How immigration can have a negative economic impact on a community


I should have worded it as “Merit/Needs Based Immigration”, like yourself I am 1000% against bringing in immigrants to take hi-tech jobs from American workers, and am opposed to any laws that allow that. I guess this is how I would consider this in a statistical sense. Tell me what the economic/welfare statistics are from immigrants say from India and Asia (China, Korea, Japan, etc.) than say from Central and South America?


Some of the best posts I have seen in 17 years here are in this thread.




I commend you.


Tone down the hyperbole one notch and you’re right there.



It’s not so much a function of our system but much more about the decisions made by who one’s parents are. In other words having a child when you yourself are living in poverty is not the wisest decision one can make. The success of a child is largely dependent upon who their parents are and how they are raised more than anything else. Obviously children of very wealthy parents are going to have many more advantages, but children of middle class parents are not in substantially more priviledged positions. A good example is Ben Carson. He grew up relatively poor, single mom, but his mom was amazing and pushed him to be a success. I worked in public schools and know many teachers who taught at many of the inner city schools in NJ. The parents have little to no interest or involvement in their child’s education.


Be careful, your preferences are showing.

My understanding is that Social Security and Medicare aren’t savings plans where contributions are put aside and invested for each individual. Rather, they are insurance annuities that pay beneficiaries with contributions by working Americans now. Your SS and Medi taxes go directly to today’s retirees. Anything left over goes into a trust fund for future use if there is a shortfall in tax collection.
Frum seems to be under the popular misconception that SS is a savings plan in order to disparage immigration. But poor immigrants today pay for retirees today. Future payments to poor immigrants are irrelevant since our children and grandchildren will pay for their retirements. Ideally, the children and grandchildren will be more successful and will contribute enough to pay for their elders.
And Government disability insurance for the poor and lower classes is how Social Security and Medicare are supposed to work. Its not a program for the Wealthy.

So Frum’s argument that today’s poor immigrants won’t save enough in their Social Security and Medicare savings accounts is pretty misguided.


I presume that you propose to declare War on Mexico, since they are invading the United States?


I’m not sure what you’re getting at, here. On one hand, you’re opposing high-skilled immigration, but then you want to compare economic/welfare statistics for skilled immigrants from countries like India versus unskilled immigrants from Central America.

Obviously, the skilled immigrant who, under H1-B, has a well-paying job already waiting for him will be less likely to apply for welfare than an unskilled, unemployed immigrant from Central America.


No, no, no!

There is more than one type of invasion and therefore more than one type of possible response. This is an invasion based on economics.

Don’t digress into argumentum ad absurdum.





Illegal immigration impacts the legal minorities the most in this Country when it comes to labor, Mr. Trump fixing somethings around here is why we have the lowest recorded records for minorities jobs, Illegal immigration has a DIRECT Negative effect on our country.


Then how do you explain the fact that its been declining?


Nope wrong.


Not digressing - following.

English is a wonderful language. We use it to paint distinctive pictures in our minds. There can be many synonyms to describe one idea - but there are subtle differences between those synonyms that carry additional meaning. In the case at hand, we could use the terms “immigrate”, “visit”, “settle”, “walk”, “move”, or “enter”. But instead, Republicans choose to use the terms, “trespass”, “violate”, “occupy”, “storm”, and of course “invasion”.

According to Webster, the first and most often used definition of “invade” is:

  • to enter for conquest or plunder

And all definitions of the term involve some kind of aggression or violence. When the term is used to describe a situation between Nations, it nearly always means Military attack. Germany didn’t vacation in France in 1940 - they Invaded. Japan didn’t stroll through China in 1931 - they invaded.

Republicans are trying to have it both ways by “de-defining” the term. They clearly want the original meaning to stoke the fears of their supporters against Spanish-speaking brown people; but they want to pacify the meaning for everyone else so they don’t seem irresponsibly hyperbolic.

"Invasion" between Countries is an act of War. Those that use the term should understand what they are advocating.


To be sure, from a purely Economic standpoint, having children at all, regardless of financial status, is no longer the wisest decision one can make. Raising a child takes time and money away from productive earing time and the child contributes nothing to the wealth of the parents. A Century or two ago, children were a form of 401K retirement program. But now that we’ve moved off the farm that doesn’t apply as much.
And when talking about immigration, the idea that Parents are moving to another country in order to improve their economic status and provide better opportunities for their children seems very responsible. In fact, when we talk about inter-generational poverty, we’re nearly always referring to people - like Ben Carson - born and raised in the U.S.


In the future, brick and mortar school buildings will become obsolete.
The poor results will no longer justify the investment. Elementary schools are often exalted day-care centers. There will be specialized settings for certain subjects and of course trade school type hands on learning.


Of course coming here and putting one’s child into the American welfare system is a no brainer. What poor migrant from Central or South America wouldn’t want the American middle class to pay for their kids schooling, healthcare, food, housing, etc? My main point is that is not a good deal for America’s middle class.

Now I do agree with you that much of the poverty from native born Americans is generational. As someone who worked in public schools and know many teachers who worked in inner city schools, and knows people who are landlords, it’s not uncommon for inter-generational welfare use. Regarding the success of the people from Central and South America since this surge of immigration is still relatively young - largely talking about the past 10/20 years. What kind of data is there on how their children are doing?


I’m not at all opposing high-skilled/educated immigration, which is why I reworded it “Merit/Needs” based. For example in certain fields of the sciences there are not enough Americans majoring in those sciences and so in those cases immigration from abroad has been needed. More specifically you seem to be arguing that the immigration from Central and South America is overall better than immigration from other countries:

“I have some direct experience with merit-based immigrants, too. Their effect is no different than illegal immigrant labor at the bottom of the pay-scale.”

So in this regard I was challenging you to show me the stats that would support that. I mentioned India and Asia because we also get many immigrants from those countries as well.


You are digressing. It is not an “invasion between countries”. Stick with your arguments, don’t run off down rabbit trails.


Let’s backtrack a bit. The overwhelming majority of Democrats, Liberals, and Progressive support limited immigration and oppose illegal immigration. Congress authorizes between $5.7 and $8Billion for the Department of Homeland Security’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency. About half of that goes to border security and the other half goes to processing immigrants. I’d say about half of that half, or about $1.5Billion goes toward U.S./Mexican border security. House Democrats, at the President’s request, have approved a significant increase in that budget for 2019.
Yet with all that money being spent - $750K/mile or $142/ft of border - thousands of people cross illegally each year.
The fact is that no matter how much money we throw at border enforcement, many will get through to live among us. It would be nice if we could snap our fingers and make them go away, but we can’t.

And that’s just Illegal immigration. Are we also to prevent naturalized citizens from the opportunities provided to native-born Americans in order to lower local tax burdens?

Should we train these people to be honest residents or should we train them to be criminals? It just seems to me that investing in these people - who are here regardless of how much we spend to prevent or remove them - is a worthwhile way to spend money. Either spend the money now on helping them survive, or spend money later on larger and more intrusive Policing.

I gave an honest try to find that kind of data. I don’t have any academic connections and the problem of Central American immigration with children is even more recent (starting in about 2011). However, there is no reason to believe that Central American immigrants will fare any different than Mexican immigrants.
And of course, there is anecdotal evidence such as this testimony provided by an education worker in New Jersey:

So who are you going to believe? The Republican Party or your own eyes?


First of all I believe the preponderance of statistics over the anecdotal evidence of anyone. Secondly my statement there only pertains to the people I’ve met on a limited personal level and has nothing to say about their finances, which is the thrust of my thread. Also my experience in teaching was almost exclusively in an upper-middle class/middle-class town. Nothing at all like the situation in LA, which is the focus of my thread. I’ll close with this following article which supports the evidence of the welfare state:


You make some good points here. Back in the day especially if your family owned a farm the children when old enough would start working on the farm and when they would reach teenage years would do it full time. Obviously we don’t have no where near as many farming families today as we used to and the only other business I can think of would be a family that owns a restaurant. There is a Chinese restaurant that I go to on occasion and they have two sons, probably about 8 & 10 who work in the restaurant when not in school.

The cost of raising a child has also gone up exponentially over the past 30 years. I’ve often say that we will get to the point where the only people who will be able to afford raising a child are the wealthy and the welfare.