughts on economics for a half second there. your eugenic and race based assumptions without a singular glance at environment, context and historical disenfranchisement completely run you moot. good day.
I understand that you value your feelings over truth. Its not possible to have a rational conversation with someone that ignore evidence.